1 The most important works putting this view are Wrightson, K. and Levine, D., Poverty and piety in an English village: Terling 1525–1700 (London, 1979), 87–8Google Scholar; Levine, D. and Wrightson, K., The making of an industrial society: Wickham 1560–1765 (Oxford, 1991), 329–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wrightson, K., ‘Household and kinship in sixteenth-century England’, History Workshop Journal 12 (1981), 151–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wrightson, K., ‘Kinship in an English village: Terling, Essex, 1550–1700’, in Smith, R. M. ed., Land, kinship and life-cycle (Cambridge, 1984), 313–32Google Scholar; Macfarlane, A., The family life of Ralph Josselin, a seventeenth-century clergyman: an essay in social anthropology (Cambridge, 1975), 100–43Google Scholar; Macfarlane, A., The origins of English individualism: the family, property and social transition (Oxford, 1978), 145–7Google Scholar; Macfarlane, A., ‘The myth of the peasantry: family and economy in a northern parish’, in Smith, ed., Land, kinship and life-cycle, 333–50; 333–50Google Scholar; Smith, R. M., ‘Kin and neighbors in a thirteenth-century Suffolk community’, Journal of Family History 4 (1981), 219–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Smith, R. M., ‘Some issues concerning families and their property in rural England 1250–1800’, in Smith, ed., Land, kinship and life-cycle, 1–86Google Scholar; Houston, R. and Smith, R. M., ‘A new approach to family history?’, History Workshop Journal 14, especially p. 127.Google Scholar A summary of the situation in late medieval England can be found in Hanawalt, B. A., The ties that bound: peasant families in medieval England (Oxford, 1986), 79–89.Google Scholar The effect of various factors on the strength of kinship is illuminated in Houlbrooke, R. A., The English family 1450–1700 (London, 1984), 50–4Google Scholar, and Vann, T. K., ‘Wills and the family in an English town: Banbury, 1550–1800’, Journal of Family History 4 (1979), 346–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The flexibility of early modern kinship is emphasized in Cressy, D., ‘Kinship and kin interaction in early modern England’, Past and Present 113 (1986), 38–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The most important exponent of the thesis that kinship was of considerable significance in the medieval period is Zvi Razi: his observations can be found in Razi, Z., Life, marriage and death in a medieval parish: economy, society and demography in Halesowen, 1270–1400 (Cambridge, 1980), 147–9Google Scholar; Razi, Z. ‘Family, land and the village community in later medieval England’, Past and Present 93 (1981), 3–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and ‘The erosion of the family-land bond in the late fourteenth and fifteenth centuries: a methodological note’, in Smith, ed., Land, kinship and life-cycle, 295–304.Google Scholar See also Bossy, J., ‘Blood and baptism: kinship, community and christianity in Western Europe from the fourteenth to the seventeenth centuries’, in Baker, D. ed., Sanctity and society: the church and the world (Studies in Church History, 10; Oxford, 1973), 129–44.Google Scholar For early modern England see Chaytor, M., ‘Household and kinship: Ryton in the later 16th and early 17th centuries’, History Workshop Journal 10 (1980), 25–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar The role of kin in marriage selection is emphasized in O'Hara, D., ‘“Ruled by my friends”: aspects of marriage in the diocese of Canterbury c. 1540–1570’, Continuity and Change 6 (1991), 9–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Chaytor and O'Hara both imply that although the kinship system of pre-industrial England was similar in form to that of the present day, its use may have been qualitatively distinct.

2 Wrightson, and Levine, , Poverty and piety, 190.Google Scholar Wrightson's ideas concerning neighbourliness are best expressed in Wrightson, K., English society 1580–1680 (London, 1982), 51–7.Google Scholar The original suggestion came from Campbell, M., The English yeoman, under Elizabeth and the early Stuarts (New Haven, CT, 1942; repr. London, 1983), 382–5.Google Scholar Similar concepts can be found in Macfarlane, , The family life of Ralph Josselin, 154Google Scholar, and Smith, , ‘Kin and Neighbors in a Thirteenth-Century Suffolk Community’. Important local studies are Boulton, J., Neighbourhood and society in a London suburb in the seventeenth century (Cambridge, 1987)Google Scholar, and Nair, G., Highley: the development of a community 1550–1880 (Oxford, 1988), 55–76.Google Scholar For the impact of ideas of community on attitudes to outsiders see Ingram, M. J., ‘Communities and courts’, in Cockburn, J. S. ed., Crime in England 1550–1800 (London, 1977), 13Google Scholar, and Macfarlane, A., Witchcraft in Tudor and Stuart England: a regional and comparative study (London, 1976), 170.Google Scholar

3 Houlbrooke, , The English family, 217Google Scholar; Laslett, P., Family life and illicit love in earlier generations (Cambridge, 1977), 161–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4 Goody, E. N., ‘Forms of pro-parenthood: the sharing and substitution of parental roles’, in Goody, J. ed., Kinship: selected readings (London, 1971), 331–45.Google Scholar

5 These definitions are based on those in The Oxford English dictionary and Sills, D. L. ed., International encyclopedia of the social sciences (London, 1968)Google Scholar, s.v. ‘adoption’, ‘fostering’ and ‘guardianship’.

6 L. Bonfield, ‘Adoption in early modern England’, unpublished paper presented to the annual meeting of the American Society for Legal History, Philadelphia, 1980, copy kept in the library of the ESRC Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure, pp. 1 and 8, and Halsbury's laws of England (4th edn), paras. 624 and 625.Google Scholar

7 Laslett, , Family life and illicit love, 160–73Google Scholar; Mayhew, G., ‘Life-cycle service and the family unit in early modern Rye’, Continuity and Change 6 (1991), 201–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Although Mayhew indicates that apprenticeship for orphans ‘may most often have been tantamount to modern day adoption’ (p. 222), as was pointed out by Sharpe, P. (‘Poor children as apprentices in Colyton, 1598–1830’, Continuity and Change 6 (1991), 253–70), the obligations of apprentices under indenture were similar to modern-day fostering (p. 255).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

8 All the wills were taken from York, from the Borthwick Institute of Historical Research (hereafter BI), Probate Register of the Exchequer and Prerogative Courts (hereafter Prob. Reg.), vols. 9 to 52, and boxed wills for 1636 to 1652/3.

9 This assessment is based on BI, Parish Register of Bilton-in-Ainsty, Bil. 1 and 2; York City Archives (hereafter YCA) Subsidy, York and Ainsty, 1581 (1st payment), E59; Subsidy, York and Ainsty, 1585, E59a; Poll tax, Ainsty 1609–1690, M30:20; 1665 Hearth-tax returns (Lady Day) 1665, M30:22; 1665 Account of the number of hearths (Michaelmas) M30:23; List of hearths and stoves, Ainsty, 1671, M30:25; List of hearths and stoves, York and Ainsty, 1674, M30:26; Hearth-tax returns, Ainsty, 1670, E80a; List of hearths and stoves, 1671, M30:28; Window-tax assessment made in the several parishes for the window duty, 1701 (Ainsty) K96:10; and Wakefield, Metropolitan District County Library (hereafter MDCL), West Riding Hearth-tax returns, 1672, 3590/31537.

10 For evidence, see note 8, above. The numbers of kinship-linked households were found by a comparison of data from the hearth-tax returns for 1665,1670 and 1674 with those from the parish register and wills. The kin of each householder were traced back two generations where possible, and then forward to the date of the listing. The proportion of households (which were assumed to be nuclear) related by kinship to another inside the parish was then calculated. A fuller explanation of the methods of calculating kinship links between households and kinship density is given in Wrightson, and Levine, , Poverty and piety, 84–91.Google Scholar

11 Based on BI, Parish Register of St Margaret's, York, Y/Marg 1, 2 and 3; YCA, Subsidy, York and Ainsty, 1581 (1st payment), E59Google Scholar; Subsidy, York and Ainsty, 1585, E59aGoogle Scholar; Royal Subsidies, 1549–1664 (York), M30:1Google Scholar; Subsidy, 1628 (York) M30:2Google Scholar; Subsidy, Walmgate Ward (York), 1691 (2nd quarterly payment), M30:13Google Scholar; Subsidy, Walmgate Ward (York), 1691, M30:14Google Scholar; Subsidy, Walmgate Ward (York) (3rd and 4th quarterly payments, 1691), M30:15Google Scholar; Names of persons with the weapons they possessed (York and Ainsty), 1589, M30:17Google Scholar; Account of the poor folks and the assessment for their relief, 1592, M30:18Google Scholar; Assessment for the relief of the poor, 1618, M30:19Google Scholar; Poll tax, York 1609–1690, M30:21Google Scholar; Hearth-tax returns (Lady Day) 1665, M30:22Google Scholar; 1665 Account of the number of hearths (Michaelmas) M30:23; List of hearths and stoves in the City of York, 1670, M30:24Google Scholar; List of hearths and stoves, York and Ainsty, 1674, M30:26Google Scholar; Hearth-tax returns, York, 1670, E80; List of hearths and stoves, 1671, M30:28Google Scholar; Window tax, assessment made in the several parishes for the window duty, 1701 (York), K96:9.Google Scholar

12 The relationship of the parish to the hinterland to the east of York is suggested by the parish registers (see note 11, above), which record the origins of marriage partners in the period 1600–1615; almost all not from within the parish came from the East Riding.

13 For evidence see note 11, above.

14 eaton, H., The Yorkshire woolen and worsted industries from the earliest times up to the Industrial Revolution (Oxford, 1965), 74ff., 135.Google Scholar

15 Based on Taylor, H., The parish registers of Almondbury, Yorkshire Parish Register Society, vols. 149 (1974), 153 (1978), and (with J.Taylor) vols. 156 (1983) and 160 (1988); and MDCL, West Riding Hearth-tax returns 1672, 3590/31537.Google Scholar

16 For evidence see note 14, above.

17 Thirsk, J. ed., The agrarian history of England and Wales, vol. 4 (Cambridge, 1967), 9, 23Google Scholar; James, M., Family, lineage and civil society: a study of society, politics and mentality in the Durham region 1500–1640 (Oxford, 1974), 4Google Scholar; and Macfarlane, ‘The myth of the peasantry’.

18 BI, Register of Tuitions and Curations, 1592–1638 (hereafter RTC), fos. 1–114v.

19 Swinburne, H., A treatise of testaments and last wills, compiled out of the law ecclesiastical, civil and canon, as also out of the common laws, customs and statutes of the realm, 5th edn (London, 1728), III, vii, 192.Google Scholar All spelling in extracts from this work printed here, except for personal names, has been modernized.

20 Derrett, J. D. M., Henry Swinburne (? 1551–1624)Google Scholar, civil lawyer of York (Borthwick Pamphlet, 44; York, 1973).Google Scholar

21 Until 1646 there was also a system of wardship when land was held by military tenure; see Pollock, F. and Maitland, F. W., The history of English law before the time of Edward I(2nd edn; Cambridge, 1898; repr. 1974), vol. 1, 319.Google Scholar

22 Helmholz, R. H., Canon law and the law of England (London, 1987), 220–1.Google Scholar

23 Ibid.

24 Swinburne, Wills, III, xiii, 200. Here Swinburne quotes the usual form of a tuition bond.

25 Ibid., III, xi, 195.

26 Ibid., III, ix, 193.

27 Ibid., III, iii, 194.

28 Helmholz, Canon law and the law of England, 225–6.

29 Ibid., 217; Swinburne, , Wills, III, xiv, 201.Google Scholar

30 Helmholz, , Canon law and the law of England, 229.Google Scholar

31 Swinburne, , Wills, III, xi, 195.Google Scholar

32 Helmholz, , Canon law and the law of England, 228.Google Scholar

33 Ibid., 219.

34 Swinburne, , Wills, III, ix, 193.Google Scholar

35 Helmholz, , Canon law and the law of England, 220.Google Scholar

36 Helmholz, R. H., Roman canon law in Reformation England (Cambridge, 1990), 83–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

37 BI, Prob. Reg., vol. 48a, fo. 309, will of John Belton, 1665.

38 BI, Prob. Reg., vol. 31b, fo. 432, will of Thomas Hanson, 1609.

39 BI, RTC, fo. 13, 34.

40 Similar results regarding the allocation of bequests to family and kin in these wills can be found in Coster, W., Kinship and inheritance in early modern England: three Yorkshire parishes, (Borthwick Pamphlet, 92; York, 1993).Google Scholar

41 Swinburne, , Wills, III, xiii, 202.Google Scholar

42 In Kent and some other areas the guardian in socage (another type of guardianship which arose from the minor's inheritance of real property) was the closest relative to whom a child's property could not descend; thus maternal uncles may often have been guardians outside the ecclesiastical system. See Homans, G. C., English villagers of the thirteenth century (Cambridge, Mass., 1941; repr. New York, 1975), 192–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

43 BI, Prob. Reg., vol. 29b, fo. 508, will of William Mason, 1604.

44 Lebras, H. and Wachter, K. W., in their ‘Living forebears in stable populations’, in Wachter, K. W., Hammel, E. A. and Laslett, P. eds., Statistical studies of historical social structure (New York, 1978), 178Google Scholar, indicate for France that by the age of 10, 38 per cent of the population had no living grandparents, but by the age of 21 the figure had reached 73 per cent.

45 In fact godparents in early modern England were usually of a higher social status than their godchildren: see Coster, W., ‘Kinship and community in Yorkshire, 1500–1700’ (unpublished D.Phil, dissertation, University of York, 1992), 181–217.Google Scholar

46 Wrightson and Levine suggest that this category of householder can usually be identified with members of the gentry (Poverty and piety, 34).

47 BI, Prob. Reg., vol. 34a, fo. 266, will of James Spencer, 1616.

48 BI, Prob. Reg., box for 1640, bundle for April, will of Eleanor Shore, 1640.

49 Wrightson, , English society, 51.Google Scholar

50 BI, Prob., Reg., vol. 17b, fo. 469, will of Richard Brignal, 1565.

51 Swinburne, , Wills, III, x, 194.Google Scholar

52 BI, Prob. Reg., vol. 29b, fo. 429, will of John Kilburne, 1604.

53 BI, RTC, fo. 34v.

54 Ibid. fo. 67.

55 Ibid. fo. 37v.

56 Laslett, P. and Harrison, J., ‘Clayworth and Cogenhoe’, in Bell, H. E. and Ollard, R. L. eds., Historical essays 1600–1750, presented to David Ogg (London, 1963), 174–7Google Scholar; Spufford, P., ‘Population movement in seventeenth-century England’, Local Population Studies 4 (1970), 46–7Google Scholar; Wrightson, and Levine, , Poverty and piety, 80–1Google Scholar; Levine, and Wrightson, , Making of an industrial society, 191–2Google Scholar; Nair, , Highley, 55–66.Google Scholar