Elizabeth Woolley (1735 to 1803) Publican in Elton, Cambridgeshire, England

I have not posted for many years, but I want to collate information about some of my ancestors in England. I am going to England in late 2024, so it is useful to think about my ancestors' lives as I travel to the places that they lived. Elton is definitely on the list of places to visit. 

In 2003 I ordered the Parish records for Elton, Huntingdonshire because I was confident it was the birthplace of my great great grandfather, Nathaniel Woolley. I found him first and then worked backwards building up the family tree.  It was only once I got to the end (the beginning) of the microfiche that I found the index! And let me say that Parish records are so very boring to go through when there is no index... plus I had to look through everything again to ensure that I hadn't missed anyone.  

Those with the surname Woolley were in Elton for four generations by which time everyone had gone. One of Elizabeth's great-grandsons stole money from his workplace—the school—and possibly the resulting scandal made it difficult for other Woolley family members to stay. 

Elizabeth lived in Elton with her partner/husband, Thomas. There is no record of a marriage between Elizabeth and Thomas in Elton, so I don't know her name at birth. I don't know where she was born, although I know her age at death, so I know when she was born! The first official record I have found is from 20 July 1759 when Elizabeth and Thomas Woolley baptised their son, Thomas, in the Elton Parish Church.  It is possible that he wasn't their first born child, but I may never know. 

Thomas' baptism was followed by ten further children, nine of whom were: 

·      Richard, baptised on 18 February 1761; 

·      Joseph baptised 11 January 1763; and 

·      Mary baptised 17 July 1764.  Mary appears to be the first of Mary's infant children to die and she was buried on 1 October 1764. 

·      John was baptised on 10 September 1765 but died in early 1767 and was buried on 25 February. 

·      A second John was baptised on 11 January 1768.  It was noted it was a private baptism, this was because on the same day seven year old Richard was buried.  It is difficult to imagine how horrible that must have been for Elizabeth! 

·      Jane was baptised on 27 February 1770; 

·      A second Richard on 27 April 1772; this Richard died when aged four and was buried on 26 May 1776;

·      James on 18 February 1774;

·      A second Mary was born and died in 1777: baptised on 8 August and buried on 3 September. 

Before the birth of the eleventh child, Elizabeth's husband died (well, I'm assuming they were married). On 9 May 1778, Thomas Woolley was riding his horse in a nearby village when he had a fall from his horse. Alan Clark, in his wonderful book on Elton, quotes the day books of John Clifton of Oundle with respect to the death:

Saturday, 9th May 1778

About 5 o’clock this afternoon as one Woolley, a publik house keeper of Elton was riding in at our Benefield town end, he fell from his horse by which accident he was so inwardly bruised that he was rendered quite senseless and was took to Ye Cross Keys and put to bed, where he lay just as they laid him till about 11 o’clock that night and then expired without any seeming pain. (Clark, 1992)

Elizabeth was 43 years old, a widow with five children ... and pregnant.

When I first realised Elizabeth's situation, I felt incredibly sorry for her.  It is 1778 and England is struggling with poverty and petty crime. Life is hard. Forget about the rights of women. Options were very limited, especially for widows with young children. Elizabeth may have had support from her eldest two sons: Thomas was 19 and Joseph was 15. The other children were 10 year old John, 8 year old Jane and 4 year old James. Fortunately Elizabeth had an option to provide for herself. She took over her husband's publican licence and kept running the ‘Black Horse’ Inn! More information about the ‘Black Horse’ will need to be in a separate entry, because the establishment deserves it! And my examination of the Black Horse Inn needs to look at women publicans. There is a long history of women publicans around the world: I need to do more research about how Elizabeth would have been regarded by her community in 1778 (denigrated or respected?? Opinions on women publicans change over time!).

Following Thomas Wolley's death, the next entry in the Elton parish register reads: "1778 Sarah the daughter of Elizabeth the widow of Thomas Woolley baptised 1 August."

Elizabeth was the local publican for the rest of her life.  Over time, some of her children married and she became a grandmother.  Elizabeth died and was buried in Elton in April 1803 at the age of 68. An interesting woman! I'm looking forward to having lunch or dinner at the Black Horse Inn, Elton. 

I'm excited about wandering around the village at the houses that Alan Clark so beautifully describes in his book called "Elton: A history of its Lost and Ancient Buildings: With some notes on their occupants." I think there are about six places where I know my ancestors lived because of Alan Clark's book!

[Relationship to SNR = Great-great-great-great-great-great-grandmother]

 

Elizabeth Drown (1807 - 1867) and William Jackman (1799 - 1852)

Elizabeth Drown was born in 1807 in Brentnor, Devon, England. She was baptised by her parents, John and Mary, on Sunday 25 January 1807 at the Brentnor Parish Church. John was a blacksmith and the family lived at Staghead just on the outskirts of Brentnor – a house that exists over 200 years later. She was the fifth of ten children the couple baptised at the Church. Brentnor is located at the western end of Dartmoor National Park.

Sometime before 1832 she married, or cohabitated with, William Jackman. William was born in about 1799 in Lifton, Devon, and during their time together worked as a farmer, innkeeper, and schoolmaster. A record of marriage has not been located, but given they were both born in different villages and then lived in a third location, that is understandable.

William’s birth town of Lifton is situated 12 kilometres west of Brentnor, near the confluence of the rivers Wolf and Lyd, and very close to the border between Devon and Cornwall. The village was one of the first in the west of Devon to be founded by the Saxons, and was of strategic importance because of its location on a major route close to the border with Cornwall. Agriculture and mining supported the economy, possibly explaining William’s initial occupation.

At the 1841 Census the family consisted of Elizabeth, William and their four daughters: Priscilla (born in 1832 when Elizabeth was 25 years old), Elizabeth (1835), Mary (1837) and Grace (1839), and they lived at Lamerton, Devon. Lamerton is situated between Brentnor and Lifton. The couple had a further four daughters: Sibella (born 1842), Ann (1844), Jane (born 1846, died 1848) and Jane (born in 1848 when Elizabeth was 41). Between 1944 and 1846 the family moved from Lamerton to Calstock, Cornwall. Calstock is ten kilometres south of Lamerton and sits on the border of Cornwall and Devon. The village is gorgeous. It is on the River Tamar and many of the old white houses appear to cling to the banks of the river. At the time they moved Calstock was an important port for the industrial and mining activity.

In March 1852 William died in Calstock, at the age of 53, and his daughters ranged in age from 20 to 4 years. He was buried on 31 Mar 1852 in the Churchyard at Calstock. At this stage the family were living at 4 Fore Street, in the centre of Calstock. The following year the first of Elizabeths daughters married: Elizabeth (junior) married a Calstock native, and three months later, in August, William Jackman Williams was born in Calstock - the first of Elizabeth's grandchildren. In 1855 Priscilla was the second daughter to marry, and she was the only child to marry a man who was not born in Devon.

Elizabeth died in Calstock, in Apr 1867, at the age of 60, and was buried on 22 Apr 1867. At this time, six of her seven daughters were married and she had twelve grandchildren.

There are a number of old family documents that have survived about the family. Elizabeth’s seven surviving daughters were very close and shared letters and photographs with each other throughout their lives.

One wonders what Elizabeth and William thought about having only daughters, especially at that time, but the women themselves appear to have loved saying they were “one of seven/eight girls.” Only one branch of the family stayed in Calstock. The other children moved to various parts of England, with Jane, the youngest, moving to Australia. In 1882 two of Elizabeth’s grandchildren married each other in London: Alfred (son of Priscilla) and Maria (daughter of Sibella). Various members of the Joyce family (Jane’s descendants) have visited Calstock to take photos next to the family home in Fore Street.

4 Fore St, Calstock at various times...

Honiton Lace Veil

In 1993 my fiancée’s mother invited me to use a lace veil – which had been used by members of her family since 1866 – as part of my wedding outfit. I had not planned to use a veil, but I realised wearing this veil linked me to my new family: I became part of the veil’s story. Below I examine the features and sub-texts of the lace veil.

Lace is “a decorative openwork fabric in which the pattern of spaces is as important as the solid areas,”[1] and has been made since at least the sixteenth century using thread. Until the development of lace making machinery in the late eighteenth century all lace was handmade. The family lace veil was created in the mid nineteenth century using handmade bobbin part lace from cotton thread appliqued to machine made net. The veil is unique: no other garment would have the part lace pieces made or appliqued in exactly the same way. The veil is 185cm by 175cm in size, the piecework is intricate, the colour has matured from white to ivory, and the veil is lightweight and soft to touch.

Photo of Family Veil

The veil has been used on at least sixteen occasions, over six generations from 1866 to 2015. The names of women who are known to have used the veil over 149 years are listed below.

List of women who are known to have worn the lace veil

Year	Gen	Name – the owner of the veil also indicated.	Direct (D)/ Marrying a Direct/ Friend
1866	1	Isabella Dixson (Owner)	D
1890	2	Isabella Hibberd	D
1893	2	Helen Hibberd  (Owner)	D
1916	3	Helen Barbour	D
1923	3	Eva Barbour	D
1926	3	Gwenyth Harry (owner)	D
1934	3	Freda Barbour	D
1952	4	Joy Crofts	D
1956	4	Ruth Crofts (Owner)	D
1979	5	Linda Taylor	Marrying
1983	5	Pamela Kinnear	Marrying
1985	5	Meryl Joyce (Owner)	D
1986?	5	Joanne Maples	Friend
1993	5	Rebecca Hilton	Marrying
2014	6	Rosemary Devereaux	D
2015	6	Amy Devereaux	D

Unfortunately this list is not conclusive. There may have been other occasions on which the veil was used, particularly by Isabella Dixson’s new sisters-in-law or others in the late nineteenth century. The veil has also travelled widely, being used in Sydney, Brisbane, Mymensingh in India, Perth and Canberra, plus being kept by Helen Harry (nee Hibberd) in New Zealand for many years.

Ownership of the veil is vested in the eldest daughter of the eldest daughter, connecting the past to the present, and also connecting the people who wear it. Thus it is unique not just in design, but also in its own story.

Family folklore is that the veil is a piece of Honiton Lace, but this would be difficult to categorically authenticate without analysis of the thread. Textile specialists can easily identify the technique used for lace making, but it is hard to determine the location or year in which lace was made. Lace makers at the Powerhouse Lace Study Centre confirmed that the technique for this lace was handmade bobbin part lace, which is a feature of Honiton Lace.[2]

Honiton Lace has been produced in East Devon in England since at least the late sixteenth century. It is probable Flemish refugees brought lace-making skills to the area, as there are similarities between Honiton Lace and other Flemish laces. By the seventeenth century lace was a major industry of East Devon. The lace is made by pieces that were either laced together or mounted onto net grounding (before lace-making machines the net grounding also was handmade). The pieces are made using bobbins: four bobbins create a simple edging, but an intricate spray of leaves requires up to 32 bobbins. Lacemaking is a complex and time-consuming process, even for people with years of experience.

The Honiton Lace trade was waning in the early nineteenth century, mainly because lace-making machines were introduced, making lace cheaper and faster to produce. The first lace-making factory in East Devon opened in 1810, and by 1822 employed 1500 people. Honiton Lace survived the introduction of machine lace because it was piecework and able to be mounted onto machine-made net: the value added to the grounding by handmade piecework was significant. Demand for Honiton Lace increased significantly from 1840 when Queen Victoria’s wedding outfit used Honiton Lace for the flounce and veil. Local materials were used with the aim of promoting English industry to the wider world. The revival in the lace industry lasted into the early twentieth century and while Honiton Lace can be purchased in the twenty-first century, it is predominantly made as a leisure activity.

Leora Auslander wrote that: “objects not only are the product of history, they are also active agents in history,”[3] and the veil has three important sub-texts besides being a lace veil valued by a family. The veil: is part of a wedding tradition; is a product made for women by women; and was imported into Australia from England.

Firstly, when Queen Victoria married in a white dress, she did more than revive the lace industry; she impacted the way weddings were conceived and conducted, and she popularised the white wedding. A white wedding had connotations regarding moral and social value of marriage, particularly for the woman, who was expected to be respectable and well behaved. There were other changes taking place during the nineteenth century. People were more likely to marry for mutual attraction and emotional bonds; marketing of the wedding ceremony started taking place – engagement rings went from an option to the norm, people gave gifts to the newlyweds – and the social aspects changed, the wedding service went from being a communal event held on Sunday, to a service held privately with the isolated family group. The clothing worn by the bride and groom also changed. Prior to the mid nineteenth century, brides and grooms wore their ‘best’ outfit. After Queen Victoria’s wedding most brides continued to wear their best dress, which was not necessarily white, but would wear a white veil. It was the veil that set the bride apart from the rest of the attendees, and so it became an important symbol. Only the wealthy could afford a white wedding, and so white weddings became an aspiration of the growing middle class. By the turn of the twentieth century, dresses also were white, and the white wedding was entrenched.

Secondly, the veil is a product made by women for women. Honiton Lace originated as a cottage industry, but quickly developed a manufacturing hierarchy, with merchants at the top, employing designers, lace makers and finishers. The wages were low – less than a farm labourer – and so lacemaking became a job for women working in their homes. In the early nineteenth century at least one merchant paid employees via tokens, which could only be used in the general stores owned by the merchant, further diminishing the value of the wage.[4] The lace was expensive, and so lace makers could not afford to wear the lace. Wealthy women exploited working class women in the name of fashion, a theme that runs through the history of the fashion industry.

Thirdly, the veil was made in England and imported to Australia in the mid nineteenth century. The veil may have been purchased in late 1865 at David Jones, a large draper's shop that would become an important department store, who were advertising wedding outfits which had been “imported ex mail steamer Strathdon and Walter Hood… [including] a beautiful collection of ... veils in Honiton.”[5] Notwithstanding the possibility of this being the place of purchase for this veil, the advertisement demonstrated how Australia followed European tradition and sought to replicate English values.

Unfortunately, the veil cannot tell its own story. It is not able to record details, so even its origins are not confirmed, although details of users can be constructed to a certain point. The fact that the veil has been kept for 150 years shows its importance to the family. There are other veils from the same period that have been retained, but this veil could never be replaced.

Endnotes

---

[1] Rosemary Shepherd, Lace Classification System (Sydney: Powerhouse Museum, 2003) 2.

[2] The Powerhouse Lace Study Centre was consulted about the lace on 17 January 2015. Volunteers staff the Centre and they are not textile specialists but have an interest in the historical pieces held by the Centre. While earlier newspaper articles described it as Brussels or Limerick Lace, it is assumed that the oral tradition about the veil is correct and the veil represents Honiton Lace.

[3] Leora Auslander, “Beyond Words,” The American Historical Review, Vol. 110, No.4 (October 2005) 1015-1045. DOI: 10.1086/ahr.110.4.1015.

[4] Pamela M. Inder, Honiton Lace (Exeter: Exeter Museums Publications, 1977) 8.

[5] "Advertising." The Sydney Morning Herald (NSW : 1842 - 1954) 9 Dec 1865: 9. Web. 26 Sep 2015 <http://nla.gov.au/nla.news-article13122954>.

Beaford, Devon

Ian’s family has an interesting connection to Beaford. I would almost call it ‘strong’ but no one in his direct family has lived there since Catherine and John Heard (John Heard died there on 26 August 1859, unfortunately I can’t find a record for Catherine).  However, both Catherine (nee Folland) and John Heard had family connections going back for generations. I have transcribed all of the baptisms in Beaford parish church from 1729 to 1837, and the surnames of Folland and Heard are the two most common surnames in the register. From 1729 to 1808, of the approximate 1000 baptisms, with over 250 different surnames, 52 were for infants with the surname Folland and 56 were for infants with the surname Heard. I have established a relationship to either Catherine or John’s family for almost all of these entries. I’ve put a list below for interest of the most common names in Beaford.

The family was in Beaford prior to 1729. I possess the earlier Beaford records, from 1653 to 1729, but they are much more difficult to read, and because they had already been transcribed and put onto FamilySearch, I did not “re-transcribe,” although I often refer to them. On the first page of these records is the baptism of Alice Malles in 1653, who subsequently married George Heard in Beaford in 1679, and it is from this couple that I can trace most of the other entries for the surname Heard in Beaford.

Beaford Baptism Records from 1729 to 1807 (1000 entries)

Most common names: 24 names represent just over half (507) of the entries

Heard – 56

Folland – 52

Dyment (or variations) – 42

Bright – 39

Snell – 34

Marshall – 29

Johns – 27

Webber – 22

Handford – 19

Ashplant – 18

Ashton – 18

Pincombe – 14

Mill – 13

Moore – 13

Vodden – 13

Lock – 12

Saunders – 12

Squance – 12

Cole – 11

Dunn – 11

Baker – 10

Burd – 10

Jury – 10

Spicer – 10

I must admit that the connection has always made me interested in finding out much more about Beaford itself, and so I have collected information over the years regarding the town itself. That can be the subject of another blog!