the myddle people

for those of you out there who are interested in the origins of the quakers (i know you’re out there! (^_^) ), i can’t recommend highly enough barry levy’s Quakers and the American Family: British Settlement in the Delaware Valley. i haven’t quite finished it yet, but the overall impression that i’ve got so far is that the quakers of nw england (cheshire) and northern wales of the 1600s were juuust on a cusp of a transition from clannishness to non-clannishness (or less clannishness anyway). the population of the region was, and presumably had been for a very long time, based on extended families, feuds, and kin connections. the quakers made a conscious choice to break with that and focus on the nuclear family, but they were still clannish in many ways. imo, the seventeenth century quakers of nw england/ne wales were some of my “in-betweeners” — not extremely clannish anymore, but not fully individualistic/universalistic by that point, either — somewhere in the middle. (see also jayman’s A Tentative Ranking of the Clannishness of the “Founding Fathers.”)

i’ll work up a post on the quakers outlining more completely the history of their mating patterns and family structures (as far as i know them) hopefully within the next week. until then, below is an excerpt from levy related to the clannish behaviors of the non-quaker, base population in this nw region of england — specifically in myddle which is in shropshire (which lies beyond the tees-exe line). levy’s source on these obviously clannish folks from myddle is one richard gough who, in 1700, wrote Human Nature Displayed in the History of Myddle. i’m almost certainly going to have to read that!

but for now, from Quakers and the American Family, some bits about the tyler “clan” [kindle locations 586-600]:

“Though being routinely and often happily subverted by middling love, Myddle’s regime of honor and shame was occasionally and less attractively tarnished by clan bullying, as the story of the Tyler clan shows. Richard Gough rightly believed William Tyler ‘of the most debauched morals of any in this parish.’ Tyler had fornicated with the estranged wife of Richard Hussey. He had a child by her. Tyler took this child, Nell Hussey, as his house-maid and he committed incest with her, producing a second ‘bastard’. Tyler also stole sheep and assaulted people. Some of his daughters were ‘lewd’ women. However, the Tyler clan sat relatively undisturbed in their pews in Myddle Church and kept their honor unblemished.

“Tyler and his clan simply stopped people from humiliating them publicly. When Tyler’s nephew, Richard Challoner, ‘was bound over to appear at the Assizes for stealing a cow,’ William Tyler prevented the shameful hanging by telling the prosecutor ‘that this Challoner was his kinsman, and it would be a disgrace to me as well as to the rest of his friends to have him hanged, and that his friends would raise £5 among them to pay for the cow in case he would forbear the prosecution.’ Sympathizing with Tyler’s interest, the prosecutor accepted the bribe and Challoner was freed. The Tyler clan defended their honor violently, if necessary. Hoping to jail Tyler for debt, Mr. Thomas Braddock ’employed Rees Wenlock to serve William Tyler with a writ.’ Tyler persuaded Wenlock to stop on the way to court at Tyler’s sister’s house where Tyler’s kin assaulted Wenlock and freed Tyler. Mr. Braddock then got a more muscular group of tenants to serve Tyler in church. Again, ‘many of Tyler’s companions, and some women of his relations came to rescue Tyler.” After a fight, “Tyler was set on horseback, and … went toward the gaol.’ The Tyler clan was inconsolable, although they faced, particularly in relation to their greater sins, a relatively minor public humiliation, a temporary jailing for debt. ‘The consternation and lamentation of Tyler’s friends,’ noted Gough, ‘especially the women, was such as I cannot easily demonstrate.’

“Because of their ethical priorities, even unrelated local people helped unwittingly to keep the sinister Tyler clan’s banner riding high. Tyler in old age finally faced the gallows for stealing some sheep. Tyler’s virtuous grandson, Thomas Tyler, was the chief witness against him. The jury refused to believe the youth, however. As Gough noted, ‘the jury conceived it malicious and blamed him for offering to hang his grandfather, and soe old Tyler was acquitted.’ The northwestern jury raised kinship loyalty above property rights and above the choice to witness justly against a brutish life.”

and here’s a little bit about notions of honor in seventeenth century myddle [kindle location 521]:

“Though placed toward the back of the church, tenant farmers, particularly those who boasted generations of ancestors in the parish, held much honor. They lost this honor, however, if they suffered rituals of public humiliation. So while often ignoring private vices, tenant farmers always made an effort to prevent overt mortifications. Worried middling parents sent their juvenile delinquents far from the surrounding countryside, not to rehabilitate them spiritually or even to save their skins, but to remove their likely and shameful jailings and hangings from the sight and recording of neighbors. A Myddle tavern-keeper, Thomas Jukes, exiled a larcenous son by placing him into apprenticeship with a roving juggler who happened to pass through the village.” Michael Brame, of a long-standing Myddle family, came to Myddle following the death of his brother and brother’s wife in order to preserve the family’s leasehold and also to raise his brother’s son William. William robbed meat from several neighbors’ houses. The Braine clan took the only possible action: ‘at last he was sent away,’ noted Gough, ‘I know not whither.'”

edit: i meant to say and i forgot — getting rid of dishonorable children in this clannish society is (was), of course, a parallel to the killing of dishonorable children in much more clannish/tribal societies, just with less homicide. /edit

and, then, on notions of honor amongst the quaker settlers in pennsylvania [kindle locations 649-651]:

“The Quaker settlers were also as fascinated by honor, though they replaced clan honor with the Deity’s honor as revealed in their lives — ‘the honor of Truth.’ Their meetings would try to erase considerations of honor within households by insisting that such households uphold the honor of God’s revelations. The settlers were as pugnacious, though they replaced violent clan feuds and lawsuits with a spiritual feud against the ‘world’ — the ‘Lamb’s War.'”

(note: comments do not require an email. myddle!)

Advertisements

29 Comments

  1. Interesting. Do you know anything about the “familists” on the continent? They were accused of a kind of communism though I’m not sure what the reality was, and other dissenting sects in Holland and NW Germany (and maybe elsewhere) were accused of being familists, including the Mennonites, a pre-Quakerish group to which some of my Pennsylvania ancestors belonged. But I wonder what the background was? What happened in Munster may have been an aberration.

    Reply

  2. I’m so happy you wrote this. I’ve been struggling to put a post together about the origins of the Quakers. I’ll be posting it soon, hopefully.

    I’ve been coming to a similar conclusion as you presented here. The Quakers seemed to be emerging from a region with a very clannish past. Various events (enclosures, war, etc) forced change upon these people and some of them, the Quakers, chose to transform their clannish ways such as redirecting their honor culture toward God. David Hackett Fischer made this same basic point in Albion’s Seed:

    “In some respects, the Quaker culture was that of its native region; in others it was a reaction against it.”

    The transitional aspect is interesting. I think that relates to border people. The Midlands was historically a region of shifting borders, right next to Wales and formerly a part of Wales, between North and South, including Pennine moors and highlands. It was so rural and isolated that it supposedly was the last area in England that wild wolves and bears roamed freely.

    I was speculating about how clannish people on borders might be different than clannish people not on borders. Quakers are another variety of this. They chose a different path of cultural development than the Ulster Scots, but it was living amidst great transition that allowed both groups to become something different than typical clannish people.

    For further research, you might want to consider North Carolina. It was the another colonial area that attracted many religious and political dissidents, rebels and troublemakers. It also attracted many diverse ethnicities, including a fair number of clannish people. For a time, North Carolina was governed by Quakers, but I suppose that was near inevitably doomed with their being between Virginia and South Carolina. Early North Carolinians were a freedom-loving people which is why they chose such inaccessible terrain and hurricane-prone coastline to hide out in. It’s interesting that Quakerism became so popular among these people.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cary%27s_Rebellion

    Reply

  3. I had another speculation.

    The Quakers were in a unique position. Because of their clannish past and transitional state, they were able to understand clannishness and somewhat see beyond it to a different way of organizing a society. Because of William Penn’s experience and vision, they were able and willing to attract a wide variety of clannish people to Pennsylvania.

    Penn’s Quaker multiculturalism was a multi-clannishness and a meta-clannishness. Penn allowed different ethnic groups to have separate settlements and separate religions. Each people was allowed to be as clannish as they wanted within their own communities and churches, except when it negatively imposed on other people. The Quakers to some degree seemed to have expected people to solve.their own problems at the local level, within their own communities and families.

    What has to be considered about Pennsylvania is that it was the vision of William Penn, a single person. The other Quakers got on board with it, but it began with him. Penn wasn’t from the North Midlands or from Wales, although his father’s family line supposedly descended from Welsh. His mother was completely Dutch. He was born in London, was introduced to Quakerism in Ireland and traveled widely. So, Penn’s vision was based on a wider experience of the world than the average Quaker. Penn probably was as universalist and non-clannish as an Englishman could be back then.

    The Quakerism that came to be in Pennsylvania may have been quite different than how it began in North Midlands and North Wales. Maybe Penn was able to take Quakerism to another level that wouldn’t have been possible without him.

    Reply

  4. @ hbd chick: “..nw england (cheshire)..”

    North West England would also include Lancashire and Cumbria, in addition to Cheshire. Out of the ‘Valiant Sixty’, who were the first Quakers, it seems that of the eight most prominent members, half were from Cumbria:-
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valiant_Sixty

    I’d imagine that Cumbria, due its mountainous terrain, retained customs of cousin marriage until comparatively recently, in fact I think you briefly mentioned this in your ‘Mating Patterns’ series a while back when you looked at English regions?

    In regards to NW England/NE Wales. This is where I grew up. I can confirm that there are numerous partly Welsh-derived place names and river names occurring geographically quite far out in to Cheshire, eg Crewe, [derived from the Welsh ‘cryw’ meaning weir]. However Saxon-isation had a far greater effect on the eradication of Brythonic language use in Cheshire due to the flat terrain of the Cheshire Plain which enabled greater cultural spread relative to NE Wales. Chester was captured from the Britons by the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria at the Battle of Chester in early 7th Century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chester

    Up until the 600s, the distribution of Brythonic language speaking tribes clearly included North West England alongside Wales:- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Britain_peoples_circa_600.svg

    My suspicion is that clans and consanguinous marriages were both cultural features of former Brythonic language-speaking regions until relatively late. Indeed, in Cheshire: “Endogamy is particularly striking if we consider the whole of the north-western region of Cheshire and South Lancashire. Between 1374 and 1427 one quarter of papal indulgences for consanguineous marriages in England related to inhabitants of Chester archdeaconry;” [From “Cheshire and the Tudor State 1480-1560” by Time Thornton]:

    http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DgHog0QapB4C&pg=PA32&lpg=PA32&dq=consanguineous+marriage+cheshire&source=bl&ots=5uoAa8Uo1P&sig=0UxeUzPnaNz9EHEzmqBtppxER6M&hl=en&sa=X&ei=1JcCUuLJJMi80QWioID4CA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=consanguineous%20marriage%20cheshire&f=false

    Reply

  5. @chris – “North West England would also include Lancashire and Cumbria, in addition to Cheshire.”

    absolutely! it’s just that levy focuses a lot on cheshire for whatever reasons — at least in the first half of the book. there and northern wales.

    @chris – “Out of the ‘Valiant Sixty’, who were the first Quakers, it seems that of the eight most prominent members, half were from Cumbria.”

    yeah — woodard and hackett fischer talk a lot about cumbria and quakerism.

    @chris – “…the flat terrain of the Cheshire Plain which enabled greater cultural spread relative to NE Wales. Chester was captured from the Britons by the Anglo-Saxon Kingdom of Northumbria at the Battle of Chester in early 7th Century….”

    ah, yes — i’ve been eyeing that cheshire plain with suspicion given that flatlanders seem to outbreed more than mountaineers. and guess where a lot of the quakers in cheshire came from. (^_^) didn’t know about the northumbrians taking chester — thanks!

    @chris – “My suspicion is that clans and consanguinous marriages were both cultural features of former Brythonic language-speaking regions until relatively late.”

    i think your suspicions will be proven correct! (^_^)

    @chris – “Indeed, in Cheshire: ‘Endogamy is particularly striking if we consider the whole of the north-western region of Cheshire and South Lancashire. Between 1374 and 1427 one quarter of papal indulgences for consanguineous marriages in England related to inhabitants of Chester archdeaconry;’ [From “Cheshire and the Tudor State 1480-1560″ by Time Thornton].”

    ah ha! double ah ha!! thanks!! (^_^)

    Reply

  6. @everybody – note that regularly scheduled programming should resume toward the end of the week/this weekend, so then i’ll have better time to read/respond to everyone’s comments. until then — thanks for all the input! (^_^)

    Reply

    1. Hope you enjoyed your time off! :-) I’ve been away from the blogs and Twitter until recently so I’ve some catching up to do…

      Speaking of regularly scheduled programming, my hiatus is over; look for my next HBD post early September.

      Reply

  7. It is stretching things to draw parallels between Quakers and defiant predatory behavior by regional families. Moreover, many Quakers were from Ireland and a lot of Irish Quaker converts were originally officers and men in Cromwell’s army and became sympathetic to the native Irish after converting (releasing Irish families about to be transported to an unspeakable fate in Barbados for example), and suffered severely for it. They were flogged, tortured, imprisoned and dismissed without pension. Sounds universalistic to me. (ref,To Hell or Barbados: The Ethnic Cleansing of Ireland)

    Reply

  8. @sean – “It is stretching things to draw parallels between Quakers and defiant predatory behavior by regional families.”

    the quakers come out of this population, that is the point. i’m trying to reconstruct the social history of these populations — mating patterns, family structures, clannish behaviors (or not) over time. like i did in my series on the irish.

    @sean – “Sounds universalistic to me.”

    yes, well, note what i said in the post:

    “imo, the seventeenth century quakers of nw england/ne wales were some of my ‘in-betweeners’ — not extremely clannish anymore, but not fully individualistic/universalistic by that point, either — somewhere in the middle.”

    the quakers of that era (the 1600s), it seems to me on my reading of levy, appear to be on the road to becoming very universalistic but weren’t quite there yet at that point in time. if you read levy — or anything about the quakers — you’ll find that many of them (and the quakers split into different sub-sects over this issue) refused to allow their children to marry non-quakers. that’s un-universalistic afaiac. there are other behavioral traits, too, that make me think they were not extremely universalistic — i’ll get to those in my post on the quakers which will hopefully appear sometime next week (fingers crossed — but not when i’m typing).

    Reply

    1. @hbd chick “the quakers of that era (the 1600s), it seems to me on my reading of levy, appear to be on the road to becoming very universalistic but weren’t quite there yet at that point in time.”

      What would make an interesting study is if one could find data on the specific people involved. Why did some people in the same region become Quakers and some not? Why did some Quakers come to American and others not? Why did some Quakers and others in the same region remain more clannish and others became more universalist?

      We have these large-scale sets of data. We can look at a region such as marriage records and we can look at those who emigrated from a region, but we don’t have good data about the reasons behind it all. It is sort of a mystery how out of a clannish people a more universalist people emerge. It makes the demarcation between clannishness and universalism less clear and less absolute.

      What causes change among a people? Does it come from within a culture? Is it some external factor in the environment? Is it some mix of causes that can’t be disentangled or predicted?

      Reply

  9. @benjamin – “What would make an interesting study is if one could find data on the specific people involved.”

    yeah, that would be really cool! sounds like a great ph.d. thesis to me. (^_^)

    @benjamin – “What causes change among a people? Does it come from within a culture? Is it some external factor in the environment? Is it some mix of causes that can’t be disentangled or predicted?”

    well, i think the safest bet is always some sort of mix. humans and human societies/cultures are so complex that i think it will remain extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make predictions about precisely which directions populations and their cultures will shift. i dunno … maybe with some super-super-computers or something.

    i DO think that one can get at some (some) general patterns by taking a look at human populations from a sociobiological/human biodiversity p.o.v. (of course, i would say that, wouldn’t i? (~_^) ) i am very convinced (although i could very well be wrong!) that there is a connection between inbreeding and clannishness, and that they are connected to inclusive fitness and the selection for altruistic behaviors in populations. wherever you find intense inbreeding, you find intense clannishness (see: the arab world). and wherever you DON’T find intense inbreeding (over a period of some time), you DON’T find intense clannishness.

    the outbreeding project in europe as i like to call it began as early as the 500s in some areas of europe, but really didn’t get going until the 800s, and it certainly didn’t reach the more celtic areas of britain until sometime after the 1200s (maybe even later). same story for groups like the swiss and the southern french and the frisians in the netherlands and the dithmarsians in germany. and, very interestingly, we find calvinism — including puritanism — and quakerism and other “radical reformation” movements amongst all these groups. i think that the border clannish populations that you (and i!) find so interesting arrive late to the universalism scene because they started outbreeding later than my “core” europeans (the english — the southern english, i suppose, the ne french, the nw germans, some of the dutch — not the ones along the coast, and the belgians. maybe some others, too). but they’re not as clannish as groups farther out (the irish, the highland scots, populations in the balkans, sicilians) who didn’t start outbreeding until even later than the border clannish groups (my “in-betweeners”).
    _____

    as a little footnote: levy notes that marriages in 1600s cheshire amongst the commoners were generally love matches. that sounds to me as though they were probably not marrying close cousins, as close cousin marriage usually goes hand-in-hand with arranged marriages — but i don’t know for certain.

    Reply

  10. @nelson – “Speaking of regularly scheduled programming, my hiatus is over; look for my next HBD post early September.”

    yay! yes, i saw the other day that you are back on twitter. welcome back! (^_^)

    Reply

  11. Additional bits of information:

    Regarding Quaker rebelliousness and diversion of clannishness to Lamb’s War. The original Quakers were not at all a pacifistic bunch, as they are today. In New England, they would disrupt Sunday services of the Puritans by barging in and pouring blood on the altar, for example. (I likely have ancestors in both groups.)

    Referencing the Scots Irish and Borderers in terms of Appalachia ignores their earlier settlement in New England. The Merrimack Valley – Londonderry, Bedford, Haverhill, Andover, Dracut, Pembroke, Hillsborough, Antrim, Litchfield, Derryfield (now Manchester), Goffstown, Dunbarton – was Scots-Irish, as were the settlements up the Connecticut River – Windsor, VT, and much of interior Maine, Kennebec River, Belfast, Casco Bay. Not Puritan. That was on the coast and lower Connecticut River, only very gradually moving inland.

    Live Free or Die – John Stark, was of Ulster Scot descent. It figures, doesn’t it?

    Reply

  12. Friends strove to build in alliance with the New Model Army, and ask if we cannot pick up where they left off, building this time in alliance with the democratic process. Dare we resume the campaign for a society of equals, in which the power of peers and monarch are abolished and the mighty put down from their seats, a society which is not frightened to expropriate the rich to relieve the poor, a society which at last disestablishes the Church of England and deprives it of its indefensible privileges?

    Now there’s a Quaker programme for the twenty-first century!

    This is a quote from the link above. They sound a little like . . . Trotskyites! Didn’t he , Trotsky, come from a clannish society? Or is it that they all share a common Judeo-Christian world view? I’m looking forward to reading Reza Aslan’s new book, Zealot

    Reply

  13. On page 446 of Albion’s Seed, “The North Midlands, more than any other part of England, had been colonized by Viking Invaders… in the central region of the North, the Pennine moorland, where Quakerism was strongest, the villages were mainly Norse in origin and name, and Norse had been spoken there in the Middle Ages.”

    On page 497 in the footnotes, Where Quakerism was strongest, the villages were mainly Norse in origin and name…”

    The picture I see from Albion’s Seed is that the region that had historic Viking immigration spawned religious dissent in the several decades surrounding the English Civil War. Puritans mainly in East Anglia and Quakerism in the Northwest Midlands.

    In Pennsylvania, the Quakers seemed to have an affinity with the Northwest Germans that immigrated there. They both had a persistent egalitarian-pacifist ethic. The Quakers did not get along with the Borderers (Scotch-Irish) in Pennsylvania who were their neighbors in England. The Borderers were pushed west and south after immigrating to Pennsylvania.

    Historian Kenneth Harl claims that the Danelaw had a population of about 20-25% Viking after the 9th-10th century conquest.
    http://www.thegreatcourses.com/tgc/courses/course_detail.aspx?cid=3910

    I see the North Midlands as a partly heterogenous region where Quakerism enabled the descendants of Vikings to assert their innate values. Perhaps the aboriginal Britons of the region maintained a more tribal nature?

    Reply

  14. Some Quaker dissidents objected to central control of the movement and women being influential, but they had little lasting influence.

    “Later laws were made which regulated Quaker marriages, but these only permitted one Quaker to marry another Quaker. If a Quaker wanted to marry someone of a different religious group, this was only valid in the parish church, and as Quakers denied the authority of the priest, all of their members who married in a church were disowned. The problem was nothing to do with who the Quaker married, but only because marriage in a church seemed to recognise the authority of that church”

    If you judge them not on their partially regional origins, but how they actually behaved, I think we must see the Quakers as very universalistic.

    Reply

  15. @sean – “I think we must see the Quakers as very universalistic.”

    the marriage issue is just one aspect of their behavior. i’ll be working up a long list of all sorts of their behaviors and ideas for my post next week so you can see what they were about. i don’t think that they were very universalistic, but they were definitely quite universalistic.

    btw, where’s that quote from?

    Reply

  16. @Assistant Village Idiot – “The original Quakers were not at all a pacifistic bunch, as they are today.”

    The early religious dissenters were a mixed bunch without any systemic theology or large-scale organization. The pacifist position began to develop before the Quakers. Some of the first generation of Quakers adopted pacifism and others didn’t. Even during the American Revolution, Quakers were still divided over the issue. But the leadership of Quakerism seemed to have taken to it much earlier. Both George Fox and William Penn were pacifists.

    Pacifism is, of course, a matter of definition. Most people wouldn’t consider throwing blood in a church to be a violently anti-pacifist action, although it is aggressively confrontational. Another way of thinking about pacifism is the simple refusal of military service:

    “This striking evidence that Quakers had early reservations about military participation undermines the validity of the thesis that Quaker pacifism was largely self-defensive in response to the Restoration of King Charles II. Although the subscribers to that thesis have acknowledged that individual Quakers expressed pacifist beliefs before the Declaration of 166o, clearly the Quaker missionaries had integrated these beliefs into their message to a greater extent than they might have surmised.”

    Walking in the Way of Peace: Quaker Pacifism in the Seventeenth Century
    by Meredith Baldwin Weddle
    p. 93

    “Referencing the Scots Irish and Borderers in terms of Appalachia ignores their earlier settlement in New England.”

    Both Scots-Irish and Germans were found in many different places throughout the colonies and on the frontier. However, they weren’t found in equal concentration in all places. The Scots-Irish, for example, were found in less concentration in the North. They were less concentrated in the North as a percentage of all Scots-Irish and as a percentage of total population.

    It isn’t ignoring them. It is simply pointing out where they had their greatest influence and where they maintained their separate ethnic identity the longest.

    Reply

  17. Luke Lea – “The earliest Quakers were certainly not into non-violence”

    Correction: Many, but not all, of the earliest Quakers were certainly not into non-violence”

    Nuance is the proper perspective here. The religious dissenters were a diverse group, including but not dominated by pacifists. The Quakers drew from this diversity in forming their own ranks, from levellers to ranters to seekers. The Puritans also drew from this same diversity to form their ranks.

    New coalitions and groups were constantly being formed at that time, and many people were undecided about the proper attitude and course of action. It was a destabilized time with much uncertainty.

    What interests me isn’t that all Quakers were pacifists but that any of the Quakers were pacifists in such a time of immense violence and oppression. How did pacifism emerge at all amidst that conflict?

    Reply

  18. @Luke Lea – “This is a quote from the link above. They sound a little like . . . Trotskyites! Didn’t he , Trotsky, come from a clannish society?”

    I’m a Lower Midwest Midlander and have much sympathy for the Quaker culture and worldview. Your comment intrigued me. I recently took a political test. I basically answered questions from the standpoint of wanting self-governance, basic freedoms and rights, direct democracy and social democracy, civil society and civil rights, community values and the common good, public transparency and accountability. In answering that way, I was labeled a ‘Trotskyite’. I thought that strange, but maybe it makes some sense.

    Reply

  19. @Andrew – “I see the North Midlands as a partly heterogenous region where Quakerism enabled the descendants of Vikings to assert their innate values. Perhaps the aboriginal Britons of the region maintained a more tribal nature?”

    Useful thoughts. That could explain some of the universalist potential that manifested out of a region that showed significant signs of clannishness. Maybe the focus should be more on the Vikings than just on the English North Midlanders. My knowledge of the Vikings is limited.

    Reply

  20. The North American colonies were a godsend to families keen to get rid of dishonourable children.

    Reply

  21. A Brief History of Quaker Marriage Practice

    Quakers were English Dissenters. I don’t think it is hepful to try and trace the characteristics of symbolic communities like religions peoples back to some region of Britain and then peg them o a finely graduated scale of tribal to clannish. It might be adaquate for Chimps, but humans have symbolic communities which mandate treating everone as a member of one’s family.

    People became Quakers or other forms of dissenters by conversion so a certain type of personality would be selected for. Quakers did not carry swords so they were pacifistic. While they didn’t recognise authority and refused to tak oaths or remove their hats they did not break laws by preying on other people. Puritans like Oliver Cromwell took them seriously . And their converts did treat the irish better than anyone else

    We have to look at w how biologically representative of their region people were. A lot of Britons were transported to Virginia and the South as criminals, or sold themselves as indentured labour. The south may have got an unrepresentative sample of areas of Britain. Conversely people with skills may have tended to be able to go to the North .

    Reply

  22. I would like to know who the violent Quakers were. The Quakers were deeply involved the 19th century efforts to try and help the US Native Americans . It was Quakers who publicised the 1943 Bengal famine.

    What was in it for them?

    Reply

  23. Much of Shropshire at this time was of mixed Welsh/English ethnicity. Welsh is still spoken in Shropshire. John Gough (Welsh surname meaning Smith) and Rees (Welsh first name) Wenlock (Wenlock edge right on the border) are Welsh. The Tylers and the Challenors are without further evidence, English and therefore another tribe, clearly, the less powerful in Myddle.

    I’ve made further comments about the New Model Army, the West Indies and Quakers on another thread here.

    Reply

  24. Sean, Before the Quakers there were the 5th Monarchists. Many 5th Monarchists became Quakers (or Baptists or Congregationalists) over time. The 5th Monarchists believed in violent action. In 1662, 50 5th Monarchists attacked London aiming to kill the newly restored King Charles II, in revenge for the execution of one of their leaders. The 50 were supported by at least 1000 Quakers. So in 1662, Quakers were not wholly pacifist.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s