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

The primary, elder secondary and tertiary branches of the MAY family all followed strictly the customs of primogeniture: the eldest son inherited the major estate or property when his father died. Younger brothers only inherited this if their elder brothers died childless; and daughters certainly never took the family estate while they still had brothers. Thus the family property at Worting passed from John (1600-1676) to his eldest son John (1630-1680), to his eldest son John (1652-1722), to his eldest daughter Elizabeth (MAY) SCLATER (b. 1683) whose brothers had predeceased her father. The Huish estate in Nately Scures (copyhold in 1697, but freehold by 1802) passed from Thomas (d. 1718) to his eldest son (by his second marriage) John (1684-1752) (1), to his eldest son William (1709-1777), to his eldest (and childless) son John (1741-1802) to his brother William (1745-1828), to his eldest son John (1775-1866), to the eldest son of his eldest son, who had predeceased his father, John (b. 1829). Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke’s Sulhamstead estate passed to his eldest surviving son Daniel (1711-1753). The latter had no MAY heirs, and it is interesting that, though he set out clearly the path of his estates were to take if his prospective heirs also died without issue, he did not stick to the strict rule of primogeniture but favoured the family of his youngest sister Jane rather than those of his elder sisters.

Generally, the younger secondary branch of the family also held to primogeniture. However, James MAY (1700-1774) of Theale split the bulk of his estate between his two sons, the second and fourth (and youngest). His eldest son James had died two years previously and his children were well provided for. James (1700-1774) Senior presumably thought it better to leave his lands to his two surviving sons than his fourteen-year-old grandson. The eldest son of Thomas MAY (1737-1800) of Brimpton inherited the residue of their father’s estate not mentioned in his will, including the Brimpton property, but he preferred to live on in Basingstoke where he was established.

The families of each generation of the MAYs were very keen to ensure that their eldest sons were provided with a living and financial security. While the head of the family lived at the main property, it is clear that he went to some lengths to provide land or a trade for his heir. In the case of the elder secondary branch of the family, a lesser property was bought for the eldest son. When he inherited his father’s estate, the lesser then passed to his own son and heir. Household size in the MAY family was thus reduced, as the heir moved to his own property as soon as he was old enough. The passing of the major property to the eldest son while the father was still alive is, however, indicated in the earliest generation of study, thus increasing household size. The inventory of John MAY (1600-1676), which accompanies his will, lists only his wearing apparel, ready cash and bedroom furniture under the title ‘in his lodging chamber,’ the house having already been passed on in John’s retirement. Further, numbers of children per family indicate that household size was still somewhat greater than Laslett’s 4.75 people (Laslett 1971). He indicates larger families were better off. Thomas MAY (d.1718) was provided with Huish in Nately Scures by his father and he inherited it on the latter’s death. His own heir John (1684-1752) was provided first with land in Tunworth, and then in Sherfield as a lesser estate. He lived at Sherfield Court which must have been rented on a leasehold basis. John’s son William (1709-1777) held property in Bramley just after his marriage, but after his grandmother’s death in 1740, his father inherited Huish, and William took on Sherfield. Soe time between 1752 and 1761, the lease on Sherfield Court must have run out, for William moved to Bulls Down Farm in Bramley which became the lesser property for the following generations.

James MAY (1700-1774) of Theale, founder of the younger secondary branch of the family, appears to have set his eldest son James (1728-1772) up in business as a mealman at Burghfield Mill, which he bought from his youngest son Thomas. He was also a farmer on estates rented from Powlett Wright of Englefield House. This may have been the land which his own heirs later turned to as yeomen; or possibly it was his father’s Theale estate. It is interesting to note that there is a May Ridge in the parish and May Ridge Farm stands on the Englefield/Ufton/Tilehurst border. James' grandson, also James (1790-1845), was given a good legal education so that he was able to become a respected solicitor. William MAY (1729-1797) of Burghfield may have purchased the Manor of East Ginge for his eldest son William (who was twenty-three) to manage in 1789 (VCH 1906, BRO D/EZ3B). Alternatively, he may have moved there, handing Moatlands Farm, Burghfield to his son, though this does not seem likely. The younger William (1766-1842) certainly rented the manor out to a tenant. Thomas MAY (1737-1800) of Brimpton appears to have given the MAY Brewery at Basingstoke, which was by then purely his own, to his two eldest sons, Thomas and Charles, as a living. The Brewery, in Brook Street, was a thriving business in the late eighteenth century serving a large part of the county of Hampshire. There is some uncertainty as to when it was founded, but local historians favour 1750-1755 (Stanley 1967, McKenzie 1972, Brown 1987). William MAY (1729-1797) of Burghfield and Thomas MAY (1737-1800) of Brimpton were the founders, so as early as 1750 is highly improbable: the latter was only thirteen! As already mentioned, Thomas MAY (1737-1800)’s eldest son, Thomas, did inherit the Brimpton property, but preferred to stay with his lucrative business rather than continuing the farming tradition. Not surprisingly, for his output was not far short of 8,000 barrels (Corley 1976). 

Next