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

As Laslett says, the idea that marriage took place at a young age in centuries gone by is a myth. 85% of women were over nineteen according to the marriage licenses from Canterbury. Twenty-two years was their average age, and twenty-seven for men (Laslett 1971). Anderson agrees, recording that between 1600 and 1850 marriage took place at a late age, and much of the population never married (Anderson 1980). Laslett’s ideas are certainly echoed by the MAY family. Between 1630 and 1830, the average age at marriage of male MAYs was indeed twenty-seven, and females, twenty-five. Through the generations, the boys of the family continued to marry in their late twenties. The girls of the early generations married around the same age as their brothers; however, through the later generations their ages drop to around twenty-three to twenty-five. This may possibly be due to an increase in marriage for love rather than social or pecuniary reasons. Trumbuch’s researches indicate there was an increase in romantic marriages after 1720 (Trumbuch 1978).

The groom was usually older than his wife at MAY weddings: five, six or seven years older normal, staying about constant over the generations. However, the age differences varied widely: Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke was fourteen years older than his wife, whereas his nephew, John MAY (1684-1752) of Sherfield, was some eleven years younger than his wife. Any age differences could apparently be accepted. 68% of marriages took place in the bride’s parish, a tradition persistent in England even today.

Parents in the MAY family, as already illustrated, were extremely interested in ensuring a comfortable fortune for their sons, through providing them with a profession or property. They were also highly interested in providing for their daughters. Women did not make their way in life as today, so were not left land by their fathers, only money. This is true for every generation of MAYs. The future of their daughters was ensured by securing a desirable marriage with a man of wealth and standing, at not a small price to themselves in dowry. 77.5% of all female marriages known in the MAY family were to men of yeoman status or above. Some parents were extremely successful at obtaining desirable marriages for their daughters. John MAY (1652-1722) of Worting’s eldest daughter, Elizabeth (b.1683), married Revd. Christopher SCLATER M.A. of Loughton in Essex. Their son inherited the manors of both Tangier Park and Hoddington House (Hampshire). Their great great grandson, George SCLATER-BOOTH (1826-1894) became the first Lord Basing. Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke’s eldest daughter married George NOYES (1695-1752) of Andover Esq., Receiver General of Land Tax for the County of Southampton; his second daughter married the wealthy Mr. William ALLEN (d. 1739) of Basildon, Esq.; and his third, William THOYTS Esq., Armourer, brazier and citizen of the City of London. Daniel MAY (1734-1773) of Pangbourne’s daughters were equally well placed, but this must have been through the invervention of his brothers (1): Elizabeth (1763-1842) took a dowry of £2,000 with her when she married William Blackall SIMONDS of Reading, Esq., who founded the great SIMONDS Brewing Empire in 1785 (Corley 1976). They lived at Caversham Court (2); Jane (1766-1836) married Revd. John Symonds BREEDON D.D. who inherited the Lordship of the Manor of Pangbourne from his maternal cousin. They lived at Bere Court, Pangbourne. The MAYs’ long association with the SIMONDS family of Hurst and Reading had begun around 1758 when Daniel MAY (1734-1773) of Pangbourne’s sister, Jane (1733-1802), married Thomas SIMONDS (1731-1808) Esq.(4). Their granddaughter, Mary SIMONDS (1804-1873), married Charles MAY (1800-1841) of Basingstoke in 1828; and their daughter, Jane (b.1759) became the grandmother of Mary Ann HIGGS, (1817-1905) wife of Walter MAY (1810-1900) of Whitley Grove, and John RICHARDS F.S.A. (b. 1806), Gentleman, husband of Fanny MAY (b. 1806).

In several cases, the MAYs made doubley sure that their daughters were to be well provided for, by drawing up a marriage settlement prior to the wedding. The ‘strict settlement’ emerged in the seventeenth century as a means of ensuring maintenance of family lands and their descent to later generations. More importantly, from the point of view of the bride, the settlement assured financial security for herself in widowhood and for her future children. The marriage settlement, according to Trumbuch, was usually agreed between the groom, his father and the father of the bride. The father of the bride provided his daughter’s dowry, while the father of the groom agreed to settle land upon the affianced couple (Trumbuch 1978). MAY settlements show how this arrangement could vary, the agreement usually being made between the groom (whose father was presumably dad in many cases), the bride and her father and a number of independent trustees (often brothers). The earliest known marriage settlement of a female member of the MAY family is that of Mary MAY (1766-1821) dated 15th May 1797. In return for a dowry of £2,500 provided by Mary’s father Thomas MAY (1737-1800), her prospective husband Richard TULL (d.1821), Lord of the Manor of Chamberhouse in Thatcham (Berkshire), agreed to place £10,000 in trust (at 3% interest) to provide the securities alluded to above. Mary’s sister, Sarah (1783-1829), also has a marriage settlement extant, dated 20^th January 1813. By this time, however, their father, Thomas, had died, so in return for placing his home, Fifield Farm, in trust, William HUTCHINS, the prospective husband, received Sarah’s ‘legally possessed…..personal property of a considerable amount’. This was evidently the £2,500 left to Sarah in her father’s will (1800). The fact that this is the same amount as Mary’s dowry suggests that this is exactly what the sum was intended for. The third extant female MAY marriage settlement dates from only five years later, 27th April 1818, even though it is for the niece of the previous two ladies. Sarah MAY (b.1797) was about to marry James WICKHAM Junior (1787-1855). The settlement is different from the others in that Sarah’s dowry of £2,000 went straight into a trust fund along with another £2,000 provided by James. It may be that Mr. WICKHAM was not so well off as Sarah’s uncles, Messrs. TULL and HUTCHINS. The usual trust had to be subsidised by the dowry, thus James received only Sarah for his money – a marriage for love is perhaps indicated (H.R.O. 118M89W/3,5-7).

MAY daughters who remained spinsters sometimes found themselves nursemaid/companion to aging relatives. Daniel MAY (d.1740) of Burghfield, who lived to be about sixty-five, told in his will of his niece, Mary MAY (b.1678) ‘now living with me’ – she got £10 for her trouble! Charles MAY (1752-1807) of Newnham was more generous. His niece, Mary MAY (1787-1860) ‘now living with me’ received £500 (3) in his will. An average of 77% of the MAY family, who outlived infancy, did get married in each generation though. This was 100% in the fourth and fifth generations, but in each case there were only two families on which to base the figures. So perhaps a corrected average of 69% overall would be better. However, the average percentage of daughters who married per family was much higher than this at 76% (5), each generation being roughly the same (70-83%). Figures for sons’ marriages per family were more wide ranging (between 46 and 100%), but with no trend through the generations. This may possibly be a distortion through lack of records. The average was 67% (6). Clearly, finding a groom for one’s daughters was much more important than finding brides for the sons. After all, the sons were provided with property of their own and could llok after themselves. Only the eldest son had to be assured of a marriage in order to continue the family line and descent of the central estate.

The eldest sons of the MAY family made some of the best marriages: John MAY (1652-1722) of Worting married Elizabeth daughter of William COLEMAN Esq., Mayor of Basingstoke; John MAY (1684-1752) of Sherfield married Sarah daughter of Edmund PITMAN, Grazier of Basing, and granddaughter of Edmund PITMAN, Mayor of Bssingtsoke; William MAY (1709-1777) of Bramley married his cousin, Ann daughter of George WOODROFFE Esq., Miller of Sherfield (7); Daniel MAY (1711-1753) of Sulhamstead married Mary daughter of Bartholomew TIPPING of Woolley Park, Lord of the Manor of Chaddleworth (Berks); Charles MAY (1800-1841) of Basingstoke married his cousin, Mary daughter of Mr. John SIMONDS, Banker of Reading (as above). None but the last of these occur in the younger secondary branch of the family, where there was no central property which had to be passed on, until the Basingstoke Brewery was established.

Several eldest sons are known to have had marriage settlements, though all but one are now lost and are only known from references in wills. The marriage settlement of John MAY (1684-1752) of Sherfield was made between himself and his prospective wife, his father, and his uncle, John CLAPSHOE, and the father of the bride, Edmund PITMAN, on 20th March 1705. According to the will of John’s father, Thomas (1715), it included a clause by which John was to pay £400 to whomsoever Thomas chose at his death. Presumably, the family property of Huish had been handed to John sometime between 1705 and 1715, and tied up in this was all Thomas’ money, some of which he wished to leave elsewhere. At his marriage, some years before, John had thus agreed to undertake the execution of legacies for his father up to the amount of £400. Daniel MAY (1711-1753) of Sulhamstead did ‘ratify and confirm the settlement made by me on my dear wife Mary before our marriage’ in his will (1753). No details are known of this settlement though, other than that Daniel MAY, the groom’s deceased uncle and trustee, was one of those mentioned, and that it involved property in Sulhamstead, Basingstoke and Heckfield (8). Similarly, with James MAY (1728-1772) of Englefield.

The only known extant male MAY marriage settlement, dated 26th March 1790, was agreed before the marriage of James MAY (1760-1805) eldest son of James MAY (1728-1772) of Englefield and Isabella Catherina LOVEGROVE (1770-1835). The parties involved were the bride, the groom, and Robert LOVEGROVE (9), Gent., Thomas TOOVEY, Gent., and John MAY, mealman. Who were these people? It concerned several plots of land in Long Wittenham (52 acres or more) which had been mortgaged to Isabella by some member of the LOVEGROVE family for £1,000. This land was her dowry. It was to form a trust in the hands of LOVEGROVE, TOOVEY and MAY during the marriage. The profits and interest from the land was to go to Isabella as her personal property, not to her husband as it would usually have done by law. The survivor of the two was to receive such interest in widowhood and, after both their deaths, the £1,500 owed to reclaim the land was to be split equally among any children they might have, being invested in ‘public stocks or funds or government or real securities of interest’ if they were under twenty-one. Thus, the marriage settlement ensured security for Isabella, not only in widowhood, but during her lifetime; as well as ensuring an inheritance for all her children, not just the eldest. The other settlements may have been similar, and possibly they were the rule for the eldest sons of MAY families (B.R.O. D/EBY T240).

Not only eldest sons had marriage settlements however. William MAY (1729-1797) of Burghfield is known to have had one which he confirms in his will. His brother, Thomas MAY (1737-1800) of Brimpton, recorded in his will that his marriage settlement was made on 4th May 1763. Two of the parties concerned were his brother James MAY (1728-1772) and Edmund PITMAN (his maternal cousin). After his death, Thomas was to give them or their heirs £1,000, but Edmund had gone bankrupt, and Thomas did not think it fit to give him any money! £1,000 and interest was also to be given to Thomas’ wife for her widowhood. Thomas’ marriage was a very desirable one: he married Mary MAY (1743-1819) the daughter and sole heiress of his cousin Charles MAY (1715-1745) of Burghfield. Another younger son who made a very lucrative marriage was Charles MAY (1670-1714) of Basingstoke. He too directed in his will (1714) that ‘the articles made upon my marriage…..shall in every respect be fulfilled’. He married the only other known heiress on the entire family tree, Anne (1684-1746) daughter of Robert NOAKE of Southcote (10) and sole heiress to her brother, William (1690-1737). This may be the reason for the settlement. The NOAKEs were wealthy brewers in Reading. Thomas of Brimpton and Charles of Basingstoke were probably the wealthiest of all the MAYs. Beside their investment in both town and countryside, their marriages no doubt help to explain how they managed to move ahead (11). This may have been more of their own doing rather than parental intervention. As Corley remarked of the SIMONDS family, ‘aspiring entrepreneurs of the day often relied on financially prudent marriages to furnish the funds they needed’ (Corley 1976).

Next