MFH Home
  Family Trees
  Records
  Wills
  MIs
  Studies
  Memories  
  People
  Places
  Related Families
  Odds & Ends
  Mail David

The life expectancy of members of the MAY family was somewhat below the traditional three-score and ten years in the early seventeenth century. However, it was getting on that way by 1830. The table below (fig. 9) shows that life expectancy was certainly growing, if slowly, through the generations, through better living conditions, sanitation and medical care. The figure for the first generation comes from only two ages and is therefore unreliable. Lack of information on the third generation come from merely two ages and is therefore unreliable. Lack of information on the third generation led to an average age of forty-two years; however, some MAYs are known to have been alive at a certain time, though their death dates are unknown, therefore an average of somewhere over forty-four years is more correct. The graph (fig. 10) suggests around fifty-three years for this generation. Graphical display of figures also shows that if one survived past fifty, then you would be likely to live to at least sixty-five. Few ages at death are known for female MAYs, however, a general increase in life expectancy can be detected here also.

Fig. 9. Life expectancy of male MAY family members.  

It is difficult, again, to draw conclusions about differences between life expectancy in town and country. Certainly, by the mid to late eighteenth century there was no appreciable difference. The Brewery brothers lived into their late seventies in Basingstoke, despite an expectation that crowded towns may have been more susceptible to the spread of disease. This seems to have been the case in earlier generations for life expectancy was lower in the seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries. Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke and Christopher MAY (1656-1697) of Reading died at the ages of forty-four and forty-one respectively. However, there are no further town dwellers from which to draw data in this period.

The family had a very serious and practical attitude to death. As already seen, MAY parents went to great efforts to make sure their children were provided for before death, had property bought for them late in their parents’ lives to be given to them post mortem. The disposal of this and other property and chattels was clearly set out in a will. 70% of male MAYs who survived infancy made wills; 82% of those who had children made wills; and 91% of those who had sons made wills! There is a will for every generation of the male line ancestors of John MAY (1802-1837) of Sandford, Charles MAY (1800-1841) of Basingstoke and Thomas MAY (1808-1886) of Bath. Undoubtedly, the family felt it was their duty to set their affairs straight before they passed on. Only four MAY fathers, whose deaths are known, did not leave wills (that have survived), and all of them died young and therefore probably suddenly. Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke wrote his will when only forty-four ‘being in good health of body and of sound mind and understanding yet considering the uncertainty of events that attend life and health’. Smallpox was spreading through Basingstoke at the time and it had already claimed the lives of two of his children, Elizabeth and Christopher. His brother, John MAY (1668-1716) of Basing was ‘indisposed of health’ two years later when he also wrote a will. He also, possibly died of smallpox. Little is known of other diseases which may have struck the MAY family, but Mary Anne MAY (1848-1931) records how her father’s sister, Elizabeth Catherine (1812-1839), returning from a visit to a London doctor, caught hold of his arm, saying ‘Oh Walter, I have come home to die’ – she had consumption. We know that Charles MAY (1767-1844) of Basingstoke also died of this ‘universal malady’ and it probably affected previous generations (May 1916).

Burial was also taken seriously. As already shown many of the MAYs had gravestones erected to them by their families. There were family burial plots at Basing, Nately Scures, Brimpton, Englefield and Burghfield churchyards. The plot at Basing came about when Thomas MAY (1712-1769) of Worting left his burial ‘to the discretion of my executrix’. This was his wife, Catherine (PAYNE) (1719-1775) who promptly had him buried on the edge of the PAYNE burial area in Basing churchyard (1). In her will, she wished to be buried ‘near my late husband’. Directions such as this generally went out of use in the MAY family in the last quarter of the seventeenth century. Burial ‘at the discretion of my executor’ took over for about a century. After this, it must have been taken for granted as burial instructions disappear from wills. Extra arrangements were occasionally made also. Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke and Ann (WEBB MAY) WILLIS (1750-1827) both made provision for buying ‘mourning’ - black attire - for several relatives. Transportation of the deceased, to a different parish from where they died, for burial, as today, seems to have been normal practice. Daniel MAY (1711-1753) died at his home in Burghfield in 1740, but was taken to his childhood home of Basing for burial; Ann (NOAKE) MAY (1684-1746) was taken from her son’s home at Sulhamstead to be buried with her husband in Basingstoke; and Mary (TIPPING) MAY (1723-1769) was buried with her husband at Sulhamstead, but had retired to Bath, where she had died. Retirement to Bath was a continuing tradition in the family. Thomas MAY (1737-1800) of Brimpton’s fondness for the city has already been mentioned, though he remained in Berkshire. His daughter-in-law, Eleanor (BARNARD) MAY (1775-1858) retired there, as did her nieces, Jane (1795-1883) and Ann MAY (1799-1884), and her son Thomas MAY (1808-1886) and family.

Next