How we lived then: a Study of Wills and Inventories from the Isle of Thanet 1480-1773

This extensive and detailed study stems from a personal family history project undertaken by the author.[fn1]This article is premised on the analysis of forty- seven wills, three admon bonds and thirty-one inventories from the Isle of Thanet. From this sample of probate wills the author provides an impression of a material culture as a way of life in East Kent between c.1480-1770. The result is an intriguing insight to the development of will making and value given to the investigation of inventories and the benefactors of these. In conclusion consideration is to the place of the Isle of Thanet and its status, by the mid-eighteenth century in the county of Kent.

The Isle of Thanet is a distinctive area of Kent: farming, fishing, and merchant shipping, were to be found here, but no significant towns. The period covers the final half century of the Catholic Church’s all-prevailing presence in everyday life, and its disappearance because of the Protestant Reformation. It includes the later ‘Great Rebuilding’2 which transformed the houses people lived in and the furniture they owned, on to the Agricultural Revolution with its new ways of farming and the new crops introduced, until the start of the Industrial Revolution, which had the unexpected social change of bringing not just industry but the first coastal and urban development to the Isle.

The Wills

The changing character of wills over our period is striking. Although the basic layout remained largely unchanged, the religious introduction, the bequests made and, following a significant omission, the beneficiaries, differed greatly at the end of our period from those at the start. Other unexpected changes also emerge.

The documents have been transcribed from photocopies from the Wills register held at the Kent History and Library Centre in Maidstone.[fn3]Together the wills and inventories cover a total of seventy-six people; including five with both, all from the latter half of seventeenth century. Of the total sixty-seven are men and nine are women. The wills were made by forty-six men, including two admon bonds and one nuncupative will, and four women. The women are better represented in the inventories with six of them covering their property against twenty-five of the men’s.

This paper first examines the changes that took place in the purpose and character [pg267]of the wills; the inventories, covering a shorter time span, varied only in the goods listed. A late fifteenth century will was among other things a religious document. It was produced to ensure the untroubled passage of the testator through death and burial to the afterlife. Later wills also had this requirement, but the passage was viewed in a very different light. This had a major effect on the contents of the opening part of the will.

The changes entailed in the move from Catholic to Protestant formulae used in Thanet wills were those commonly found elsewhere. The typical Catholic formula of the earliest wills – ‘First I give and bequeath my soul to almighty God and the Blessed Mary his mother and to all the saints’ (English translation) is replaced by more varied Protestant ones.[fn4]‘The Blessed Mary and all the saints’ disappear and reliance is placed on ‘the meritorious death and passion of Jesus Christ’ with declarations such as Thomas Tomlyn’s in 1561 ‘First and above all things I yield my soul into the merciful hands of Almighty God my maker and redeemer, in the merits of whose blessed passion I only repose my whole trust and confidence of salvation.’5 Or William Goatley in 1675 ‘First I give and bequeath my soul into the hands of almighty God my maker hoping that through the meritous death and passion of Jesus Christ my only Saviour and redeemer to receive free pardon and forgiveness of all my sins.’[fn6]

But whatever the theology all wills make this appeal to the deity the first bequest and follow it with burial instructions. What did change in these wills after the Reformation were the gifts to the Church. Up to the mid-1540s, a major purpose of every will was to designate which part or function of the Church as an institution should receive the deceased’s money. All the wills leave money to the Church in some form or other – often in several. The first will by Nicholas Underdown in 1481 makes no fewer than eight different bequests – for tithes and obligations forgotten, for the maintenance of the church buildings, to the ‘brothers’ and ‘sisters’ in Sandwich, Canterbury, and the wider county of Kent. These bequests are to the sisters at St James’ hospital next Canterbury; while his ‘brothers’ are to the friars (Carmelite) at Sandwich and to each order of friars at Canterbury (Franciscan, Dominican and Austin) and for the reciting of masses at various times after his death.[fn7]By the 1540s, no doubt in response to the religious uncertainty of the times, this has diminished to a single bequest for tithes and obligations forgotten. But the importance of all these is emphasised by their being the very first legacies in all these wills.

At the Reformation all this stops. Apart from a couple of minor bequests to the local vicar in the latter part of the sixteenth century, no bequests are made to any part of the Church. The monasteries had of course been demolished, and masses for the dead no longer said or sung. But though tithes remained, and parish churches needed maintenance, testators felt no obligation to make provision for them. Religion remained an essential part of life, but, for these testators at least, it no longer consisted of demands made from above by a powerful master but became more an institution they were responsible for and to an extent were in control of locally.

The Testators

Who made wills and how did this change over time? The wills examined in this [pg268]study are selected as being connected by family and marriage ties. This explains why some names appear early in the lists but not later, while others such as the Goateleys and the Witherdens come in later: a daughter changed her name on marriage, so her later male relatives ceased to be of interest in the family history. This may be thought to make these documents less representative of the population of the Isle as whole, but the research strongly suggests that some Thanet families, certainly even more prosperous ones, were closely connected and intermarried over a long period of time. The names of Underdown, White and Pannell appear as the first of the will-makers in the late fifteenth century and again deep into the seventeenth, while the Spracklyns were on Thanet from the mid fifteenth century right up to the 1700s, and the first Goateley appears as a witness to a will in 1481. Moreover, the balance of occupations followed by the testators of these wills aligns closely with Gill Wyatt’s findings on testators in her study of Thanet society at this time.[fn8]Of the forty-eight testators (omitting the two admon bonds) twenty- nine are given an indication of status or occupation – this includes all the women. For the men an indication by occupation is the norm, though this was to a large extent also a sign of social status. Women are always described by their marital status.

Among the men by far the most common description is yeoman. Ten described themselves thus in their will – and this includes Robert Witherden (1709) who calls himself a yeoman, but in his inventory is named as gentleman. Two others, the Paul Kirbys, father, and son, in the 1730s described themselves as gentlemen.[fn9]Five other men are called husbandmen, bringing the total of farmers/landowners to seventeen out of twenty-nine in total given titles. But if the testators’ occupations are identified from their wills, then another sixteen farmers must be added from those not given a title, making a total of thirty three out of forty-four male wills, or seventy-five percent. Most noticeably apart from two with uncertain occupations, all the male testators up to 1605 were farmers.

Of the other men two call themselves fishermen, and four more had a variety of occupations: one each of schoolmaster, cordwainer, thatcher and cooper. To these we must add George Witherden in 1664/5, who was clearly a tailor (as was his wife Sarah, whose inventory also survives).[fn10]Four of these five men with ‘other’ occupations made wills in the last hundred years or so of this study, with only Gregorie Goteley the thatcher making one earlier (in 1605).[fn11]This may indicate growing numbers and wealth of the ‘service industries’, but there are too few of these testators to claim this categorically.

As for the women, since wives did not make wills, all but one of them was a widow, with the final one called a spinster. But of the widows, Sarah Witherden, the widow of George above, in 1666 was a tailor or dressmaker, while Hester Witherden in 1682 must have been the wife of a fisherman.[fn12]She had as large a financial stake in vessels as any of the men. What is most noticeable about these occupational titles is that they are largely absent until the late 1570s. Only three of the makers of the twenty-one wills written before 1577 describe themselves, but from that time on only two do not. Titles are not quite as common in the inventories, all of which postdate 1630, but still two-thirds of them carry an indication of occupation or status. This suggests that people became more status-conscious and seems to be an unexpected consequence of the Protestant Reformation. The belief that God judges [pg269]everyone on how closely they follow the diktats and rituals of the Catholic Church was replaced by one which maintained that individuals have personal access to Him and He shows His approval or otherwise by how successful we are on earth.

The Legacies

What was left to beneficiaries and how it was left changed in several ways over time, as Tables 1 and 2 show. [The six further tabular listings referenced below are published on the KAS website.] Specific monetary bequests were always standard. Bequests of buildings and land, whether freehold or leased, are also as expected very common throughout. Leaving specific plots of land by those who possessed them, often in the form of leases, was also virtually universal. Even some of the non-farming will makers had land, such as Gregorie Goteley, the thatcher, in 1605 and the fisherman Richard White in 1613, as, not surprisingly, did some widows.[fn13] But other bequests changed fundamentally. The farm animals and produce of the early wills were replaced first by furniture and household goods and then by monetary legacies.

Table 2 shows the bequests made in these wills. As noted above, almost everyone left specific monetary amounts and the increase in these shows a significant rise in wealth among testators. The total value of the sums given varied widely. The lowest amount was 7d. by Nicholas Spracklyn in 1546, left to the church. The highest total was £1,011 by Hannah Witherden in 1753.[fn14] But in general, before 1580 the total of all the monetary legacies in a will is very small, less than £10, though there are exceptions with Nicholas Spracklyn in 1539 leaving bequests totalling a massive £536.[fn15]After that date, amounts of £100 and more become normal, though by no means universal.

How lands and buildings were left depended both on family circumstances and how much property there was to leave. If all the children were still under age, they were left to the widow until a son was old enough to take over. Sometimes the eldest son received everything, and the younger sons had to accept some money from their elder brother. Where the testator owned more than one property, this normally divided between the sons. Daughters could also inherit land, but usually only if there were no sons.

In our first will Nicholas Underdown in 1481 wrote: ‘First I wish immediately after my decease that my said feoffees will enfeoff Nicholas Underdown my son in my house called Le Dane…with one windmill to his heirs or assigns and appointees’. Again in 1521 Richard Underdown: ‘First I will that my feoffees shall suffer Agnes my wife to have hold and occupy all my lands and tenements a whole year after my decease paying the lord of the fee’.[fn16] In 1539 Nicholas Spracklyn bequeathed ‘to my said son Robert and to his heirs and assigns in lease or time of years of Newland Court its appurtenancies during my years’ (i.e., the time remaining on his lease after his death). Occasional requirements to pay ‘the lord of the fee’ continue for a time, as when Richard Tomlyn left his tenements and land to his wife Custance in 1560, but these too soon fade away, and land is simply passed over to the legatee.[fn17] Bequests of specific livestock are common up to the early 1600s. Cattle and sheep are much the most common animals chosen and usually only a single animal [pg270]per legatee. But John Pannell in 1501 left his wife Alice two cows, two sheep, two pigs and two piglets.[fn18]Bequests of produce, mainly wheat, barley, and wool, though never as common as those of livestock, also died out in the early 1600s with a single later bequest in 1661. Specific items of furniture, household and other effects were commonly bequeathed, but only a few items in each will before 1600. However, they nearly die out after 1700, with legacies consisting only of real [pg272]estate, money, and undifferentiated contents. Just two wills mention boats, while items of clothing are only occasionally bequeathed, and never after the 1630s.

TABLE.1 WILLS: MONETARY BEQUESTS

Notes:

These tables omit Nicholas Underdown 1500, on whom there is no information.

+ Four testators left annual legacies to immediate family members, varying from £1 to £28 pa.

# For Charity: There were also three other charitable bequests to the poor: bread and drink, two sheep and ‘as wife thinks fit.’

Charity: mostly to the poor, but some to good works such as road repair. R = Residue of estate or part to be distributed by executors for foul ways, poor people and/or charitable deeds. R (1) = residue to be disposed of by my executor for the safety of my soul.

TABLE 2. WILLS: ITEMS BEQUEATHED

Notes:

Occupations: b = bachelor; cp = cooper; cw = cordwainer; f = fisherman; g = gentleman; h = husbandman; m = mariner; sm = schoolmaster; th = thatcher; w = widow; y = yeoman.

* to be sold to pay debts.

The Beneficiaries

Even in the late Middle Ages wills could be very complex. Money and goods were not just left to individuals: all sorts of conditions could be attached. ‘My dwelling house is left to my son, but he must pay his mother £x a year’ is a typical bequest. Many delay payments to children under age. Even more common are the ‘what if’ clauses. Will makers were only too aware that their children could die young without children of their own, and many wills provide for such eventualities. Some go further and provide for yet more legatees if the secondary ones also die before inheriting. The tables here cover only the original bequests and ignore the secondary ones.

Table 3 shows who received the legacies. As expected, everyone who had immediate family (wife, children, grandchildren) made bequests to them. Yet bequests to the wider family, especially brothers and sisters as well as godchildren, were also very common. The real estate was divided between the sons, with the eldest son (or his sons if he had predeceased his father) usually getting the largest portion, but never the whole amount.

As well as money, wives were typically left the family home and main land holdings, but usually just until the eldest son was old enough to look after it. The early wills also include bequests of farm animals to wives. Many early wills also [pg274]make provision if the widow marries again: remarriage, often soon after the death of a spouse, was common for both men and women. Living comfortably as a single parent was well-nigh impossible.

In the earliest wills a wife was also commonly left ‘all the utensils in the kitchen, hall and chamber’, which presumably means all the domestic furniture and implements. This would include anything she had provided on marriage. For example, Richard Underdown in 1524/5 bequeathed ‘to Agnes my wife all such household (goods) and chattels that I had with her in marriage immediately after my decease to be delivered’. Stephen Tomlin’s will in 1605 stated ‘The residue of all my moveable goods and chattels … I wholly give and bequeath unto Mary my wife in full satisfaction of all her dower.’19 Evidence of formal systems for what a woman should bring to a marriage or take away as widow, dowry and dower are rarely mentioned. Instead, testators bequeathed to their wives more than was required under common law and also often sought to provide for their unmarried daughters by providing bequests that they would inherit at a set age or at marriage if that occurred first.

Daughters tended to be left furniture and household goods as well as money by their parents and sometimes livestock too in the early days. Often payment was delayed until they got married. They would take these with them to their new home and would be considered as their own property if their husbands predeceased them. Bequests to servants and other non-family members were made much less often, and virtually end after 1590 - probably many of those listed as other people were in fact servants. Whether this omission was due to a change in attitude or because there were fewer servants is not clear; probably the former, as servants or folks chambers continue to be listed occasionally in inventories.

Charitable bequests, almost all of them to the poor, are common, with nearly half of all wills containing them. But they disappear after 1660. They are always modest in value even for the wealthiest. They are normally of money, and almost never exceed £1, usually just a few shillings. Some of the earliest wills provide for the residue of the estate or part of it to be paid to the poor, but it is difficult to believe this amounted to much. Thomasine Snothe unusually asked for bread and drink to be distributed to the poor from her estate in 1553. A few years later Vincent Underdown left it to his wife to decide what they should have, while in 1576 William Tomlen asked for two sheep to be sold and the proceeds given to the poor.[fn20] Some early wills also gave money for unspecified good works, leaving it, like Nicholas Underdown in 1484, to his executors to decide how the residue of his estate should be spent on ‘foul ways, poor people, and charitable deeds’. With no properly working system for keeping up the roads, these continued to be a charitable object: in 1539 Nicholas Spracklyn also left a total of 16s. 8d. for the mending of a couple of local highways.[fn21] The Inventory Valuations The marvellously detailed inventories give an excellent insight into life in seventeenth century rural England and provide further evidence of increasing wealth and domestic comfort. Inventories were very carefully valued, and each [pg275]item or small group of items was given a precise value by the appraisers. How they reached these figures is a moot point – one could not go into a friend’s home today and feel one could put a value on every item in the house with much confidence in its accuracy. For livestock and farm produce making a valuation would no doubt not have been difficult for local farmers, who would have been very aware of local prices for these. But household furniture and equipment were another matter.

The question therefore arises as to what credence one can give the figures given in Table 4. The appraisers give every indication of being both thorough and conscientious. Moreover, the totals arrived at do not seem to be at odds with the lists of goods in the individual inventories. Perhaps the least one can say is that the total values given form a reasonable basis for comparing the wealth of the people whose property was inventoried.

On this basis it can be claimed with no surprise that wealth varied enormously from person to person – from £9 for Edward Witherden, a mariner, in 1643 to £1,451 for Edward Harnett, a yeoman, in 1637 – see Table 5.[fn22]Even among those with the same occupation wealth could vary hugely. Hesther Witherden, who seems to have been the widow of a fisherman, had property worth at least £607 in 1682 and probably considerably more, as many items including several boats were listed after the total was reached and not valued.[fn23]The yeoman Edward Troward on the other hand in 1666 was worth only £42.[fn24]Overall, however, farmers, whether describing themselves as yeoman or husbandmen, were the richest members of this society with an average inventoried wealth of £419 compared to £265 for all men inventoried.

Neither those who made their living on the sea (mariners and fishermen) nor other occupations matched farmers for wealth. Indeed, the only gentleman in the list, Robert Witherden, was worth just £351 in 1709, somewhat below the average farmer.[fn25]But in these figures, he has been included with other farmers – gentleman was the term used by Robert’s neighbours making the inventory: in his will he called himself a yeoman. Women averaged only £125, and this was greatly skewed by Hester Witherden, who alone accounted for most of the wealth of women. Without her women’s average wealth was only £44.[fn26] Part of the deceased’s overall wealth was made up of cash in hand. This latter, called ‘purse’ or ‘ready money’ was listed with the deceased’s ‘girdle’: among other uses the girdle acted as a purse or wallet (see under Household Goods below). Clothes, girdle, and purse together were seldom valued at more than £10; a few shillings to around £5 was the norm. Even the wealthy widow Hester Witherden in 1682 had only £14 at home: she invested her money in shipping. A few of the wealthier people, however, had a large sum of money at home. For example, Richard Harnett in 1661 had £100 in ‘ready money’. Another wealthy Witherden – Isaac in 1730 – had £43 in hand. He also had a massive amount in debts owed to him (see below). The tailor Witherdens, George and Sarah, also in the 1660s, had £40 and £28 respectively, no doubt required for the business.[fn27] Debts owed by the deceased are mentioned in wills. Thus, in a typical item throughout our period Stephen White in 1482 left ‘The residue of all my goods not bequeathed my debts and legacies paid I give and bequeath to Roger Goteley and William White’, his executors. These debts generally seem to refer to funeral expenses. William Tomlin in 1576 bequeathed ‘the residue to be bestowed upon [pg276]my burial and other charges’. Often property had to be sold off as directed by the testator to pay for these. Stephen White in 1482 named two plots of land amounting to three acres to be sold for this purpose.[fn28]

The Buildings

The changes that took place in domestic buildings during our period are revealed by these wills and inventories. For Sarah Pearson, ‘medieval houses are those which were centred upon an open hall heated by an open hearth; and the time span covered begins in the late 13th century, when the first dwellings start to survive, and continues into the early or mid-16th century, when open halls were replaced by fully two-storeyed buildings heated by enclosed fireplaces. Three-quarters of the open-hall houses recorded were built after 1450, and if one excludes large and early stone dwellings, then around 80% date from after the mid 15th century. Thus, the vast majority of what we term medieval houses were built during a relatively short period at the very end of the Middle Ages.’29 This is confirmed by the earliest wills here, which refer to the goods in three rooms as a group, for example, Nicholas Underdown in 1481 bequeathed ‘to Denise my wife all the utensils in the chamber, hall and kitchen’.[fn30]In contrast by 1700 many homes existed which are considered structurally acceptable to modern living.

The introduction of fireplaces against the wall with chimneys above them, and the fitting of ceilings to provide upstairs rooms in the sixteenth century revolutionised domestic life. Many houses would have been newly built at this time with these features in the ‘Great Rebuilding’. Others would have added a wing or two, but for many the basic structure seems to have been retained. As early as 1539 Nicholas Spracklyn in his will orders his son Robert to build ‘of new of substantial timber at my mansion place at Branston one new parlour thoroughly lofted and with a good chimney of brick, also one new kitchen’ for his younger brother John.[fn31]The original house was to remain standing but was to be greatly enlarged and improved - ‘lofted’ presumably means with ceilings fitted. The Spracklyns were very much upwardly mobile at this time, with Nicholas’s grandson Adam being knighted later in the century.

The appraisers went through the house of the deceased room by room, noting the furniture in each. This shows that by the early seventeenth century, when the first of our inventories was produced the basic medieval layout had been transformed (Table 6). The downstairs chamber, for both sleeping and storage, had turned into a parlour, for day-time use rather than sleeping. All the ground floor rooms had been given a ceiling, allowing several chambers to be added above.

Virtually all houses large and not so large had a hall and a kitchen, only two being without. Most houses also had a parlour, this being less common in six to eight room houses. All houses except one, where only a parlour is shown, had at least one chamber. In fact, having only one was unusual; almost all had two or three. Only three of the largest homes had as many as four, and none more than this. Several of these are specifically designated as ‘servants’ or ‘folks’ chambers. Chambers were primarily upstairs and used as bedrooms, but many were used for storage even if people slept there too. Not all inventories list rooms, however. The reason for this doubtless varied from person to person, but surely the main reason [pg277]was that the deceased had been living with relatives, being old and retired, or being poor lived in just small dwellings or had access to part of a dwelling house.

There was a number of outhouses recorded including a buttery, normally used for storing food, and was found in half the homes. Other rooms or outhouses found less commonly were milk, brew, malt, and quern houses. About two thirds of houses had one or other of these, only the largest having more than one. A few cellars are also listed, not all of them in the larger houses; also, about half the houses had other rooms, most of them lofts, closets and garrets. But a couple were called shops, presumably workshops, and where the goods could be sold for the tailoring business of the Witherdens – these may both well have been in the one house. The will of George Witherden, the cordwainer (shoemaker), in 1698/9 also refers to a shop.[fn32] Household Goods Like the structure of the buildings, the contents of the home experienced changes over our period. When inventories were drawn up, the neighbours of the deceased listed even the most mundane of household goods, counting them with considerable thoroughness, and their listings highlight how everyday life was lived. Probate inventories were documents which list and value the moveable goods of its inhabitants at their deaths. Wills were not itemised, just given as the contents of kitchen, chamber, and hall, which went to the widow. An exception was Richard White in 1521 leaving his wife Joanne just a third of his other moveable goods except the table in the hall and the quern, two items perhaps picked out as especially valuable.[fn33] Household ‘linen’ was listed in almost all inventories. It came in great numbers and great variety. Sheets, ‘pillowcoats’ or ‘pillow bears’, napkins, ‘coverlidds’, towels, tablecloths, cupboard cloths and more are listed in detail. Numbers varied largely according to the wealth of the deceased, but none approached those of the last inventory examined, that of Isaac Witherden in 1730. He left twenty- seven pairs of sheets, ‘eleven dozen and eight’ tablecloths, napkins, and towels (that is 140 pieces in total!), twelve pairs of pillow bears, four small blankets, a dozen ‘clouts’ and childbed linen’. But even less wealthy people had significant quantities of linen. For example, Mildred Wastell, whose estate was valued at less than £38 when she died in 1667, left seventeen pairs of sheets, two dozen napkins, three tablecloths, eight pairs of pillowcases, and six towels.[fn34]

While the deceased’s household linen was meticulously listed in the inventories, clothing or ‘wearing apparel’ as it was known, was not itemised. A description of specific items of clothing comes in the will of Nicholas Spracklyn in 1539. Among a long list of other bequests, he leaves four men ‘a sleeveless coat of cloth, my coat next the best, my worsted jacket and a pair of worsted hose’.[fn35]Many inventories mention linen and woollen wearing apparel but listed together and given a single combined value.

The low values put to wearing apparel show that only small quantity of clothes was owned. But the inventories of George Witherden a tailor, in 1664/5 and his widow Sarah (1666) suggest this did not mean there was no choice of clothing; indeed, there was a wide range. Their customers could choose from lockram and jersey, canvas and cheesecloth, baize and blue linen, English dimothy, Scotch cloth [pg278]and Holland shirts. Additionally, spinning wheels are listed in many inventories, indicating the continuing importance of homemade cloth and clothing.[fn36]

Girdles were included with wearing apparel in nearly every inventory for both men and women. It was clearly an important item of dress. ‘It was so made that it could be used as a purse, inkstand, and sword-belt all in one. A dozen small articles dangled at the end, from knives to feminine trinkets’.[fn37]Thanet girdles were certainly used as purses: they were almost always listed with the deceased’s ‘purse’ or ‘ready money’.

If everyone wore a girdle and it held a knife, this would explain the total absence of any mention of knives in the inventories. Not a single knife is listed, not even specialist ones for cutting meat or bread. Spoons, seemingly of pewter for normal use, and perhaps used for food preparation or serving, appear more seldom than one would expect. Isaac Witherden’s 1730 inventory is the only one to have tea spoons – he also had a ‘teaboiler’. Forks are listed occasionally and clearly only for cooking. Individual ‘drinking vessels’ are also rare – presumably diners drank from a single large jug or pot. In contrast platters, dishes and trenchers are frequently listed. In the early inventories these are of pewter, but undifferentiated ‘earthenware’ becomes much more frequent, starting with Edward Harnett’s inventory in 1668, which lists eleven ‘earthen dishes’ as well as eleven pewter ones. It seems most families ate with their fingers, taking food from a communal dish. Only Isaac Witherden’s inventory lists plates, suggesting that his family used separate ones. How soup was consumed by those without spoons is not clear.[fn38] Furniture and Luxury Goods Unlike the homes in which they were to be found, the ownership of these, like other household goods, saw considerable change over the seventeenth century. Items such as looking glasses, clocks and books become more common, while four-poster beds with curtains and valances less so (Table 7). Likewise, table carpets seem to go out of fashion. The notion of joined furniture appears earlier in other parts of the county, for example in the will of 1596, William Gayny, a mariner of Sandwich ‘was very specific that not only the glass and wainscot but also his joined table must remain forever in the mansion in which he is dwelling for the benefit of his heirs.’ The increase in furniture was a growing statement of ownership,’ representing ‘ the creation of a material legacy to consolidate a social position be passed onto heirs.’39 Examples from a couple of wills before and after the Commonwealth period provide an indication of the increasing amount of furniture. In 1644 Gabriel Wastell’s hall contained ‘a table and a frame and a form (bench) and five small tables and three chairs and a glasscase and a press cupboard’. In 1673 the mariner Francis Tomlin’s parlour held one great oval table and Turkey carpet, one small oval table and a striped carpet, thirteen leather chairs and six cushions, a large looking glass and the scruds as well as a large map and several pictures’. And that was only in the parlour. He had a substantial amount of furniture in the hall.[fn40] The first settle and the first window curtains appear in Richard Harnett’s inventory of 1661. He also had some superior chairs – ‘leather, matted and wicker’ – and a ‘great’ chair too.[fn41]A dozen or more chairs – of leather, ‘Turkeywork’, serge or [pg279]cane – are listed in the inventories of the richer households from the 1670s, which also boast window curtains in one or more rooms. Other interesting items include books, usually bibles, are to be found in a third of homes, but pictures in only one, owned by Francis Tomlin, a mariner who died in 1673, who also had a map. Another mariner Thomas Russell had three maps.[fn42]More common are gold and/ or silver items, listed in about half the inventories. Silver spoons were the most common possession, and there were also a number of gold rings and one gold watch. In 1730 Isaac Witherden had a silver tankard, a cup, three pairs of salt dishes, seven spoons and a dozen teaspoons, worth in total over £10, suggesting that these were all of silver. He also has two gold rings and ‘fine earthenware’ as well as two pairs of window curtains and two chair cushions.[fn43]Fine earthenware and mirrors, known as looking glasses, also make their appearance at this time in the sample of Thanet wills transcribed. Many houses had pewter platters and the like, but Thomas Russell, a wealthy mariner, in 1689 is noted as having no less than 113lb of it, too much for the appraisers to itemise![fn44]

More surprisingly more than a third of the inventories list firearms and/or swords and in one case a pike. A few of the guns are fowling pieces, but more are muskets. As firearms appear as commonly before the Civil War as after, this may potentially relate to the role of an organised county militia in Kent, since 1557, which placed selected men under the command of the Lord Lieutenant and re-established in 1662 after the restoration of the monarchy.

Livelihoods The predominance of farmers among our testators and the absence of towns on the Isle show that farming was much the most important occupation. This remained so over our period, although there is some evidence of an increase in ‘service industries’ from the mid seventeenth century. But what sort of farming did the farmers of Thanet practice and did this change over our period?

The wills and inventories offer information on the farming activities on Thanet. The detailed information from the inventories is supplemented to a limited extent by that from those wills which contain bequests of farm produce as well as land. The inventory appraisers counted the livestock and evaluated the crops not only those already threshed in the barn, but those still growing in the field. Fourteen of the inventories give these details (see Table 8). In fact, only nine of these cover the property of those who are called yeomen or husbandmen. But of the others two are of widows whose husbands were probably farmers. The other three are comprised of two fishermen and a mariner, who did some farming as well.

What emerges from both wills and inventories is a picture of mixed farming from the start. Cattle of all sorts, ewes, lambs, occasionally horses or pigs, together with wool, wheat and barley are standard bequests to members of the family and others. Windmills are also mentioned in several wills. In an unusual bequest Richard Underdown’s 1524 will states ‘Agnes my wife shall have the occupying (sic, presumably ‘use’) of two horses for the time of a year after my decease’, after which they were to go to their son.[fn45] Robert Spracklyn in 1498 left his wife Cecily eight ewes and four lambs as well as a ewe and a lamb to each of his three daughters: all presumably part of a larger [pg280]flock. His son Nicholas in his huge 1539 will which made bequests to no fewer than twenty beneficiaries – family, relatives, servants, and farm workers – made legacies of forty-one ewes and twelve lambs in total (but only two young cows and one heifer).[fn46]As one of the farm workers was a shepherd, it is clear he had a substantial flock of sheep, but probably a much smaller number of cattle. The wool from the sheep was a cash crop, and it was often left as a legacy in wills, for example, Nicholas left twenty quarters of lambswool to various beneficiaries. Cattle on the other hand seem to have been kept generally to provide sustenance – milk, butter, cheese, beef, and leather – for the family and staff.

The seventeenth century farming inventories all list both livestock and arable crops. They suggest, however, that sheep were generally kept in smaller numbers, with only three of the Harnett family having what one might consider a ‘proper’ flock of 60 or more animals.[fn47]Both cattle and sheep were kept almost universally, but only three yeomen and none of the others kept more than two or three cows, a continuation of the information from the earlier wills. Pigs are listed in only half the inventories, and always in small numbers, Edward Harnett in 1637 being the only one to have more than ten. But keeping pigs was perhaps more common than the inventories suggest. As already noted, in 1501, John Pannell left his wife Alice two pigs and two piglets (as well as two cows and two sheep). In 1730 Isaac Witherden had seven pigs. Poultry were the exception, with probably only Edward Harnett in 1668 having a substantial number. Horses were normal for the more substantial farmers – Isaac Witherden had four and a colt, though surprisingly none are listed for Richard Harnett in 1661.[fn48]

The increase in the wealth and living standards of our testators over the years, as described above, can only have come from changing farming methods leading to improved productivity, doubtless stimulated by increased commercial opportunities and better prices. As local historian John Lewis, writing on Thanet farming in the 1730s, noted, the farmers on Thanet ‘have the privilege of sending their corn by water to London market’.[fn49]The growing market there for both wheat and barley, for malting, meant they could increase the area of arable land and grow more cereals to take advantage of this opportunity.

But the importance of the grain trade from Kent ‘to feed the growing population of London’, ‘the expansion in the export of malt’ thither from Margate at this time, and the increased shipping tonnage from Margate and Ramsgate in the seventeenth century, all noted by Jane Andrewes, are limited in relation to a sample of wills transcribed here.[fn50]There are hints of improvements in arable farming practice from the later seventeenth century, and in 1637 Edward Harnett had most of his land down to barley and wheat. He also grew peas, tares, oats, a small patch of hops and an orchard, fruit not specified – what seem to be traditional crops. A generation later, however, beans began to be sown by local farmers, for example, in these documents the first mention of beans is in 1661 in the inventory of another Harnett, Richard, and from this point onwards nearly all the farmers sowed them.[fn51] Another new crop was sainfoin, first noted in Robert Witherden’s inventory in 1709. This was a deep-rooted grass brought over from France, which was sown ‘of late years’ on the ‘thinnest land’, according to John Lewis. He also lists clover, a classic Agricultural Revolution crop, as ‘commonly sown here’; but this like turnips, another iconic new crop, is not mentioned in our documents.[fn52] [pg281]Maritime activity Although testators whose main occupation was on the water comprise the second largest group, there are too few of them to draw any conclusions about any changes of activity or prosperity that affected them. Some useful evidence mainly on the fishermen amongst them, however, can be obtained from the inventories. These tell us about the boats that were owned by the deceased. Or rather the shares of boats, because in the nine inventories and two wills which mention them only two of the boats listed were in single ownership.[fn53]Whether they were fishermen or mariners, and some were both like George Wastell in 1667, spreading the risk of ownership was the norm. And it could be widely spread, for typically these seamen owned an eighth, a twelfth, a sixteenth – or even in the case of Thomas Russell, a mariner, 1/32 – of one or more boats. In 1689 Russell owned in all a sixteenth part of one ketch, a ‘two and thirtieth part’ of another and a small yawl. The wealthy widow Hester Withenden in 1682 owned a sixth of two ‘North Sea’ boats and a sixteenth of three ‘pinks,’ a small ship with a narrow stern and shallow draught.[fn54] The fishermen caught herrings, mackerel, and sprats, and salted them. For example, Gabriel Wastell in 1644 had a ‘fish house’, in which he had one hundred salt fish, a barrel of salt and three other barrels with some salt in them – also ‘certain sea coals’, coal being listed in a number of both inventories and wills. Hester Withenden had a salt house. Two of those named as mariners also had some stocks of fish. This suggests they were involved in a variety of activities, whether as fishermen, carrying goods including farm produce up-river to London or replenishing shipping stopping off as they made their way through the Channel.[fn55] The seamen typically did some farming as well, Gabriel Wastell, was a fisherman but he also had several cows and sheep and ‘certain fowls as cocks and hens’, as well as wheat and barley growing in the field.

Thanet: an open society?

Thanet families can be traced as resident on the Isle over hundreds of years, and it is no surprise to find that so well defined a geographical area as the Isle of Thanet should host a largely static population. Nevertheless, Gill Wyatt considers that in her study of early modern Thanet ‘The life cycle events recorded in the database give a somewhat misleading impression of a static population if studied in isolation, but this is not borne out by an examination of other sources especially the ecclesiastical court depositions’.[fn56]So this begs the question: in what ways and to what extent can Thanet be described as an open society?

Sited on the coast with France in view on the horizon and at the mouth of the Thames when water-borne transport was the quickest and most convenient form of communication, and within easy reach of both Sandwich and Canterbury, Thanet was never isolated geographically. Access to it from the outside world was never difficult. The changes in religion, housing, furniture and other goods and the development of agriculture described above show Thanet was open to new ideas and practices from the outside world.

Parish registers also make it clear that Thanet families were not confined residentially in one parish but moved readily around the Isle not only from generation to generation, but also within lifetimes, as Gill Wyatt has also found.[fn57] [pg282]For example, the Fords, the family, which was the basis of this research, appear on the Isle around 1500 for the first time. By the 1580s, when the parish registers start, the family can be found all over Thanet.[fn58] Through the analysis of the wills in this research there is evidence of some limited movement both into and out of the Isle. Three of the wills are of people who did not actually live in Thanet. One Arthur Sare lived in Canterbury but died at the home of his brother on Thanet, where the family came from. The other two, Thomasine Snothe, who came from Throwley, and Edward Bygg of Benenden (both villages in Kent), had daughters who married Thanet men.[fn59]In 1706 William Ford married Ann Knight at Rochester, where her parents lived, but her mother had come from Thanet. Another member of this family, Gabriel, left for Liverpool at the end of our period, but by then the world was changing. Another, earlier, departure was the emigration in 1637 of Edward Hartnett, from one of Thanet’s wealthier families, to Salem in Massachusetts. He was followed later by his parents, his father having married Sysley Paramour, from another prosperous island family.[fn60]

Only three wills list landholdings outside the Isle; Nicholas Underdown in 1481, Gregorie Goteley in 1605 and Paul Kirby in 1730. Another one mentions land ‘outside the county of Kent’ but does not list any.[fn61]Five wills leave bequests to beneficiaries in other parts of Kent, including Arthur Sare who lived in Canterbury but died at his brother’s home in Thanet. Two name an outsider as guardian or overseer and one lists a desperate debt from a resident of Sandwich, which is named in four wills in total. One leaves money for his daughter in the hands of her uncle in Chislet, who from his surname Consent seems to be from a Thanet family. Chislet and the few other places mentioned, including Canterbury named twice, are in Kent.[fn62]Parish registers also give Canterbury as the place of several weddings even when both parties are Thanet residents. Contacts from further away than Sandwich and Canterbury were rare.

The overall impression is that Thanet was largely a closed community socially, especially for the farmers. Residents were aware of the outside world, and they moved with the times and found new ways to live and work like people elsewhere. But socially they largely kept themselves to themselves and overwhelmingly married locally, they lived locally, they worked locally. Few had significant family interests outside the Isle during our period as far as can be judged from their wills and inventories.

Conclusions

The focus of this study is on the material lives of the people from certain families on Thanet from late medieval times to just before the start of the modern economy. It describes the jobs they did, the homes they lived in and the goods they owned and accounts for how these all changed, or not, over time.

The basic purposes of the wills did not change. They arranged for the disposal of property, whether moveable or landed, and money. Wills issued instructions on burial, and they endeavoured to ensure the safe passage of the deceased to a happy afterlife. But while the central importance of monetary and property bequests remained a constant feature of wills, other legacies changed totally. The earliest wills contained many bequests of farm animals and produce, with little mention of [pg283]other specific items. By the early 1600s these cease, to be replaced by individual pieces of furniture. This transformation is one indication of either rising wealth among testators and/or the cost of furniture items etc has gone down relative to people’s livelihoods. Another was the monetary legacies – before 1580 the total value of monetary bequests in a will was typically less than £10 – after it amounts of £100 and more become typical.

Inventories show social and cultural change in housing, furniture, household goods and hence wealth. Even by 1637 with our first inventory, the houses of our testators have already moved on from the medieval norm of kitchen, open hall, and chamber. The open-to-the-rafters rooms have had ceilings added, allowing upstairs bedrooms, and the downstairs chamber has become a parlour. Historically the buttery is one of the two storage rooms at the low end of the hall beyond the cross passage and is standard for a medieval Wealden hall house. The earlier three- roomed house has been enlarged to six to twelve rooms, comparable to today’s houses.

Inside the quality and quantity of the contents of homes increased over the century that the inventories cover, but especially after 1660 – another indication of rising prosperity for our testators. This period saw the introduction of more modern furniture. Chests become chests-of-drawers; benches become chairs, often upholstered and in large numbers; windows get curtains. Mirrors, silver spoons and – less commonly – other items of silver and gold as well as bibles appear in homes. The amount of household ‘linen’ listed, even in poorer homes, is extraordinary. Less certainly from the evidence here, clothes are no longer made only of homemade cloth, but use a wide variety of materials, even though spinning wheels are found in many homes.

Farming was by a big margin the most important livelihood followed on the Isle, but these selected documents are less clear on farming methods and the changes to them. The evidence they give shows that mixed arable and livestock farming remained the practice of all farmers, with wheat, barley and peas being the main crops and sheep and cattle the main animals, pigs and poultry being less common. Yet there are only hints at the use of new crops and agricultural methods. But, nonetheless, as Hipkin has considered the development of Kent’s grain trade between the 1580’s and the mid-1670’s was significant because ‘Kent ports supplied between 50 per cent and 70 per cent of all London’s imports of grain’. Further, Andrewes argues that malt was a most striking trend after 1600 and Kents coastal shipment of oats increased significantly.[fn63]

Turning to Thanet society, while the wills by their contents and greatly varying length give a picture of wide differences in wealth, the inventories put figures to this. There seem to have been no noble families on the island, with farmers – yeoman and husbandmen – in general being the richest members of society, owning more than their seagoing neighbours or craftsmen. With one exception, widows are shown as the poorest testators, but this may not accurately reflect their material condition, as they continued to live in the family home.

Finally, while the changes described show that Thanet residents kept up with the outside world in both religion and material goods, and moved around the Isle, this article suggests that as a community some families largely kept themselves to themselves and socially did not mix greatly with ‘outsiders’.

[pg284]

Appendix 1 The Will-Makers

PRC17/3/391, Nicholas Underdown, sen, 1481, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/3/404, Stephen White, 1482, St Peter in Thanet PRC32/3/17, Nicholas Underdown, 1484, St Peter in Thanet PRC3/1/144, Nicholas Underdown, 1500, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/8/147, John Pannell/Paynell, 1501, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/15/49, Richard White, 1521, St Peter in Thanet PRC/17/16/264, Richard Underdown, 1524, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC3/6/39, William White, 1525, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/21/224, Nicholas Spraklyn, 1539/40, yeoman St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/24/77, John Thomlyn, 1544, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/24/79, William Thomlyne, 1545, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/25/42, Nicholas Spraklyn, 1546, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/29/210, John Pannell, 1551, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/29/238, Thomasine Snothe, 1553, Throwley PRC17/29/58, Christopher Thomlyne, 1554, St Peter in Thanet PRC3/14/41AD, Robert Spracklen, 1556, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/32/6, Vincent Underdown, 1559, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/32/31, Richard Tomlyn, 1560, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/35/42, Thomas Tomlyn, 1561/2, husbandman St Peter in Thanet PRC17/40/179, Edward Bygg, 1567/8, Benenden PRC17/42/318b, Richard Westall, 1576/7/8, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/42/314, William Tomlen, 1576, bachelor, St John in Thanet PRC17/43/292, John Pannell 1580/1, husbandman, St John the Baptist in Thanet PRC17/44/261, Arthur Sare 1582, bachelor, St George, Canterbury/St John in Thanet PRC17/46/381, Richard White, 1584/6, fisherman, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/51/158, Richard Troward,1597, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/52/282, Robert White, 1601/2, yeoman, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/53/337, Thomas Pannell, 1602/4, St John in Thanet, nuncupative PRC17/54/146, Stephen Tomlin, 1605, yeoman, St John in Thanet PRC16/149, Gregorie Goteley, 1605/1614, thatcher, St Peter in Thanet PRC32/42/125, George Ford, 1612, St Nicholas at Wade PRC17/57/264, Richard White, 1613/14, fisherman, St Peter in Thanet PRC/17/57/265, Roger Pannell, 1613/14, yeoman, St John in Thanet PRC16/166, Richard Underdown, 1616, husbandman, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC32/44/128b, William Foord,1617, yeoman, Birchington PRC17/68/190, Joan Pannell, 1623/31, widow, St John in Thanet PRC17/64/122, Vincent Underdown, 1625, yeoman, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/68/287, Edward Pannell, 1632/3, husbandman St Lawrence in Thanet PRC16/201, Henry Harnett, 1632, yeoman, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/70/378, Edward Harnett, 1636, yeoman, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC17/72/177, John Russell, 1661/5, yeoman, St Peter in Thanet # PRC32/54/362, William Goateley, 1675/8, yeoman, St Nicholas at Wade # PRC17/76/92, Hester Witherden, 1682, widow, St Peter in Thanet # PRC17/79/291, George Witherden, sen 1698/9, cordwainer St Peter in Thanet # PRC17/81/264, Robert Witherden, 1709/10, yeoman, St Peter in Thanet # [pg285]PRC17/88/31f, Paul Kirby, 1730, gentleman, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/89/55b, Paul Kirby, 1735, gentleman, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/94/33, George Witherden, 1746/9, schoolmaster, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/94/550, Hannah Witherden, 1753, widow, St Peter in Thanet PRC17/99/53, William Ford, 1772/3, St Peter in Thanet # An inventory is also available - see List of Inventories.

Appendix 2 List of Inventories

PRC11/2/61 Edward Harnett, 1637, St Lawrence in Thanet * PRC 11/5/56 Richard Toward, 1639, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC11/8/201 Thomas Russell, 1641, St John in Thanet PRC11/8/231 Richard Toward, 1641/2, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC 11/9/170 John Underdown, 1642, St John in Thanet PRC11/10/145 Edward Witherden, 1643, St John in Thanet PRC11/11/162 Gabriel Wastell, 1644, St Peter in Thanet PRC11/18/116 Richard Harnett, 1661, Minster PRC11/18/115 Ann Harnett, 1661/2, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC11/24/125 George Witherden, 1664/5, St Peter in Thanet PRC11/24/67 John Russell, 1665, St Peter in Thanet # PRC11/27/111 Edward Troward, 1666, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC11/27/131 Sarah Witherden, 1666, St Peter in Thanet PRC11/29/137 Mildred Wastell, 1667, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC11/29/136 Henry Wastell, 1667, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC11/29/135 George Wastell, 1667/8, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC11/30/112 Edward Harnett, 1668, Minster PRC11/31/241 Hannah Tomlin, 1669/70, St John in Thanet PRC11/35/205 Francis Tomlin, 1673/4, St John in Thanet PRC27/27/244 William Goatley, 1678, St Nicholas at Wade # PRC11/46/223 Hester Witherden, 1682, St Peter in Thanet # PRC11/47/135 Judith Pannell, 1683, St John in Thanet PRC11/48/198 Vincent Underdown, 1684, St Peter in Thanet PRC11/53/95 Thomas Russell, 1689, St John in Thanet PRC27/33/122 Thomas Kirby, 1693, Birchington PRC27/33/253 Jane Kirby, 1694, Birchington PRC11/61/117 George Witherden, 1699, St Peter in Thanet # PRC11/61/121 Henry Panell, 1699, St Lawrence in Thanet PRC11/61/147 Gabriel Wastell, 1699/1700, St Peter in Thanet PRC11/69/1 Robert Witherden, 1709/10, St Peter in Thanet # PRC11/79/184 Isaac Witherden, 1730, St Peter in Thanet

# A will is also available for these - see The Will-makers.

* For some inventories two archive references are available. Only one is given here.[pg286]

Bibliography

Alcock, N.W., People at Home (Phillimore, 1993).

Andrewes, J., The Early Modern Period 1500-1700 Trade, and Industry, in Bligh, S., Edwards, E., and Sweetinburgh, S (eds), Maritime Kent Through the Ages, (Woodbridge 2021).

Bolton, M., ‘Elizabethan and early Stuart Thanet: the expansion of Education provision and its impact on literacy levels’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 140, 2019, pp. 53-71.

Bligh, S., Edwards, E., and Sweetinburgh, S., (eds), Maritime Kent Through the Ages (Woodbridge 2021)

Briggs, C. and Jervis, B., ‘Living standards of the small trader class in fifteenth-century Canterbury: evidence of escheators’ records’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 144, 2022, pp. 5-72.

Cotton, C., The History and Antiquities of St Laurence Thanet (Kent 1895). Flanders, J., The Making of Home (Atlantic Books 2014)

Hamilton, J., Ever Rolling Stream (Heart of Albion) 2019, chapters 11 and 12.

Hamling, T., and C. Richardson, A Day at Home in Early Modern England: Material Culture and Domestic Life, 1500-1700 (London 2017), pp 124-5.

Hasted, E., The History and Topographical Survey of the County of Kent: Volume 1 (Canter- bury, 1797), British History Online http://www.british-history.ac.uk/survey-kent/ vol1

Lewis, J., The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Tenet, 2nd ed., 1736.

Pearson, S., ‘The Medieval Houses of the Marsh: the Missing Evidence’, in J. Eddison, ed.,

Romney Marsh: the Debatable Ground (OUCA Monograph 41) 1995.

Platt, C., The Great Rebuildings of Tudor and Stuart England (London, 1994), pp. 1-27.

Wyatt, G., 2011, ‘Early Modern Thanet; a closed or open society? Evidence from a study of marriage making and marriage horizons, c.1560-c.1630’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 131, 2011, pp. 353-392.

Wyatt, G., 2014, ‘Migration and Mobility in the Isle of Thanet in the late Elizabethan/Early Jacobean Period’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 135, 2015, pp. 93-104.

Wyatt, G., 2016, ‘Not by law established? Was there a Separatist movement in Early Modern Thanet?’, Archaeologia Cantiana, 137, 2017, pp. 149-162 Wyatt, G., ‘Early Modern Thanet: an open society’, in Bligh, S., Edwards, E., and Sweetinburgh, S (eds), Maritime Kent Through the Ages (Woodbridge 2021) endnotes

[fn]1|For the history of these ancestors on Thanet see Hamilton, J, ‘Ever Rolling Stream’ Heart of Albion 2019 chapters 11 and 12. Available at www.Heart of Albion catalogue.[/fn]

[fn]2|The Great Rebuilding is the name given by W.G. Hoskins to the transformation of English Domestic Housing 1570-1640. See W.G. Hoskins ‘The Rebuilding of Rural England, 1570–1640’, Past & Present, Volume 4, Issue 1, November 1953, pp 44-59, https://doi.org/10.1093/past/4.1.44[/fn]

[fn]3|These are available to view at Kent History and Library Centre, Maidstone: Historic Wills and Inventories from the Isle of Thanet 1481-1773.[/fn]

[fn]4|KLHC PRC 17/3/391 Nicholas Underdown All direct quotations from the documents are either translations of the original Latin or use modern spelling.[/fn]

[fn]5|KLHC PRC 17/35/42 Thomas Tomlyn.[/fn]

[fn]6|KLHC PRC 32/54/362 William Goateley.[/fn]

[fn]7|KLHC17/3/391 Nicholas Underdown.[/fn]

[fn]8|G. Wyatt, ‘Early Modern Thanet: an Open Society’ in Bligh, S., Edwards, E., and Sweetinburgh, S., eds., Maritime Kent Through the Ages (Woodbridge 2021), p.419 figure 19.1.[/fn]

[fn]9|KLHC PRC17/81/264 Robert Witherden; KLHC PRC 17/88/31f Paul Kirby; KLHC PRC 17/89/55b Paul Kirby.[/fn]

[fn]10|KLHC PRC11/24/125 George Witherden; KLHC PRC11/27/131 Sarah Witherden. 287 JOHN HAMILTON[/fn]

[fn]11|KLHC PRC 16/149 Gregorie Goteley.[/fn]

[fn]12|KLHC PRC 17/76/92 and 11/45/223 both Hester Withenden.[/fn]

[fn]13|KLHC PRC 16/149 Gregorie Goteley; KLHC PRC17/57/264 Richard White.[/fn]

[fn]14|KLHC PRC 17/25/42 Nicholas Spraklyn; KLHC PRC17/94550 Hannah Witherden.[/fn]

[fn]15|KLHC PRC 17/21/224 Nicolas Spraklyn.[/fn]

[fn]16|KLHC PRC 17/3/391 Nicholas Underdown; KLHC PRC 17/16/264 Richard Underdown.[/fn]

[fn]17|KLHC PRC 17/21/224 Nicholas Spraklyn; KLHC PRC 17/32/31 Richard Tomlyn.[/fn]

[fn]18|KLHC PRC 17/8/147 John Pannell.[/fn]

[fn]19|KLHC PRC 17/21/224 Nicholas Spraklyn; KLHC PRC 17/32/31 Richard Tomlyn.[/fn]

[fn]20|KLHC PRC 17/29/238 Thomasine Snothe; KLHC PRC 17/32/61 Vincent Underdown; KLHC PRC 17/42/314 William Tomlen.[/fn]

[fn]21|KLHC PRC 32/3/17 Nicholas Underdown; KLHC PRC 17/21/224 Nicholas Spraklyn.[/fn]

[fn]22|KLHC PRC 11/10/145 Edward Witherden; KLHC PRC11/2/61 Edward Harnett.[/fn]

[fn]23|KLHC PRC 11/46/223 Hester Withenden.[/fn]

[fn]24|KLHC PRC 11/27/111 Edward Troward.[/fn]

[fn]25|KLHC PRC 11/59/1 Robert Witherden.[/fn]

[fn]26|KLHC PRC 11/46/223 Hester Withenden.[/fn]

[fn]27|KLHC PRC11/18/116 Richard Harnett; KLHC PRC 11/79/184 Isaac Witherden; KLHC PRC 11/61/117 George Witherden; KLHC PRC 11/27/131 Sarah Witherden.[/fn]

[fn]28|KLHC PRC 17/3/404 Stephen White; KLHC PRC17/42/314 William Tomlen.[/fn]

[fn]29|S. Pearson, ‘The Medieval Houses of the Marsh: the Missing Evidence’, in J. Eddison, ed., Romney Marsh: the Debatable Ground (OUCA Monograph 41) 1995, p 92.[/fn]

[fn]30|KLHC PRC 17/3/391 Nicholas Underdown.[/fn]

[fn]31|KLHC PRC 17/21/224 Nicholas Spraklyn.[/fn]

[fn]32|KLHC PRC 11/24/125 George Witherden; KLHC PRC 11/27/131 Sarah Witherden; KLHC PRC 11/61/117 George Witherden.[/fn]

[fn]33|KLHC PRC 17/15/49 Richard White.[/fn]

[fn]34|KLHC PRC 11/79/184 Isaac Witherden; KLHC PRC 11/29/137 Mildred Wastell.[/fn]

[fn]35|KLHC PRC 17/21/224 Nicholas Spracklyn.[/fn]

[fn]36|KLHC PRC 11/61/117 George Witherden; KLHC PRC 11/27/131 Sarah Witherden.[/fn]

[fn]37|The Guardian: the guardian.com/fashion/2020/feb/19/2020/ history-of-the-girdle-fashion- archive-1925.[/fn]

[fn]38|KLHC PRC 11/79/184 Isaac Witherden; KLHC PRC 11/30/112 Edward Harnett.[/fn]

[fn]39|T. Hamling, and C. Richardson, A Day at Home in Early Modern England: Material Culture and Domestic Life, 1500-1700 (London 2017), pp 124-5.[/fn]

[fn]40|KLHC PRC 11/11/162 Gabriel Wastell; KLHC PRC 11/35/205 Francis Tomlin.[/fn]

[fn]41|KLHC PRC 11/18/116 Richard Harnett.[/fn]

[fn]42|KLHC PRC 11/35/205 Francis Tomlin; KLHC PRC 11/53/95 Thomas Russell.[/fn]

[fn]43|KLHC PRC 11/79/184 Isaac Witherden.[/fn]

[fn]44|KLHC PRC 11/53/95 Thomas Russell.[/fn]

[fn]45|KLHC PRC 17/16/264 Richard Underdown.[/fn]

[fn]46|KLHC PRC17/7/143a Robert Spracklyn; this will is not included with the transcribed documents. KLHC PRC 17/21/224. Nicholas Spracklyn.[/fn]

[fn]47|KLHC PRC 11/2/61 Edward Harnett; KLHC PRC 11/18/116 Richard Harnett; KLHC PRC 11/30/112 Edward Harnett.[/fn]

[fn]48|KLHC PRC 11/2/61 Edward Harnett; KLHC PRC 17/8/147 John Pannell; KLHC PRC 11/79/184 Isaac Withenden; KLHC PRC 11/18/116 Richard Harnett[/fn]

[fn]49|J. Lewis, The History and Antiquities of the Isle of Tenet 1736 vol.1 p.13.[/fn]

[fn]50|J. Andrewes, ‘The Early Modern Period: 1500-1700 Trade and Industry’, in Bligh, S., Edwards, E., and Sweetinburgh, S (eds), Maritime Kent Through the Ages (Woodbridge 2021), pp 236-9.[/fn]

[fn]51|KLHC PRC 11/2/61 Edward Harnett, KLHC PRC 11/18/116 Richard Harnett 288 A STUDY OF WILLS AND INVENTORIES FROM THE ISLE OF THANET 1480-1773 [/fn]

[fn]52|KLHC PRC 11/69/1 Robert Witherden. John Lewis ibid. pp.12-13.[/fn]

[fn]53|KLHC PRC 17/70/378 Edward Harnett ; KLHC PRC 11/53/95 Thomas Russell.[/fn]

[fn]54|KLHC PRC 11/25/135 George Wastell; KLHC PRC 11/53/95 Thomas Russell; KLHC PRC 11/46/223 Hester Withenden.[/fn]

[fn]55|KLHC PRC 11/61/147 Gabriel Wastell.[/fn]

[fn]56|G. Wyatt, 2011, ‘Early Modern Thanet; a closed or open society? Evidence from a study of marriage making and marriage horizons, c.1560-c.1630, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxi, p.377.[/fn]

[fn]57|G. Wyatt, 2014, ‘Migration and Mobility in the Isle of Thanet in the late Elizabethan/Early Jacobean Period, Archaeologia Cantiana, cxxxv, pp. 95-6.[/fn]

[fn]58|J. Hamilton, Ever Rolling Stream p. 349.[/fn]

[fn]59|KLHC PRC 17/44/261Arthur Sare; KLHC PRC 17/29/238 Thomasine Snothe; KLHC PRC17/40/179 Edward Bygg.[/fn]

[fn]60|Harned family genealogy: the Harneds of North America www.harneds.org[/fn]

[fn]61|KLHC PRC Nicholas Underdown17/3/391; KLHC PRC 16/149 Gregorie Goteley; KLHC PRC 17/88/31f Paul Kirby; KLHC PRC 17/29/58 Christopher Tomlin.[/fn]

[fn]62|KLHC PRC 17/44/261Arthur Sare; KLHC PRC 17/76/92 Hester Withenden; KLHC PRC16/149 Gregory Gotely; KLHC PRC 11/18/116 Richard Harnett; KLHC PRC PRC17/16/264 Richard Underdown.[/fn]

[fn]63|J. Andrewes, ‘The Early Modern Period 1500-1700 Trade, and Industry’, in Bligh, S., Edwards, E., and Sweetinburgh, S. (eds), Maritime Kent Through the Ages (Woodbridge, 2021), p. 239.[/fn][pg289]