“Ordinary” women’s wardrobes 1620-1646

Figure 1 - Hollar's Countrywoman

This is an examination of eighteen probate inventory accounts from the town of Marlborough in Wiltshire, covering the period 1620-1646. (Williams & Thomson, 2007) Of these thirteen only give a general amount for the value of the deceased’s clothing, but five have extensive descriptions, enough to try and reconstruct their wardrobes. The five women are four widows: Agnes Weeb (1620), Alice Wyatt (1623), Elizabeth Reynes (1633), Joane Furnell (1633), and a servant, Phillip Ingerom (1623). As we will see below Phillip and Elizabeth have the most comprehensive listings of their clothing.

Values

Of the 18 women the richest, Alice Wilkes(1646) a widow, was worth £114 19s 4d, and her clothing was worth £5. The poorest was Johane Titcombe(1637), also a widow, she was worth £5 3s 4d and her clothing was 10 shillings. By comparison the richest man, there were 70 men in the probate inventories, was worth £297 16s 9d and the poorest £2. I have placed a table listing all eighteen women, their status and total and clothing values at the end. In some cases the value of the clothing has a plus, this is because some clothing has been accounted with non clothing items and they cannot be separated.

The proportion of the women’s wealth that was tied up in their clothing varies considerably. Two women of similar wealth, respectively £12 10s and £12 12s 8d, have clothing worth 20.5% and 41.6% of their estate. The lowest percentage in the group 4.3% belongs to both a mid range woman, worth £33-1s-8d and the richest worth £114 19s 4d. The 41.5% mentioned above is the highest, however if you take away the £10 in debts owed to the servant Phillip Ingerom, her percentage rises to 51.6%, of her estate. None of the five women with lists was worth a lot of money, the richest these probates was for £34 3s 6d and the poorest £6 18s 2d.

Social status
As some have queried the "ordinariness" of these women I am adding this paragraph on their social standing as far as can be ascertained. Many who know me know that my favourite quote on the subject of probates is Margaret Spufford’s “it cannot be sufficiently stressed that their apparent tidiness and suitability for the historian ... in fact conceals quicksands of very considerable magnitude.” Regarding a comment about how few make a will may I point out that at least some of these probates are either nuncupative (verbal) or intestate. For those who want to know, and to put these women in more of a perspective. The probates, as I stated are from the market town of Marlborough, and the families, husbands, sons, etc., are for the most part tradespeople. Both Agnes Weeb’s and Alice Wilkes’s probates went to unmarried daughters. We know little about Elizabeth Lane though her appraisers were a brewer and a joiner. Phillip Ingerom was servant to Thomas Snowe of Derrington,  a very small village in Staffordshire. Alice Wyatt’s husband was a buttonmaker. Ann Biggs probate was undertaken by her father or uncle (it is a little unclear) he was a miller. Maud Patie again had a executrix, her niece Katherine Smart. Joane Furnell had two executrices and the husband of one, a wheeler (wheelwright) took the administration. Christian Hitchcocke, spinster, was the daughter Thomas Hitchcock a yeoman. Johane Titcombe was the widow of Gregory, whose intestacy inventory is worth less that his widow’s ten years later. The singlewoman Katherine Peirse is listed as the daughter of---and then a very unhelpful blank, but may be related to John Prater, alias Peirse, yeoman, who also acts as an administrator for Elizabeth Newman’s probate. Jone Jones’s husband was a glover. We know little about Alice Wyatt, Alice Pagett, Elizabeth Winsor, Elizabeth Reynes, Joane Powell, Elianor Browne.

Adam Martindale

One of the few, and best descriptions of women’s clothes below the gentry level, was given by Adam Martindale in his autobiography written around 1685. At the beginning of the book he is looking back to when is sister left home to go up to London, probably around 1626-7. She died of a “pestilence” shortly after her arrival. I quote it in full because it emphasises both the social mores involved in clothing, and the changes in outlook over time.

“Freeholders’ daughters were then confined to their felts, pettiecoates and wastcoates, crosse handkerchiefs around their neckes, and white cross-clothes upon their heads, with coifes under them wrought with black silk or worsted. ‘Tis true the finest sort of them wore gold or silver lace upon their wastcoats, good silk laces (and store of them) about their pettiecoats, and bone laces or workes about their linnens. But the proudest of them (below the gentry) durst not have offered to wear an hood or a scarfe  (which now every beggar’s brat that can get them thinks not above her) noe, nor so much as a gowne till her wedding day. And if any of them had transgressed these bounds, she would have been accounted an ambitious foole. These limitations I suppose she did not very well approve, but having her father’s spirit and her mother’s beauty, no persuasion would serve but up she would to serve a ladie, as she hoped to doe, being ingenious with her needle.” (Martindale, 1845, pp. 6-7)

The clothes in the accounts

Most of the women have just – “her wearing apparel” – and a value. In some cases it specifies “both woollen and linen”, or accounts for woollen and linen separately, as in Anne Biggs who has both “her wearing aparell £15 10s”, and “her childbed linene and her wearing linen £5.” This is also the case with Joane Furnell for whom we have “Her wearing apparel £2 10s”, but later we a separate list of linen that is not all clothes; “8 table clothes, one dossen and a halffe of napkins, five smockes, halffe a dosson of bands, fower coynes and fower neckcloths and one old waistcoat and eight apperns and fower pillowberes £2 4s”, again separately she also has “one payer of silke garters and two old hats 5s.” This may be why shoes, and to a lesser extent hats, don’t appear as often in inventories as one would expect them to, they cannot be classified as either woollen or linen clothing. 

Here is a caveat. One of the problems with identifying items in the accounts with particular garments, is that we don’t have original garments with original labels saying this is a ..... Two different clothing terms may be used for the same garment, depending on who is writing about it, think sweater-jumper-pullover. Garments change their names over the years, smock – shift – chemise is a good example, and terms can change their meaning, for example scarlet starts off as a colour, but can end up meaning a type of cloth.

What did they own

Smocks

The linen smock was the main item of underwear and all of the women own between three (Agnes) and seven (Phillip) smocks. It is interesting that the servant has the greatest number of smocks.

Figure 2 - Hollar's Wife of a Citizen of London

Petticoats

Over the smock they would have worn one or two petticoats, or more, depending on the weather, and whether they were wearing a gown over the top. All of the women whose woollen clothing is listed own petticoats. Agnes has two worth together 14s and one old one. Phillip has four wearing petticoats worth 6s 8d, Alice two petticoats and four old petticoats. Elizabeth has one old red petticoat and two old petticoats. Red was the traditional colour for petticoats so it is unsurprising that the only case in which colour is mentioned is red.

Bodies and waistcoats

On the top half they might have worn a pair of bodies, these are boned and today might be referred to as a corset, though they are not the same. Only one woman, Elizabeth, owned what are referred to in her inventory as “a payre of bodice.” They may have been similar in style to the ones that were found in the Sittingbourne Cache and have been described on the Goodwyfe Blog. Probably more common for lower class women are waistcoats, as Randle Holme says “It is an habit or garment generally worn by the middle and lower sort of women, having goared skirts, and some wear them with stomachers.” (Holme, 1688) Elizabeth, the woman who owned the payre of bodice, is also the only woman to own “two stomager.” An example of a 1610-20 embroidered stomacher is described in detail in North & Tiramani (2012, pp. 128-135). Agnes does not own a waistcoat, Joane has one, Phillip has two, Alice has three, and Elizabeth has four. Joane’s waistcoat is listed with her linen and may therefore be made of linen, though not as elaborate as this surviving linen waistcoat in the V&A. It is most probably this waistcoat and petticoat combination that can be seen in Hollar’s Countrywoman (Figure 1), where the goared skirts of the waistcoat can easily be seen.

Gowns

All of the women whose woollen clothing is listed own gowns. Agnes has four, one of which is described as old. Phillip has one gown, which at a value of 13. 4d is worth nearly as much as the 16s for three of Agnes’s gowns.  Alice has two best gowns and two old gowns, while Elizabeth only has one “old medley gown of the best 13s 4d.” A comment on who might and might not wear a gown was made by Adam Martindale who I quote above. Gowns were usually worn over a petticoat and sometimes over a waistcoat, though this is difficult to determine from the images we have. In this Hollar image of the wife of a citizen of London (Figure 2) this layering can clearly be seen. The skirt of the gown, which is open at the front, has been turned back and two petticoats can be seen underneath. Gowns add an extra layer of clothing and warmth at a time when houses did not have central heating, and coats for women were uncommon. The term medley, used to describe Elizabeth’s gown,  is used for a mixture of colours, as John Withals  A shorte dictionarie for yonge begynners, 1553 has it “Medley, color mixtus,” So you can get references to medley russet, and medley broadcloth.

Outerwear

There is little in the way of outerwear, though both Agnes and Alice own cloaks, and Agnes also has a safeguard. A safeguard is defined by the OED as “An outer skirt or petticoat worn by women to protect their clothing, esp. when riding.”

Neckwear

The women own a mixture of kerchiefs, bands, gorgets, partlets and pinners, requiring some definitions. These items can be worn in layers and it is often difficult to decide what is meant. Most of these are articles of clothing covering the neck and breast.

The kerchief is usually a square of material that can then be used folded as a neckerchief (Figure 2), or a headkerchief, or just square as a handkerchief. A plain square linen kerchief in the Victoria and Albert Museum is described in North & Tiramani (2011, pp. 142-143). Phillip has eight “kerchers” worth 4s. Agnes has “five singel kerchfes 1s 3d”, I’m not sure what the single means. Elizabeth has “one kerchieffe and one handkerchieffe 4s.” Joane has “half a dossen of kercheiffes, and fower neckcloths”, not to mention half a dozen of crosscloths and half a dozen of bands. Bands are again worn around the neck; the term is often used to refer to men’s collars, but is also used for women’s collars. The difference may be that bands are tied with band strings, rather than being pinned, and are also more likely to be shaped. Gorgets are another term which may indicate a shaped neckcloth, Agnes has two old gorgets worth 3s.  A pattern for a very elaborate lace trimmed band in the Victoria and Albert Museum is given in North & Tiramani (2011, pp. 128-135)

The term partlet was described in a 1658 dictionary (Phillips, 1658) as “a word used in some old Statutes, signifying the loose collar of a dublet to be set on or taken off by it self without the bodies, also a womans neckerchief”, which doesn’t really help. Costume historians have tended to take it as a fill in for the neckline. Agnes and Alice both have six partlets, while Phillip has seven. There is a pattern for a plain linen partlet of this period, now in the Gallery of Costume, Manchester. (Arnold, 2008, pp. 43, 100-101)

The more old-fashioned Elizabeth has 21 old pinners and ruffs, by 1633 ruffs were going out of fashion at all levels of society. Agnes has five pinners worth 1s. Pinners, are another term that is difficult, it can refer to anything that is pinned on, and by the late seventeenth century if had become identified with a type of cap with long lappets, but here it is also certainly neckwear. Arnold (2008, pp. 40, 96) has an example of what she describes as a pinner, now in the Gallery of Costume, Manchester.

Figure 3 - Detail of a Hollar woman from Ornatus

In this detail of a woman from Ornatus (Figure 3) you can see she is wearing something closed high at the neck, which maybe a partlet, she has what maybe pinners around the neckline of her gown, and over these she is wearing a kerchief.

Headwear

Surpringly only one of the women Joane has what might be coifs, she has among the list of linen “fower coines.” One would expect all the women to have some form of linen headwear.

All five of the women have hats. Only Phillip’s one wearing hat worth 1s has a value while the others are mixed with other items. Joane, Alice and Agnes all have two hats, while Elizabeth has a hat with a hat band. 

Aprons

All the women own aprons. Joane has eight aprons, Phillip seven worth in total 4s, Elizabeth five followed by one old woollen cloth, which may also have been used as an apron. Alice has 3 holland aprons, holland is a type of linen, while Agnes has one black apron.

Stockings and hose

Only two of the women list these; Phillip has “hosen” listed with her shoes and Elizabeth has “a payre of stockings” Although Joane has no stockings listed, she does own “one payer of silke garters”

Shoes

The same two women Phillip and Elizabeth have shoes. In both cases the shoes are worth 1s, and additional Phillip has “one peece of shooe leather”, and Elizabeth owns “one shooing horn.” Information on early shoehorns is in this blog post. I think the other women must have had shoes and stockings, but they are not listed.

Girdles and purses

Both Phillip and Elizabeth own girdles. Phillip has three girdles and one purse, and Elizabeth has one girdle and a pouch. 

Jewellery

Only Phillip owns jewellery, she has “one ring silver and guilt” worth 1s 6d.

References

Arnold, J., 2008. Patterns of Fashion 4 : the cut and construction of linen shirts, smocks, neckwear, headwear and accessories for men and women. London: Macmillan.

Holme, R., 1688. Academie of Armourie. s.l.:s.n.

Martindale, A., 1845. The life of Adam Martindale written by himself. edited by Richard Parkinson.. s.l.:Chetham Society.

North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2011. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 1. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

North, S. & Tiramani, J., 2012. Seventeenth century women's dress patterns, book 2. London: Victoria and Albert Museum.

Phillips, E., 1658. The new world of English words: or A general dictionary. London: Brooks.

Williams, L. & Thomson, S., 2007. Marlborough probate inventories 1591-1775. Chippenham: Wiltshire Record Society.

The women

No	Name	Status	Year	Total value	Clothing value	Clothing as a % of total worth
1	Agnes Weeb	widow	1620	£6-18s-2d	£2-10s-3d	36.4%
2	Elizabeth Lane	widow	1622	£20-11s-4d	£2-0s-0d	9.7%
3	Phillip Ingerom	servant	1623	£12-10s-0d (£14-19s-2d)‡	£2-11s-2d	20.5% (17.1%)
4	Alice Wyatt	widow	1623	£12-12s-8d	£5-5s-0d	41.6%
5	Alice Pagett	widow	1624	£64-8s-4d	£6-0s-0d	9.3%
6	Anne Bigges	widow	1626	£89-11s-7d	£20-10s-0d *	22.9%
7	Maud Patie	widow	1632	£55-4s-8d	£9-0s-0d	16.3%
8	Elisebeth Winsor	widow	1632	£14-9s-0d	£1-0s-0d	6.9%
9	Elizabeth Reynes	widow	1633	£7-18s-2d	£1-8s-9d plus	15%
10	Joane Furnell	widow	1633	£34-3s-6d	£2-15s-0d plus	8%
11	Joane Powell	widow	1634	£7-15s-8d	£1-3s-4d	15%
12	Christian Hitchcocke	spinster	1636	£25-11s-0d	£8-0s-0d	31.3%
13	Johane Titcombe	widow	1637	£5-3s-4d	£0-10s-0d	9.7%
14	Katherine Peirse	singlewoman	1638	£56-11s-0d	£3-0s-0d	5.3%
15	Elianor Browne	widow	1639	£13-18s-2d	£1-10s-0d	10.8%
16	Elizabeth Newman		1640	£33-1s-8d	£1-10s-0d	4.3%
17	Jone Jones	widow	1641	£23-17s-8d	£3-0s-0d	12.6%
18	Alice Wilkes	widow	1646	£114 19s 4d	£5-0s-0d	4.3%

‡ The value is added incorrectly, this is the true amount

* Her wearing aparell £15 10s, her childbed linene and her wearing linen £5

Book review – Moroni by Giovanni Battista

Fig 1. - Book cover

This was going to be an exhibition review as well, but as I went on the last day of the exhibition it’s a book review since the book is still available. And it is well worth the £20 cover price for the paperback, though I got it at the Royal Academy for a discounted price since the exhibition was finishing. (Fig 1 Book Cover)

The book is well illustrated with good colour, and lots of details from the paintings. There were 42 items in the exhibition and these are all listed at the end of the book. Most of the paintings are by Moroni (c.1521/24-1579/80) but the first four are by Moretto (c.1492-1554), the man who taught him, and whose work I don’t remember having come across before. Moretto, like his pupil had a very good eye for clothing, have a look at the buttons and button loops on his King David. (Fig. 2)

Fig. 2 Detail from King David

The book starts with a revue of Moroni’s work, placing him in the political and religious landscape of the time, it also looks at the various judgements to which his works have been subjected since his death in 1579/80. There are then six chapters looking at his teacher Moretto, his early works, his aristocratic portraits, his portraits from nature, his altarpieces and his late portraits; this follows the organisation of the exhibition. The book finishes with a catalogue of all the material in the exhibition. 

Fig. 3 Detail of stockings

As I went around the exhibition I found myself looking at the costume detail, you can see these in the book illustrations, but I will accept that it is easier in front of a life size painting to see, for example, that the stockings on the gentleman in pink are from the vertical lines, almost certainly knitted. (Fig 3.) As a final example of costume detail you could probably draft a pattern from this blackwork collar. (Fig. 4)

Battista, Giovanni. Moroni. London: Royal Academy of Arts, 2014. ISBN 9781907533822

Fig. 4 Detail of blackwork collar

Probates inventories as a source of clothing information: a 1550-90 Oxfordshire case study.

Speed 1611

Probate inventories are a wonderful source for information on clothing, however they have their limitations, as Spufford (1984) said, “Inventories are too useful not to use, but when they are used heavily...it cannot be sufficiently stressed that their apparent tidiness and suitability for the historian seeking quick economic comparisons in fact conceals quicksands of very considerable magnitude.”

This is an analysis of the clothing listed in a series of Oxfordshire probate inventories. (Havinden, 1965) These inventories are from the diocesan court and peculiar jurisdictions of Oxfordshire, and there are 259 of them. Although they cover the period 1550 to 1590 the bulk of the inventories are overwhelmingly from the 1570s and 1580s.

The spread is, 2 probates from the 1560s have lists of clothes, 13 from the 1570s, 24 from the 1580s and 1 from the year 1590

Whose inventories?

The most of the people whose inventories appear are of the “middling sort”, tradesmen, craftsmen, husbandmen and farmers. Obviously, generally speaking the poor did not make wills, though there are some day labourers among the inventories, and the lowest valuation is for a mere 14s 8d. The richer merchants and members of the gentry and nobility also appear rarely, as their wills were more likely to be proved in the Prerogative Court at Canterbury. Only four people are described as gentlemen and none of these has a total worth of more than £48. Forty two of the inventories are from women, just over half (24) are described as widows. While it would appear that there is a general relationship between occupation and value, it is not particularly obvious. The richest person, worth £590 18s 1d., is a widow. The next richest is a yeoman farmer worth £408  0s  2d., only ten of the inventories are valued at more than £100, while 62 are valued at less than £10.

Clothing values

Of the 259 inventories 99 do not list or give any value for clothing, and 120 give just a total value for a person’s wearing apparel, or similar phrase. This means that only 40 inventories actually list any clothing. Are these valuations any indication of what a person’s wardrobe is actually worth?  

The range is considerable 6d to £23. The lowest valuation, the 6d, relates to “an old jerkin” belonging to William Mosley a carpenter, in his 1578 probate, his total worth was £28 6s 6d. The most valuable wardrobe, £23 belonged to the richest person on the list, the widow Katherine Doyle, her 1585 inventory specified that she had “woollen apparell £20”, her wearing linen was worth £3, and she also had jewels worth a further £37 12s-8d. 

Woodcut - The patient man's woe - 1610

However most people get a value that may well have been picked out of thin air. Thirty one have a valuation of £1, this is the commonest valuation and is applied to people whose total worth is anywhere between £4 1s 0d and £84 2s 0d. The next commonest valuation was 10s (17 people), followed by 6s 8d (a third of £1; 16 people), then 5s (13 people) and 13s 4d (two thirds of £1; also 13 people). These round figures do not seem to indicate that that a great amount of thought has gone into valuing the wardrobes.

So what do you get for your £1? Three men and two women have lists against their £1 valuations. John Ives, a husbandman worth £78 16s 0d in 1562, had two coats, one gown of cloth, one doublet of worsted, one cloth jerkin, a petticoat of white cloth, two pair of hose and two shirts for his pound. In 1580 Thomas Borman worth £27 5s 2d, also had two coats, with two jerkins, two trusses, two pair of hose, three shirts, one pair of shoes, one hat, and one night cap. However the clerk/parson Robert Cory, worth £36 13s 5d in 1587, had only two gowns and two cloaks for his pound. For the women in 1564 Joyce Bullen, worth £20 0s 10d, had only two gowns, one petticoat, and one cloak, but in 1583 Mary Tayler, a widow worth £13 8s 3d had a lot more. She had 2 gowns, 2 petticoats, 2 smocks, 4 kerchers, 3 neckerchers, a hat, a cap, a pair of hose and a pair of shoes.

What clothing is listed in the inventories? 

For men’s clothing the most common items are 31 shirts. For legwear there are 29 pair of hose, 10 pair of stockings including one listed as nether stocks, 6 pairs of breeches, and one pair of galyskins. For the body there were 25 doublets, 21 coats, 21 jerkins, 2 jackets, 1 waistcoat, 15 cloaks and 13 gowns. In addition three men had 4 petticoats between them.There were also 2 suits, one of satin and one of fustian that belonged to a gentleman who died at an inn, he also had a pair of velvet breeches and a trunk containing the rest of his apparel, the contents of which were not detailed. For head wear there are 12 hats, 3 caps and 1 night cap. For the feet there were 8 pairs of shoes and 3 pairs of boots. In accessories we have 9 bands, 5 partlets, 3 ruffs, 2 kercheifs and 2 handkerchiefs. Three people mention a total of 4 trusses, and truss in the sixteenth century has more than one meaning, so we don’t know what these are. The three definitions of truss that we have are 1) In Florio’s 1598 dictionary The World of Worlds Cotigie, is translated as “leather hosen, or trusses such as our elders were woont to weare”. 2) In 1552 Huloet describes it in its modern sense as a support saying, “trusse for a wrestler, or diseased body.” 3) Drayton’s Polyolbion of 1612 seems to indicate something more in the way of body wear saying “vnto his trusse, which bore The staines of ancient Armes.” One man owned  “2 payer of rofes and a lymbyck,” the ruffs are self explanatory but what is a lymbyck? The nearest thing that can be found is a limbec used in distillation, but nothing to do with clothing.

For women’s clothing, in underwear we have 14 smocks. For the main garments there are 8 gowns, 3 kirtles, 3 cassocks, 17 petticoats, 3 cloaks, a waistcoat and a frock. To go with some of these there are 9 foresleeves listed separately, and for wearing over the garments 16 aprons. For the legs and feet only 2 pair of hose and 2 pair of shoes are recorded. For the head 1 cap, 2 hats and 6 headcloths. For the neck there were 30 kerchefs, 13 neckerchefs and 7 partlets. Garments that require a little more explanation are the 18 rails and 1 tippet. Rails come in different types, there are head, neck and night rails, but in these probates they are only listed only as rails. Palsgrave (1530) gives a “rayle for a woman’s neck,” while Massinger (1630) gives “sickness feign’d that your night rails of forty pounds apiece might be seen.” The Egerton MS of 1588 has a charge for “mending, washinge and starching of a head raille of fine white sipers.” The Willoughby MS in 1552 has a purchase of “hollan cloth to make niyght rayelles and nyght kerchers.” They could also be worn by the poor as evidenced by a quote from Nashe (1592) “A course hempen rail about her shoulders.” A tippet is described by the OED as “A long narrow slip of cloth or hanging part of dress, formerly worn, either attached to and forming part of the hood, head-dress, or sleeve, or loose, as a scarf or the like,” which covers most of the possibilities.

What clothing is NOT listed in the inventories? 

It is interesting just to see what is missing. It is a very small sample but even so I would have expected to see some gloves. In 1608 one county Gloucestershire had 145 glove makers. The upper classes bought often gloves a dozen pair at a time. They were given as favours as weddings and at funerals. The merchant tailor Henry Machin records 100 pairs being given at the wedding of another merchant’s daughter. For women’s headwear although there are 6 headcloths, there are no coifs.  

Fabrics and colours

Fabric and colours are rarely mentioned. The most common fabric to appear in the probates is frieze, a woollen cloth with a nap usually on one side, this was used for 3 coats, 2 gowns, 3 jerkins, 2 pair of breeches, and 1 male and 2 female cassocks.   Cloth was mentioned twice, once for a jerkin and once for a gown, and leather was also mentioned twice, for a jerkin and a doublet. Worsted and canvas are mentioned for doublets. Russet appears twice, and here we have a dichotomy, is it a fabric or a colour, the russet coat is probably the fabric, but the silk russet cloak is more debateable. One pair of stockings are described as knit, and four of the aprons have fabrics, 2 linen, one worsted and one flannel. Apart from white, grey and black only one colour is mentioned, and that is red for 3 female petticoats. 

Why are things listed?

Why only 15% of the wills have clothes listed we don’t know. Obviously some of the people taking probate inventories didn’t think that clothing was important, 38% didn’t give any value for clothing, and 46% only gave a total value. Some people may indicate why there was a problem, as in William Cosynne’s 1582 inventory where it is stated, “besides suche goodes as are in the howse which at this time the administrator dare not enter upon.” Some administrators start a list, and give up, as in “two shurtes and an ol payre of hose with other such lyke 5s 0d,” or, “other trashe aboute the house 2s.” One point to take into consideration is that from 1530 to the Civil War there was a fee for probate. Estates under £5 in value were free apart from 6d for a copy of the will, between £5 and £40 the cost was 3s 6d and over £40 it was 5s. (Heley, 2007) Cox and Cox (2000) consider that there may be an effect caused by the fact that, if no inventory is taken and debts are more than the estate is worth, the administrator is liable for the difference. However probate inventories do give a good insight into what was being worn, and by whom.

Cox, J. & Cox, N., 2000. Probate 1500 -1800: A system in transition. In: T. Arkell, E. Nesta & N. Goose, eds. When Death Do Us Part: Understanding and Interpreting the Probate Records of Early Modem England.. s.l.:A Local Populations Studies Supplement, pp. 13-47.

Havinden, M. A., 1965. Household and farm inventories in Oxfordshire 1550-1590. London: HMSO.

Heley, G., 2007. The Material Culture of the Tradesmen of Newcastle upon Tyne 1545-1642. PhD. Durham: University of Durham.

Spufford, M., 1984. The great reclothing of rural England: petty chapmen and their wares in the seventeenth century. London: Hambledon Press.