Ladies Wills & Fashion in 16th & 17th Centuries
We know about clothes from bequests in wills and inventories of possessions, which survive from the 16th century onwards as living standards were gradually improving. The reason that clothes were bequeathed was that clothing was expensive and therefore valuable. The local tailors were the Wheeler family who lived in the parish for several generations. As well as making new clothes a lot of a tailor’s work would consist of altering inherited clothes to fit and also repairs. We learn most about clothes from the wills of widows – all the women who left wills were widows with the exception of Mary Adams in 1677 who was a spinster. If a married woman pre-deceased her husband there was no will as her belongings would automatically revert to her husband.
Although male clothing was obviously equally valuable there is much less information in the inventories. Men tended to bequeath money, grain, livestock, equipment, etc, or occasionally ‘my best suite of apparel’, which is not very informative. On the great majority of inventories, clothing is unspecified and often referred to as ‘wearing apparel and money in his purse’.
In addition to clothing, sheets and other bed linen were a very common female bequest in a variety of qualities – some were Holland (fine linen) lockram (coarsely woven linen), hemp, fustian (a coarse type of cloth) and canvas.
An example of Lynsey Woolsey
There were other types of cloth – russet which is unfulled cloth and ‘lynsy wulsy’ – a mixture of wool and linen but that is no common. Cushions were another common bequest.
The earliest information we have is from Annis Gregorie of Shillingford who died in 1558. She left her kerchiefs, which were common bequests and also her best girdle (a belt).
A example of a girdle (belt)
A kyrtle
her best apron and two kyrtles (probably a gown or outer petticoat) She also bequeathed a petticoat separately but left the rest of her wardrobe to her daughters to share out. Jone Arnett in 1567 also left her best petticoat and an apron to her daughter, one of her coats to another friend, one of her best kerchiefs to a friend and one kerchief to her maid.
Jane Alleyne whose possessions were considerable left 2 rings, her best ‘workedays’ coat, her 2 best petticoats and a piece of white kersey (a coarse narrow woollen cloth).
Jone Butler in 1594 had quite a collection of ‘partlets’ which were neckerchiefs covering the neck and shoulders, one of which had a cambric ruff. She also left her best petticoat and her black gown.
A high collared partlet
Jone Hobbes, dying the same year, had a much more extensive wardrobe including her best front, her best hat, her best frock save one, her worst frock, several hempen smocks, a pair of hose and a pair of shoes.
An example of a smock
Margery Pokine in 1619, in addition to her best gown, petticoat and second gown left a white petticoat and a red and white waistcoat.
The inventory of Alice Coxe in 1626 divides her clothes into ‘wearing apparel of woollen (worth £2.5s.0d) and wearing apparel of linen (worth 13s. 4d’). She also had sheets, blankets, bolsters, napkins, towels and a tablecloth.
In 1636 not only did Agnes Martin leave Lettice Wyllys her worst gown but also her ‘old green petticoat’’! She also possessed red and white petticoats, which presumably were not old. There is no clue as to who Lettice Wyllys was but she may well have been very grateful for this bequest.
However, there were two widows in the 17th century who were wealthier because they owned land in more than one diocese and this is reflected in their personal possessions.
Susan Spear left her wedding ring and piece of gold of 20 shillings to her son. She left the family christening sheet to her son and daughter to be used at all family christenings. She also left a silk kirtle and her best partlets. She leaves her best apparel as well as her woollen and linen to her daughter Marie and also the worst to her servants and the poorest in Warborough. It is a pity she is not more specific about the clothes in her wardrobe.
Elizabeth Gamon in 1655 is more explicit mentioning a kersey gown, best waistcoat, one green safequard (an outer skirt or petticoat worn by women when riding to protect their clothes), a stuff suit, a red petticoat and a gold ring.
Their greater wealth is also shown by each of them bequeathing a silver spoon. Susan Speare also left a mare and gelding and Elizabeth Gamon obviously rode as well, which again was not common, most animals in inventories and wills being working or farm stock.
A general analysis of the wills and inventories show the people of Warborough and Shillingford were quite modest in their personal possessions with the bulk of their wealth invested in their livelihoods, and of course, there would have been people who were too poor to have left any record of possessions.
Sandra Roe re written 2025
