Kinship and the neighborhood in nineteenth-century rural England: The myth of the autonomous nuclear family

Journal of Family History

Volumn 21, Issue 1, 1996, Pages 87-104

  Reay, Barry ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0029692924     PISSN: 03631990     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/036319909602100106     Document Type: Article

References (103)

1. 1. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
2. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
3. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
4. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
5. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
6. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
7. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
8. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
9. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
10. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
11. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
12. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
13. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
14. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
15. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
16. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
17. I think particularly of Peter Laslett, The World We Have Lost (London: Methuen, 1965); idem, The World We Have Lost - Further Explored (London: Methuen, 1983); Peter Laslett and Richard Wall, eds., Household and Family in Past Time (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1972); Richard Wall, Jean Robin, and Peter Laslett, eds., Family Forms in Historic Europe (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1983); Alan Macfarlane, The Origins of English Individualism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1978); Alan Macfarlane, The Culture of Capitalism (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1987); J. E. Goldthorpe, Family Life in Western Societies: A Historical Sociology of Family Relationships in Britain and North America (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987). The quotation comes from Goldthorpe, Family Life, 6. As with much of this type of social history, the early modern period dominates the historiography. It should be noted that I refer to influence rather than consensus, for there is disagreement among the early modernists: see Miranda Chaytor, "Household and Kinship: Ryton in the Late 16th and Early 17th Centuries," History Workshop 10 (1980): 25-60; Keith Wrightson, "Household and Kinship in Sixteenth-Century England," History Workshop 12 (1981): 151-8; Olivia Harris, "Households and Their Boundaries," History Workshop 13 (1982): 143-52; Rab Houston and Richard M. Smith, "A New Approach to Family History?" History Workshop 14(1982): 120-31; Ralph A. Houlbrooke, The English Family 1450-1700 (London: Longman, 1984), chap. 3; David Cressy, "Kinship and Kin Interaction in Early Modern England," Past and Present 113 (1986): 38-69; Diana O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends': Aspects of Marriage in the Diocese of Canterbury, c. 1540-1570," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 9-41; Anne Mitson, "The Significance of Kinship Networks in the Seventeenth Century: South-West Nottinghamshire," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, 1580-1850, ed. Charles Phythian-Adams (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1993), chap. 2. For a critique of the "immutable English family" from a medieval perspective, see Zvi Razi, "The Myth of the Immutable English Family," Past and Present 140 (1993): 3-44.
18. 2. Macfarlane, Culture of Capitalism, 145-6, 151. See also Goldthorpe, Family Life, 9, 33; this text of historical sociology is a prime example of the permeation of the "autonomous nuclear family household" thesis.
19. Macfarlane, Culture of Capitalism, 145-6, 151. See also Goldthorpe, Family Life, 9, 33; this text of historical sociology is a prime example of the permeation of the "autonomous nuclear family household" thesis.
20. 3. For criticisms, see Chaytor, "Household and Kinship"; Giovanni Levi, "Family and Kin - a Few Thoughts," Journal of Family History 15 (1990): 567-78; David I. Kertzer, "Household History and Sociological Theory," Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 155-79; O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends.' " For some examples of research "beyond the household" for the nineteenth century, see Kertzer's "Kinsmen beyond the Household," in Family Life in Central Italy, 1880-1910 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Kertzer, Dennis P. Hogan, and Nancy Karweit, "Kinship beyond the Household in a Nineteenth-Century Italian Town," Continuity and Change 7 (1992): 103-21. See also the important article by Charles Wetherell, Andrejs Plakans, and Barry Wellman, "Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24 (1994): 639-63.
21. For criticisms, see Chaytor, "Household and Kinship"; Giovanni Levi, "Family and Kin - a Few Thoughts," Journal of Family History 15 (1990): 567-78; David I. Kertzer, "Household History and Sociological Theory," Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 155-79; O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends.' " For some examples of research "beyond the household" for the nineteenth century, see Kertzer's "Kinsmen beyond the Household," in Family Life in Central Italy, 1880-1910 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Kertzer, Dennis P. Hogan, and Nancy Karweit, "Kinship beyond the Household in a Nineteenth-Century Italian Town," Continuity and Change 7 (1992): 103-21. See also the important article by Charles Wetherell, Andrejs Plakans, and Barry Wellman, "Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24 (1994): 639-63.
22. For criticisms, see Chaytor, "Household and Kinship"; Giovanni Levi, "Family and Kin - a Few Thoughts," Journal of Family History 15 (1990): 567-78; David I. Kertzer, "Household History and Sociological Theory," Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 155-79; O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends.' " For some examples of research "beyond the household" for the nineteenth century, see Kertzer's "Kinsmen beyond the Household," in Family Life in Central Italy, 1880-1910 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Kertzer, Dennis P. Hogan, and Nancy Karweit, "Kinship beyond the Household in a Nineteenth-Century Italian Town," Continuity and Change 7 (1992): 103-21. See also the important article by Charles Wetherell, Andrejs Plakans, and Barry Wellman, "Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24 (1994): 639-63.
23. For criticisms, see Chaytor, "Household and Kinship"; Giovanni Levi, "Family and Kin - a Few Thoughts," Journal of Family History 15 (1990): 567-78; David I. Kertzer, "Household History and Sociological Theory," Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 155-79; O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends.' " For some examples of research "beyond the household" for the nineteenth century, see Kertzer's "Kinsmen beyond the Household," in Family Life in Central Italy, 1880-1910 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Kertzer, Dennis P. Hogan, and Nancy Karweit, "Kinship beyond the Household in a Nineteenth-Century Italian Town," Continuity and Change 7 (1992): 103-21. See also the important article by Charles Wetherell, Andrejs Plakans, and Barry Wellman, "Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24 (1994): 639-63.
24. For criticisms, see Chaytor, "Household and Kinship"; Giovanni Levi, "Family and Kin - a Few Thoughts," Journal of Family History 15 (1990): 567-78; David I. Kertzer, "Household History and Sociological Theory," Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 155-79; O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends.' " For some examples of research "beyond the household" for the nineteenth century, see Kertzer's "Kinsmen beyond the Household," in Family Life in Central Italy, 1880-1910 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Kertzer, Dennis P. Hogan, and Nancy Karweit, "Kinship beyond the Household in a Nineteenth-Century Italian Town," Continuity and Change 7 (1992): 103-21. See also the important article by Charles Wetherell, Andrejs Plakans, and Barry Wellman, "Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24 (1994): 639-63.
25. For criticisms, see Chaytor, "Household and Kinship"; Giovanni Levi, "Family and Kin - a Few Thoughts," Journal of Family History 15 (1990): 567-78; David I. Kertzer, "Household History and Sociological Theory," Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 155-79; O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends.' " For some examples of research "beyond the household" for the nineteenth century, see Kertzer's "Kinsmen beyond the Household," in Family Life in Central Italy, 1880-1910 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Kertzer, Dennis P. Hogan, and Nancy Karweit, "Kinship beyond the Household in a Nineteenth-Century Italian Town," Continuity and Change 7 (1992): 103-21. See also the important article by Charles Wetherell, Andrejs Plakans, and Barry Wellman, "Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24 (1994): 639-63.
26. For criticisms, see Chaytor, "Household and Kinship"; Giovanni Levi, "Family and Kin - a Few Thoughts," Journal of Family History 15 (1990): 567-78; David I. Kertzer, "Household History and Sociological Theory," Annual Review of Sociology 17 (1991): 155-79; O'Hara, " 'Ruled by My Friends.' " For some examples of research "beyond the household" for the nineteenth century, see Kertzer's "Kinsmen beyond the Household," in Family Life in Central Italy, 1880-1910 (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1984); Kertzer, Dennis P. Hogan, and Nancy Karweit, "Kinship beyond the Household in a Nineteenth-Century Italian Town," Continuity and Change 7 (1992): 103-21. See also the important article by Charles Wetherell, Andrejs Plakans, and Barry Wellman, "Social Networks, Kinship, and Community in Eastern Europe," Journal of Interdisciplinary History 24 (1994): 639-63.
27. Peter Laslett, "Family, Kinship and Collectivity as Systems of Support in Pre-Industrial Europe: A Consideration of the 'Nuclear-Hardship' Hypothesis," Continuity and Change 3 (1988): 160.
28. 5. For example, Richard M. Smith, "Fertility, Economy, and Household Formation in England over Three Centuries," Population and Development Review 7 (1981): 595-622; David Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," in The World We Have Gained, ed. Lloyd Bonfield, Richard M. Smith, and Keith Wrightson (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1986). I discuss this issue and provide further references later in the article.
29. For example, Richard M. Smith, "Fertility, Economy, and Household Formation in England over Three Centuries," Population and Development Review 7 (1981): 595-622; David Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," in The World We Have Gained, ed. Lloyd Bonfield, Richard M. Smith, and Keith Wrightson (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1986). I discuss this issue and provide further references later in the article.
30. 6. For family reconstitution, see E. A. Wrigley, "Family Reconstitution," in An Introduction to English Historical Demography, ed. E. A. Wrigley (New York: Basic Books, 1966). For total reconstitution, see Alan Macfarlane, Sarah Harrison, and Charles Jardine, Reconstructing Historical Communities (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Pamela Sharpe, "The Total Reconstitution Method: A Tool for Class-Specific Study," Local Population Studies 44 (1990): 41-51. For a more detailed account of the three Kent communities, see my forthcoming book Microhistories: Demography, Society, and Culture in Rural England, 1800-1930 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
31. For family reconstitution, see E. A. Wrigley, "Family Reconstitution," in An Introduction to English Historical Demography, ed. E. A. Wrigley (New York: Basic Books, 1966). For total reconstitution, see Alan Macfarlane, Sarah Harrison, and Charles Jardine, Reconstructing Historical Communities (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Pamela Sharpe, "The Total Reconstitution Method: A Tool for Class-Specific Study," Local Population Studies 44 (1990): 41-51. For a more detailed account of the three Kent communities, see my forthcoming book Microhistories: Demography, Society, and Culture in Rural England, 1800-1930 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
32. For family reconstitution, see E. A. Wrigley, "Family Reconstitution," in An Introduction to English Historical Demography, ed. E. A. Wrigley (New York: Basic Books, 1966). For total reconstitution, see Alan Macfarlane, Sarah Harrison, and Charles Jardine, Reconstructing Historical Communities (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Pamela Sharpe, "The Total Reconstitution Method: A Tool for Class-Specific Study," Local Population Studies 44 (1990): 41-51. For a more detailed account of the three Kent communities, see my forthcoming book Microhistories: Demography, Society, and Culture in Rural England, 1800-1930 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
33. For family reconstitution, see E. A. Wrigley, "Family Reconstitution," in An Introduction to English Historical Demography, ed. E. A. Wrigley (New York: Basic Books, 1966). For total reconstitution, see Alan Macfarlane, Sarah Harrison, and Charles Jardine, Reconstructing Historical Communities (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977); Pamela Sharpe, "The Total Reconstitution Method: A Tool for Class-Specific Study," Local Population Studies 44 (1990): 41-51. For a more detailed account of the three Kent communities, see my forthcoming book Microhistories: Demography, Society, and Culture in Rural England, 1800-1930 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press).
34. David Warren Sabean, Property, Production, and Family in Neckarhausen, 1700-1870 (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 10.
35. Based on linking the census household listings for 1841 with those for 1851, and correlating them with the registers of burials.
36. Peter Laslett, Family Life and Illicit Love in Earlier Generations (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 50-101.
37. Richard Wall, "The Household: Demographic and Economic Change in England, 1650-1970," in Family Forms, ed. Wall, Robin, and Laslett, 509, Table 16.5. My figures show lower percentages for the laboring population than do Wall's (they are more in keeping with his figures for 1750-1821 than for 1851), but my percentages for the trades and crafts are higher. Our figures for complex farming households, however, are almost identical.
38. Harold Kay, b. 1921, "Hernhill Oral History," interviews by author conducted on May 21, 1991, and August 17, 1992.
39. 12. See Luc Danhieux, "The Evolving Household: The Case of Lampernisse, West Flanders," in Family Forms, ed. Wall, Robin, and Laslett; A. Janssens, "Industrialization without Family Change? The Extended Family and the Life Cycle in a Dutch Industrial Town, 1880-1920," Journal of Family History 11 (1986): 25-42. See also the helpful comments of Tamara K. Hareven regarding the "life-cycle" and "life-course" approaches, in "The History of the Family and the Complexity of Social Change," American Historical Review 96 (1991): 104-8.
40. See Luc Danhieux, "The Evolving Household: The Case of Lampernisse, West Flanders," in Family Forms, ed. Wall, Robin, and Laslett; A. Janssens, "Industrialization without Family Change? The Extended Family and the Life Cycle in a Dutch Industrial Town, 1880-1920," Journal of Family History 11 (1986): 25-42. See also the helpful comments of Tamara K. Hareven regarding the "life-cycle" and "life-course" approaches, in "The History of the Family and the Complexity of Social Change," American Historical Review 96 (1991): 104-8.
41. See Luc Danhieux, "The Evolving Household: The Case of Lampernisse, West Flanders," in Family Forms, ed. Wall, Robin, and Laslett; A. Janssens, "Industrialization without Family Change? The Extended Family and the Life Cycle in a Dutch Industrial Town, 1880-1920," Journal of Family History 11 (1986): 25-42. See also the helpful comments of Tamara K. Hareven regarding the "life-cycle" and "life-course" approaches, in "The History of the Family and the Complexity of Social Change," American Historical Review 96 (1991): 104-8.
42. Unless otherwise stated, the information relating to the censuses comes from the Census Enumerators' Books (1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891) for the parishes of Hernhill, Boughton-under-Blean, and Dunkirk: Public Record Office (hereafter PRO), HO 107/466/5; HO 107/471/11; HO 107/473/12; HO 107/1626; RG 9/525; RG 10/976-7; RG 11/966-7; RG 12/712.
43. Hans Medick, "The Proto-Industrial Family Economy: The Structural Function of Household and Family during the Transition from Peasant Society to Industrial Capitalism," Social History 3 (1976): 295.
44. Centre for Kentish Studies, Maidstone (hereafter CKS), PRC 32/70/479, Will of Edward Curling, 1841. The rest of the information comes from the census and family reconstitution.
45. Cressy, "Kinship," 41.
46. More important even than Steven Ruggles has suggested in Prolonged Connections: The Rise of the Extended Family in Nineteenth-Century England and America (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1987). My laboring figures do not support his argument about the social complexion of the shift to the extended family.
47. Levi, "Family and Kin," 567.
48. 19. Keith Wrightson, "Kinship in an English Village: Terling, Essex 1500-1700," in Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle, ed. Richard M. Smith (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984). The article was written by Wrightson but drew on family reconstitution from the book by Wrightson and David Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525-1700 (London: Academic Press, 1979).
49. Keith Wrightson, "Kinship in an English Village: Terling, Essex 1500-1700," in Land, Kinship and Life-Cycle, ed. Richard M. Smith (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1984). The article was written by Wrightson but drew on family reconstitution from the book by Wrightson and David Levine, Poverty and Piety in an English Village: Terling, 1525-1700 (London: Academic Press, 1979).
50. The Terling figures come from Wrightson, "Kinship," 317-20.
51. 21. Charles Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1987), 41. See also Phythian-Adams, ed., Societies, Cultures and Kinship.
52. Charles Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History (Leicester, UK: Leicester University Press, 1987), 41. See also Phythian-Adams, ed., Societies, Cultures and Kinship.
53. John R. Gillis, For Better, For Worse: British Marriages, 1600 to the Present (New York: Oxford University Press, 1985), 116-7.
54. A. M. Everitt, Transformation and Tradition: Aspects of the Victorian Countryside (Norwich, UK: University of East Anglia, 1984), 10-1.
55. Ibid., 27.
56. Wrightson, "Kinship," 316.
57. See 97, 98-9.
58. Nancy Grey Osterud, Bonds of Community: The Lives of Farm Women in Nineteenth-Century New York (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1991), esp. chap. 2: "The power of kinship."
59. Harold Kay, b. 1921, "Hernhill Oral History."
60. Albert Packman, b. 1892, "Oral History Project: Life in Kent before 1914," interviews conducted November 20, 1975; November 27, 1975; and January 8, 1976; Templeman Library, University of Kent.
61. Cressy, "Kinship," 69.
62. Faversham Mercury, May 18, 1861.
63. CKS, PS/US 7, Upper Division of the Lathe of Scray Settlement Examinations 1812-16, 208.
64. Faversham Mercury, January 5, 1878.
65. CKS, PS/US 11, Upper Division of the Lathe of Scray Petty Sessions 1864-86, August 12, 1865.
66. Faversham Mercury, August 24, 1861.
67. Faversham Mercury, May 18, 1878.
68. 37. In a series of brilliant articles. The best summaries of his research are to be found in Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," and Thomson, "The Welfare of the Elderly in the Past: A Family or Community Responsibility?" in Life, Death, and the Elderly: Historical Perspectives, ed. Margaret Pelling and Richard M. Smith (London: Routledge, 1991). The quotation comes from Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," 358.
69. In a series of brilliant articles. The best summaries of his research are to be found in Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," and Thomson, "The Welfare of the Elderly in the Past: A Family or Community Responsibility?" in Life, Death, and the Elderly: Historical Perspectives, ed. Margaret Pelling and Richard M. Smith (London: Routledge, 1991). The quotation comes from Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," 358.
70. In a series of brilliant articles. The best summaries of his research are to be found in Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," and Thomson, "The Welfare of the Elderly in the Past: A Family or Community Responsibility?" in Life, Death, and the Elderly: Historical Perspectives, ed. Margaret Pelling and Richard M. Smith (London: Routledge, 1991). The quotation comes from Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," 358.
71. The figures are for men and women of sixty-five years and over living in Boughton, Dunkirk, and Hernhill for the censuses of 1851 and 1881. Each census was treated separately, as were males and females and widowed and married. The totals are for the combined parishes.
72. Calculated from CKS, G/FRA 12-14, Faversham Union Relieving Officer's Application and Report Books 1859-61.
73. I have followed them through successive censuses and checked them against the reconstitutions and the parish registers.
74. Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," 364. The work of Jean Robin also sits uncomfortably with Thomson's interpretation. She traced (for the Devonshire parish of Colyton) a cohort of men and women aged fifty to fifty-nine through successive censuses from 1851 to 1871, concluding that "children, and particularly daughters, played a considerable part in caring for their elderly parents": 56 percent of the cohort still in Colyton in 1871, and by then in their seventies, were living with their children. See Jean Robin, "Family Care of the Elderly in a Nineteenth-Century Devonshire Parish," Ageing and Society 4 (1984): 505-16.
75. John Mack Faragher, "Open-Country Community: Sugar Creek, Illinois, 1820-1850," in The Countryside in the Age of Capitalist Transformation, ed. Steven Hahn and Jonathan Prude (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1985), 251.
76. Leonard Austin, b. 1902, "Life in Kent," interviews conducted June 12, 1975; July 3, 1975; August 11, 1975; and September 25, 1975.
77. 44. Smith, "Fertility," 606. See also Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," and "Welfare of the Elderly."
78. Smith, "Fertility," 606. See also Thomson, "Welfare and the Historians," and "Welfare of the Elderly."
79. 45. Smith, "Fertility," 608; Richard M. Smith, "Transfer Incomes, Risk and Security: The Roles of the Family and the Collectivity in Recent Theories of Fertility Change," in The State of Population Theory, ed. David Coleman and Roger S. Schofield (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1986), p. 200. See also idem "The Structured Dependence of the Elderly as a Recent Development: Some Sceptical Historical Thoughts," Ageing and Society 4 (1984): 409-28.
80. Smith, "Fertility," 608; Richard M. Smith, "Transfer Incomes, Risk and Security: The Roles of the Family and the Collectivity in Recent Theories of Fertility Change," in The State of Population Theory, ed. David Coleman and Roger S. Schofield (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1986), p. 200. See also idem "The Structured Dependence of the Elderly as a Recent Development: Some Sceptical Historical Thoughts," Ageing and Society 4 (1984): 409-28.
81. Smith, "Fertility," 608; Richard M. Smith, "Transfer Incomes, Risk and Security: The Roles of the Family and the Collectivity in Recent Theories of Fertility Change," in The State of Population Theory, ed. David Coleman and Roger S. Schofield (Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1986), p. 200. See also idem "The Structured Dependence of the Elderly as a Recent Development: Some Sceptical Historical Thoughts," Ageing and Society 4 (1984): 409-28.
82. Laslett, "Family, Kinship and Collectivity," 137, abstract.
83. 47. Laslett, "Family, Kinship and Collectivity," 161-3; John Bongaarts, Thomas K. Burch, and Kenneth Wachter, eds., Family Demography, Methods and Their Applications (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987).
84. Laslett, "Family, Kinship and Collectivity," 161-3; John Bongaarts, Thomas K. Burch, and Kenneth Wachter, eds., Family Demography, Methods and Their Applications (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1987).
85. Martine Segalen, "Nuclear Is Not Independent: Organization of the Household in the Pays Bigouden Sud in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries," in Households: Comparative and Historical Studies of the Domestic Group, ed. Robert McC. Netting, Richard R. Wilk, and Eric J. Arnould (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984), 172.
86. English historians would do well to read an important article by Gerard Bouchard, "Mobile Populations, Stable Communities: Social and Demographic Processes in the Rural Parishes of the Saguenay, 1840-1911," Continuity and Change 6 (1991): 59-86.
87. 50. It should be said that Richard Smith pulls back from such an interpretation in a more recent discussion: Polling and Smith, introduction to Life, Death, and the Elderly, ed. Pelling and Smith, esp. 12-7. For an interesting and nuanced study of the roles of family and state in support for the elderly in the twentieth century (which stresses the role of the state but does not rule out kinship), see Chris Gordon, "Familial Support for the Elderly in the Past: The Case of London's Working Class in the Early 1930s," Ageing and Society 8 (1988): 287-320.
88. It should be said that Richard Smith pulls back from such an interpretation in a more recent discussion: Polling and Smith, introduction to Life, Death, and the Elderly, ed. Pelling and Smith, esp. 12-7. For an interesting and nuanced study of the roles of family and state in support for the elderly in the twentieth century (which stresses the role of the state but does not rule out kinship), see Chris Gordon, "Familial Support for the Elderly in the Past: The Case of London's Working Class in the Early 1930s," Ageing and Society 8 (1988): 287-320.
89. 51. This kind of interaction comes through strongly (in an urban context) in P. Mandler, ed., The Uses of Charity: The Poor on Relief in the Nineteenth-Century Metropolis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), particularly in the chapters by Mandler, Lynn Hollen Lees, and Ellen Ross. See also the discussions in Jill Quadagno, "Household and Kin," in Aging in Early Industrial Society: Work, Family, and Social Policy in Nineteenth-Century England (New York: Academic Press, 1982); Richard Wall, "Relationships between the Generations in British Families Past and Present," in Families and Households: Divisions and Change, ed. Catherine Marsh and Sara Arber (London: Macmillan, 1992); and Sonya O. Rose, "Widowhood and Poverty in Nineteenth-Century Nottinghamshire," in Poor Women and Children in the European Past, ed. John Henderson and Richard Wall (London: Routledge, 1994).
90. This kind of interaction comes through strongly (in an urban context) in P. Mandler, ed., The Uses of Charity: The Poor on Relief in the Nineteenth-Century Metropolis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), particularly in the chapters by Mandler, Lynn Hollen Lees, and Ellen Ross. See also the discussions in Jill Quadagno, "Household and Kin," in Aging in Early Industrial Society: Work, Family, and Social Policy in Nineteenth-Century England (New York: Academic Press, 1982); Richard Wall, "Relationships between the Generations in British Families Past and Present," in Families and Households: Divisions and Change, ed. Catherine Marsh and Sara Arber (London: Macmillan, 1992); and Sonya O. Rose, "Widowhood and Poverty in Nineteenth-Century Nottinghamshire," in Poor Women and Children in the European Past, ed. John Henderson and Richard Wall (London: Routledge, 1994).
91. This kind of interaction comes through strongly (in an urban context) in P. Mandler, ed., The Uses of Charity: The Poor on Relief in the Nineteenth-Century Metropolis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), particularly in the chapters by Mandler, Lynn Hollen Lees, and Ellen Ross. See also the discussions in Jill Quadagno, "Household and Kin," in Aging in Early Industrial Society: Work, Family, and Social Policy in Nineteenth-Century England (New York: Academic Press, 1982); Richard Wall, "Relationships between the Generations in British Families Past and Present," in Families and Households: Divisions and Change, ed. Catherine Marsh and Sara Arber (London: Macmillan, 1992); and Sonya O. Rose, "Widowhood and Poverty in Nineteenth-Century Nottinghamshire," in Poor Women and Children in the European Past, ed. John Henderson and Richard Wall (London: Routledge, 1994).
92. This kind of interaction comes through strongly (in an urban context) in P. Mandler, ed., The Uses of Charity: The Poor on Relief in the Nineteenth-Century Metropolis (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1990), particularly in the chapters by Mandler, Lynn Hollen Lees, and Ellen Ross. See also the discussions in Jill Quadagno, "Household and Kin," in Aging in Early Industrial Society: Work, Family, and Social Policy in Nineteenth-Century England (New York: Academic Press, 1982); Richard Wall, "Relationships between the Generations in British Families Past and Present," in Families and Households: Divisions and Change, ed. Catherine Marsh and Sara Arber (London: Macmillan, 1992); and Sonya O. Rose, "Widowhood and Poverty in Nineteenth-Century Nottinghamshire," in Poor Women and Children in the European Past, ed. John Henderson and Richard Wall (London: Routledge, 1994).
93. Leonard Austin, b. 1902, "Life in Kent," interviews conducted June 12, 1975; July 3, 1975; August 11, 1975; and September 25, 1975.
94. 53. Michael Anderson, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 1-3. For an introduction to twentieth-century kinship, see Martine Segalen, "Kin Relationships in Urban Society," in Historical Anthropology of the Family (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986). For rural kinship, see Marilyn Strathern, "The Place of Kinship: Kin, Class and Village Status in Elmdon, Essex," in Belonging: Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures, ed. Anthony P. Cohen (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1982).
95. Michael Anderson, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 1-3. For an introduction to twentieth-century kinship, see Martine Segalen, "Kin Relationships in Urban Society," in Historical Anthropology of the Family (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986). For rural kinship, see Marilyn Strathern, "The Place of Kinship: Kin, Class and Village Status in Elmdon, Essex," in Belonging: Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures, ed. Anthony P. Cohen (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1982).
96. Michael Anderson, Family Structure in Nineteenth Century Lancashire (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1971), 1-3. For an introduction to twentieth-century kinship, see Martine Segalen, "Kin Relationships in Urban Society," in Historical Anthropology of the Family (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1986). For rural kinship, see Marilyn Strathern, "The Place of Kinship: Kin, Class and Village Status in Elmdon, Essex," in Belonging: Identity and Social Organization in British Rural Cultures, ed. Anthony P. Cohen (Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press, 1982).
97. 54. Apart from this study, see Anderson, Family Structure, including chap. 7 on Ireland and rural Lancashire; David Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1971), chap. 7; Dennis R. Mills, "The Residential Propinquity of Kin in a Cambridgeshire Village, 1841," Journal of Historical Geography 4 (1978): 265-76; Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History, 40-2; David Symes and John Appleton, "Family Goals and Survival Strategies: The Role of Kinship in an English Upland Farming Community," Sociologia Ruralis 26 (1986): 345-63; Evelyn Lord, "Communities of Common Interest: The Social Landscape of South-East Surrey, 1750-1850," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, ed. Phythian-Adams. William M. Williams's famous study, A West Country Village: Ashworthy (London: Routledge, 1963), concluded that kinship in nineteenth-century Ashworthy was "relatively narrow in range and shallow in depth" (p. 144); but Williams was misled by household structure and mobility, and he did not reconstitute his families. Hernhill seems closer to twentieth-century Gosforth, another village studied by Williams; see "Kinship," in The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London: Routledge, 1956).
98. Apart from this study, see Anderson, Family Structure, including chap. 7 on Ireland and rural Lancashire; David Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1971), chap. 7; Dennis R. Mills, "The Residential Propinquity of Kin in a Cambridgeshire Village, 1841," Journal of Historical Geography 4 (1978): 265-76; Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History, 40-2; David Symes and John Appleton, "Family Goals and Survival Strategies: The Role of Kinship in an English Upland Farming Community," Sociologia Ruralis 26 (1986): 345-63; Evelyn Lord, "Communities of Common Interest: The Social Landscape of South-East Surrey, 1750-1850," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, ed. Phythian-Adams. William M. Williams's famous study, A West Country Village: Ashworthy (London: Routledge, 1963), concluded that kinship in nineteenth-century Ashworthy was "relatively narrow in range and shallow in depth" (p. 144); but Williams was misled by household structure and mobility, and he did not reconstitute his families. Hernhill seems closer to twentieth-century Gosforth, another village studied by Williams; see "Kinship," in The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London: Routledge, 1956).
99. Apart from this study, see Anderson, Family Structure, including chap. 7 on Ireland and rural Lancashire; David Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1971), chap. 7; Dennis R. Mills, "The Residential Propinquity of Kin in a Cambridgeshire Village, 1841," Journal of Historical Geography 4 (1978): 265-76; Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History, 40-2; David Symes and John Appleton, "Family Goals and Survival Strategies: The Role of Kinship in an English Upland Farming Community," Sociologia Ruralis 26 (1986): 345-63; Evelyn Lord, "Communities of Common Interest: The Social Landscape of South-East Surrey, 1750-1850," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, ed. Phythian-Adams. William M. Williams's famous study, A West Country Village: Ashworthy (London: Routledge, 1963), concluded that kinship in nineteenth-century Ashworthy was "relatively narrow in range and shallow in depth" (p. 144); but Williams was misled by household structure and mobility, and he did not reconstitute his families. Hernhill seems closer to twentieth-century Gosforth, another village studied by Williams; see "Kinship," in The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London: Routledge, 1956).
100. Apart from this study, see Anderson, Family Structure, including chap. 7 on Ireland and rural Lancashire; David Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1971), chap. 7; Dennis R. Mills, "The Residential Propinquity of Kin in a Cambridgeshire Village, 1841," Journal of Historical Geography 4 (1978): 265-76; Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History, 40-2; David Symes and John Appleton, "Family Goals and Survival Strategies: The Role of Kinship in an English Upland Farming Community," Sociologia Ruralis 26 (1986): 345-63; Evelyn Lord, "Communities of Common Interest: The Social Landscape of South-East Surrey, 1750-1850," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, ed. Phythian-Adams. William M. Williams's famous study, A West Country Village: Ashworthy (London: Routledge, 1963), concluded that kinship in nineteenth-century Ashworthy was "relatively narrow in range and shallow in depth" (p. 144); but Williams was misled by household structure and mobility, and he did not reconstitute his families. Hernhill seems closer to twentieth-century Gosforth, another village studied by Williams; see "Kinship," in The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London: Routledge, 1956).
101. Apart from this study, see Anderson, Family Structure, including chap. 7 on Ireland and rural Lancashire; David Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1971), chap. 7; Dennis R. Mills, "The Residential Propinquity of Kin in a Cambridgeshire Village, 1841," Journal of Historical Geography 4 (1978): 265-76; Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History, 40-2; David Symes and John Appleton, "Family Goals and Survival Strategies: The Role of Kinship in an English Upland Farming Community," Sociologia Ruralis 26 (1986): 345-63; Evelyn Lord, "Communities of Common Interest: The Social Landscape of South-East Surrey, 1750-1850," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, ed. Phythian-Adams. William M. Williams's famous study, A West Country Village: Ashworthy (London: Routledge, 1963), concluded that kinship in nineteenth-century Ashworthy was "relatively narrow in range and shallow in depth" (p. 144); but Williams was misled by household structure and mobility, and he did not reconstitute his families. Hernhill seems closer to twentieth-century Gosforth, another village studied by Williams; see "Kinship," in The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London: Routledge, 1956).
102. Apart from this study, see Anderson, Family Structure, including chap. 7 on Ireland and rural Lancashire; David Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1971), chap. 7; Dennis R. Mills, "The Residential Propinquity of Kin in a Cambridgeshire Village, 1841," Journal of Historical Geography 4 (1978): 265-76; Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History, 40-2; David Symes and John Appleton, "Family Goals and Survival Strategies: The Role of Kinship in an English Upland Farming Community," Sociologia Ruralis 26 (1986): 345-63; Evelyn Lord, "Communities of Common Interest: The Social Landscape of South-East Surrey, 1750-1850," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, ed. Phythian-Adams. William M. Williams's famous study, A West Country Village: Ashworthy (London: Routledge, 1963), concluded that kinship in nineteenth-century Ashworthy was "relatively narrow in range and shallow in depth" (p. 144); but Williams was misled by household structure and mobility, and he did not reconstitute his families. Hernhill seems closer to twentieth-century Gosforth, another village studied by Williams; see "Kinship," in The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London: Routledge, 1956).
103. Apart from this study, see Anderson, Family Structure, including chap. 7 on Ireland and rural Lancashire; David Jenkins, The Agricultural Community in South-West Wales at the Turn of the Twentieth Century (Cardiff: University of Wales Press, 1971), chap. 7; Dennis R. Mills, "The Residential Propinquity of Kin in a Cambridgeshire Village, 1841," Journal of Historical Geography 4 (1978): 265-76; Phythian-Adams, Re-Thinking English Local History, 40-2; David Symes and John Appleton, "Family Goals and Survival Strategies: The Role of Kinship in an English Upland Farming Community," Sociologia Ruralis 26 (1986): 345-63; Evelyn Lord, "Communities of Common Interest: The Social Landscape of South-East Surrey, 1750-1850," in Societies, Cultures and Kinship, ed. Phythian-Adams. William M. Williams's famous study, A West Country Village: Ashworthy (London: Routledge, 1963), concluded that kinship in nineteenth-century Ashworthy was "relatively narrow in range and shallow in depth" (p. 144); but Williams was misled by household structure and mobility, and he did not reconstitute his families. Hernhill seems closer to twentieth-century Gosforth, another village studied by Williams; see "Kinship," in The Sociology of an English Village: Gosforth (London: Routledge, 1956).