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

The MAYs, of all generations, were not only interested in their eldest sons. Some younger sons were, clearly, provided with land, while there is evidence that others were apprenticed to a trade. Christopher MAY (d.1697) of Basing was a second son who is known to have had a trade, as maltster, though he also turned to the land. His own second son, Christopher MAY (d.1694) of Basing was a tanner, while his fourth so Charles (1670-1714) of Basingstoke was a maltster and his fifth son Daniel (d.1740) of Queenhithe and Burghfield, a salter. Furthermore, the latter two MAYs were residents of towns. Naturally, the place to be apprenticed would be an urban area. This may indicate that Charles (b.1661), the fourth son of John MAY (1630-1680) of Worting, also had an apprenticeship bought for him, as he lived in Houndsditch, London. His brother, Christopher (1656-1697) who lived in reading was certainly in trade. His father’s will records that he had already received his £300 inheritance by 1679 ‘to set up and manage his trade of a tanner’. Several generations later, James MAY (1760-1805) of Englefield appears to have provided good professions for his younger sons in the nearest town, Reading: Charles (1796-1881) was a druggist and chemist, and George (1799-1884), a surgeon. The two must have worked well together. His brother William probably apprenticed his second son John as a linen draper in London. His youngest son may have learnt his milling trade from his cousins at Burghfield Mill.

Alternatively, fathers provided their sons with land rather than a trade. In his will, Christopher MAY (d.1697) of Basing left houses in Basingstoke to his sons Christopher (d.1694) and Daniel (d.1740). More interestingly, however, he left, to his son Charles (1670-1714), properties in Basing which he had ‘lately bought of James ACTON…..and Richard WOODROFFE’; and to his son John (1668-1716) properties called ‘Ruets’ and ‘Groves’ which were bought from men named SMITH and LEE respectively. Clearly, just prior to his death, Christopher had gone to some pains to secure some land for his younger sons. Similarly, John MAY (1630-1680) of Worting, his brother, left freehold land in Monk Sherborne ‘lately bought of William CARTER’ as well as copyhold land in Wootton St. Lawrence. Sadly, the will of Thomas MAY (d.1718) of Nately Scures only survives as a front page, though Mary Anne MAY (1848-1931) saw the complete article in 1917 (May 1917). His younger sons Daniel (b.1700) and James (1700-1774) received £50 a piece, but little more can be said. John MAY (1684-1752) of Sherfield, their brother, certainly provided for his younger sons: Thomas (1712-1769) must have received land in Worting prior to 1752, Charles (1715-1745) probably had Burghfield Mill, inherited from his father’s uncle Daniel (see earlier). Their elder brother, William MAY (1709-1777), had given his old property of Bulls Down Farm, Bramley to his second son, William (1745-1828) by 1773. Having already received property, this latter William was given only £450 in his father’s will. His young brother Charles (1752-1807) received £600 and land in Basing. In his will (1826), William, apart from giving land to his eldest son, John (1775-1866), large areas of land were given to his youngest son, Daniel (1789-1845), who presumably had no land at the time. His son Thomas (b. c.1776), however, only received annual annuities of cash, and had probably been given his inheritance already. On the younger secondary branch of the family, James MAY (1700-1774) of Theale may well have set his sons up in business: Daniel (1734-1773) at Pangbourne Mill, Thomas (1727-1800) at Brimpton Mill (leased from Viscount Falmouth) and William (1729-1797) at Moatlands Farm, Burghfield. William may have been apprenticed at a Brewery in Reading and his father probably also assisted with two of his other businesses. He milled at Burghfield with his eldest brother, James (1728-1772), and set up the brewing company in Basingstoke with his youngest brother, Thomas (1727-1800). William seems to have left the latter partnership sometime shortly after 1785, possibly on buying East Ginge Manor in 1789. Thomas (1727-1800) of Brimpton clearly did provide for his sons in this way during his lifetime for, in his will  (1800), he states that there was ‘real estate already conveyed to my said sons Thomas MAY and Charles MAY’ – evidently the MAY Brewery. This will is mostly concerned with provision being made for Thomas’ under age sons, John (b. 1776) and William (1780-1862). Daniel (1771-1851), the middle boy, must therefore have also already received his living: the mill at Sonning. Thomas had again ‘lately’ bought property for his young sons. This consisted of the freehold of land in Midgeham and the mills of Calcot, St. Giles and Minster, Reading, though they also continued the lease on Brimpton Mill.

Other elderly male members of the family also took an interest in younger sons of their relatives, as Trumbuch indicated for many families (Trumbuch 1978). They knew these sons would not come in for the bilk of their fathers’ estates and would thus need a helping hand in life. Christopher MAY (d.1694) of Basing was picked out especially from among his siblings to be given £50 in his grandfather’s will (1676). Later, Charles MAY (1752-1807) of Newnham left all his property (in Basing) to his brother, William (1745-1828), but after his decease it was to pass to William’s youngest son Daniel (1789-1845). However, this was a matter of personal choice. Daniel MAY (d.1740) of Burghfield had no children and his large estate was divided between two of his nephews, John MAY (1684-1752) of Sherfield and George WOODROFFE (168901744) of Sherfield. The latter was indeed the youngest son of Daniel’s sister, Mary (d.1727), but John, an eldest son, had already been amply provided for by his father.

Thus, the MAYs went to some lengths to ensure that all their sons were provided with a living and a future, as Pollock found in her study of diaries (Pollock 1983). Trades and property were provided within a father’s lifetime if possible. However, youngest sons were often provided for late, and therefore land sometimes had to be bought up for their inheritance when the father reached old age. This was especially true when the sons were still under age. Several wills even make provision, in cash, for any children born after their father’s death. Sucessive generations added to their lands to provide for their own younger sons, so that the central estate would not have to be divided. Such provision may not have brought their living up to the standard of their eldest brother, and thus younger sons were given an incentive to try and improve their wealth and standing. Further impetus was given to those who moved (or were sent) to towns where there were more opportunities for expansion and investment. Several MAYs were therefore able to become equally, if not more, prosperous than their elder brothers. Charles MAY (1670-1714) outstripped his elder brothers, in Basingstoke as a maltster, as did Thomas MAY (1737-1800) years later. The latter’s father, James (1700-1774) of Theale, also became equally as wealthy as his brother John (1684-1752). The elder secondary branch of the family lacked this impetus. Each generation was intent on keeping the family inheritance intact: an objective essential to keeping the MAY family name alive. Any freedom obtained to make outside investment was used to make provision of land for younger sons. The MAYs of Huish appeared to be happy to do this, generation after generation. These findings are similar to those uncovered by Trumbuch (Trumbuch 1978). To an extent, this branch’s fortunes became stagnant. Perhaps if some of their younger sons had produced families (which survived), they may also have gained the incentive to better themselves. Like the younger secondary branch of the family, they would not have been tied down by keeping a family estate intact. Therefore they would have been free to mortgage or sell their land and make investments as they pleased.

Next