Where did Caroline Come From?
- Please note: The terms "we" and "us" in this material refers only to Bronwyn and Lex, not historians in general nor is it necessarily even indicative of the views of the population of interested people.
- This is just a quick survey of information easily available from a scan of internet material.
- While we have a subscription to Ancestry, we can't afford the level of subscription required for access to Ancestry's full range of materials.
- In this context, we can only afford the Australian version of Ancestry, which, despite what to us, at least, is its considerable expense, does not give access to the full range of material available in foreign climes.
- Nor can we afford to buy any hardcopy or ebook biographies.
- We could resort to libraries, but the time is not currently available to us.
- If possible we will try to fill the gaps in our knowledge, but at this stage if you want to know more, you will have to seek it out.
- However, refer here to our warnings about the mass of hagiographic material floating around about Caroline Chisholm.
- If you find errors or dispute some of our (well ... mainly Lex's) various rants and statements, feel free to give us a hoy, here. Likewise if you have any additions to make and/or gaps to fill in the information we give on these pages.
Caroline's beginnings
On 13 May, 1808, probably in a farmhouse in or near the village of Wootton, Northamptonshire[1], Sarah Jones, William Jones's 4th wife, gave birth to at least her 7th child, and at least William's 16th[2].
William, who perhaps should have seriously considered getting someone to do to him what had probably been done to the male pigs among those he bought, fattened, and sold on, was 64. Fortunately for many, he still had the use of his bollocks by the time this 16th child was conceived.
Oh, yes. Nearly forgot. The child's name was George.
Actually, that's Lex's pathetic attempt at a joke.
Oh, okay. The baby didn't have a name yet.
Lex! Stop that!
Yes, dear. All right, the baby was eventually named Caroline.
[1] Unlike the date, there seems to be a bit of disparity about the location of this event. Some sources place it in Northampton, others place it near Northampton, and others in what we regard as the more likely location of what was then the village of Wootton, which is now effectively a suburb of Northampton and may have been either at or near the location of William Jones’s farm. In other words, in accord with common practice at the time, it’s likely the event occurred in Sarah and her husband William’s home.
[2] While it may be a reflection on our interpretative abilities and our overly speedy scanning of the available material, our reading has caused us some confusion over the numbers of children at the times of Caroline’s birth and the later death of her father, William. However, the numbers we’ve given here seem to us to be the most likely, which means several of William’s children died prior to him. We don't know whether or not 9 were still alive at the time of Caroline’s birth, or any were born or died during Caroline’s first 6 years. A scan of available birth, death, baptism, or similar records to which we don't have access would probably supply at least some of this data. Mind you, as far as our purposes on this website are concerned we guess none of this is of any great importance.
William, who perhaps should have seriously considered getting someone to do to him what had probably been done to the male pigs among those he bought, fattened, and sold on, was 64. Fortunately for many, he still had the use of his bollocks by the time this 16th child was conceived.
Oh, yes. Nearly forgot. The child's name was George.
Actually, that's Lex's pathetic attempt at a joke.
Oh, okay. The baby didn't have a name yet.
Lex! Stop that!
Yes, dear. All right, the baby was eventually named Caroline.
[1] Unlike the date, there seems to be a bit of disparity about the location of this event. Some sources place it in Northampton, others place it near Northampton, and others in what we regard as the more likely location of what was then the village of Wootton, which is now effectively a suburb of Northampton and may have been either at or near the location of William Jones’s farm. In other words, in accord with common practice at the time, it’s likely the event occurred in Sarah and her husband William’s home.
[2] While it may be a reflection on our interpretative abilities and our overly speedy scanning of the available material, our reading has caused us some confusion over the numbers of children at the times of Caroline’s birth and the later death of her father, William. However, the numbers we’ve given here seem to us to be the most likely, which means several of William’s children died prior to him. We don't know whether or not 9 were still alive at the time of Caroline’s birth, or any were born or died during Caroline’s first 6 years. A scan of available birth, death, baptism, or similar records to which we don't have access would probably supply at least some of this data. Mind you, as far as our purposes on this website are concerned we guess none of this is of any great importance.
Caroline's Old Man's Varied Careers
While not of great importance to our story, we thought this might be of interest in terms of trying to understand Caroline's background and, if possible, something of what made her what she became. Sadly, as you will see, there's little information available of a type we regard as acceptable even as indicative, let alone factual.
Career Number 1: Shoemaker
According to one source, William started out as an apprentice shoemaker. At some time later he was apparently an innkeeper. And at the time of Caroline's birth he was a pig farmer, although apparently not a farmer for the entire lifecycle of the pigs. He appears to have bought young pigs, fattened them for pork, ham, sausage, and bacon eaters, then sold them on to the butchers.
We (Bronwyn and Lex!) don't know any of the dates involved with William's life apart from what is said to have been his death year, 1814, and, of course, Caroline's birth year, 1808. However, as he is said to have been 70 when he died, we can reasonably deduce his birth year as probably being 1744. Where he was born, any family details, any tales of his upbringing and the like are unknown to us.
Thus, the first event of which we have some indication, is his alleged apprenticeship in the shoemaking trade. If true, this would come as no great surprise. Northampton was famous for its shoes at the time. There does not appear to have been a minimum apprenticeship age, although 14 was not uncommon for parented children. If William was a "parish child", however, such as an orphan or deserted child, living at the cost of the parish, he would have been apprenticed much earlier. Possibly this could be substantially under the age of 10, although, whether parish or parented, he could have been apprenticed at 10 or 11.
William's apprenticeship period could also differ, probably at least 5-7 years if parented, and if a parish child he could be apprenticed until he was 25. Of course, it's also possible William might have come from a family of shoemakers, and could have been apprenticed to his father or another relative.
However, it appears that at this time only around 50% of apprentices actually completed their apprenticeships, for a raft of reasons. At this stage, we don't know the nature of William's indenture, that is, his apprenticeship contract, or whether or not he actually completed his indenture.
We (Bronwyn and Lex!) don't know any of the dates involved with William's life apart from what is said to have been his death year, 1814, and, of course, Caroline's birth year, 1808. However, as he is said to have been 70 when he died, we can reasonably deduce his birth year as probably being 1744. Where he was born, any family details, any tales of his upbringing and the like are unknown to us.
Thus, the first event of which we have some indication, is his alleged apprenticeship in the shoemaking trade. If true, this would come as no great surprise. Northampton was famous for its shoes at the time. There does not appear to have been a minimum apprenticeship age, although 14 was not uncommon for parented children. If William was a "parish child", however, such as an orphan or deserted child, living at the cost of the parish, he would have been apprenticed much earlier. Possibly this could be substantially under the age of 10, although, whether parish or parented, he could have been apprenticed at 10 or 11.
William's apprenticeship period could also differ, probably at least 5-7 years if parented, and if a parish child he could be apprenticed until he was 25. Of course, it's also possible William might have come from a family of shoemakers, and could have been apprenticed to his father or another relative.
However, it appears that at this time only around 50% of apprentices actually completed their apprenticeships, for a raft of reasons. At this stage, we don't know the nature of William's indenture, that is, his apprenticeship contract, or whether or not he actually completed his indenture.
Career Number 2: Innkeeper
As to William's life as an innkeeper, once again we have no idea how, why, when, or whether:
- he became involved in this business;
- his inn was a local boozer, a travellers' inn, a tiny supplier of grog to a village of locals, or ... whatever;
- he was involved as an employee, employer, or both, perhaps moving from the former to the latter; nor
- if he managed to buy his own inn, or buy his way into an inn's management, where the money came from - maybe one of his wives was the daughter of an innkeeper, or even an innkeeper's widow, or he benefited from an inheritance to himself or via a wife.
Career Number 3: Pig Fattener
And so to the piggery, his final career, and the one from which he may have retired prior to his death[3] Sadly, as you will have become rather tired of by now, we know bugger all about William's involvement in this business, nor of when, why, or how he became involved. As for his innkeeping, what we don't know is legion and identical.
Nonetheless, William appears to have been successful in his businesses, and although when he died he was not a wealthy man, he appears to have enabled his family to live in a reasonable degree of comfort. However, it does become somewhat difficult to separate reality from hagiography here, bearing in mind that just because a piece of writing may be hagiographic does not mean it does not contain factual material.
[3] We know Caroline lived in Northampton after her father’s death, and some sources say her father bought a house there. If the latter detail is factual, none of our sources record when the purchase was made, nor if or when the family moved there. Nor do we know if this was a retirement move, although if this happened it would probably have at least involved a move to give closer management control to one of his older sons ... if he had any(!).
Nonetheless, William appears to have been successful in his businesses, and although when he died he was not a wealthy man, he appears to have enabled his family to live in a reasonable degree of comfort. However, it does become somewhat difficult to separate reality from hagiography here, bearing in mind that just because a piece of writing may be hagiographic does not mean it does not contain factual material.
[3] We know Caroline lived in Northampton after her father’s death, and some sources say her father bought a house there. If the latter detail is factual, none of our sources record when the purchase was made, nor if or when the family moved there. Nor do we know if this was a retirement move, although if this happened it would probably have at least involved a move to give closer management control to one of his older sons ... if he had any(!).
Caroline's Old Man: Post-Single, Pre-Sarah
As noted above, William was married three times before marrying Caroline's mother, Sarah. The three previous wives, for the ultimate benefit of many Australian immigrants, had conveniently died[4].
These pre-Sarah wives produced at least 5 children, being the ones who appear to have survived to William's death, presuming Sarah hadn't produced more after Caroline. We don't know the names, or birth, marriage, or death ages of either the wives or the children, or how many living (or dead) children each woman produced. We're sure at least some of the information's out there somewhere, so if you come across it please feel free to let us know by way of our contact page.
Oh, how do we know for certain these pre-Sarah wives died? Well, we don't for absolute certain, although their death records would probably be floating around somewhere. However, in William's lifetime divorce was as close to impossible for a person of his social standing and financial worth as it is possible to be. Besides all the legal costs, as an Act of Parliament was required, the bribes to pass through each stage of this process, especially the last stage, were horrendous[5].
What is somewhat surprising here, however, is not so much the number of wives and births, but that the products of a possible 12 births appear to have been still alive when William died, with many at adult ages when they were most likely themselves both married and parents. The average size of families at the time was around 5. In addition to these possible 12 there may have been many other pregnancies, and even births, with the hidden, to us, tragedies of miscarriages and/or stillbirths, and baby, childhood, and teenage deaths.
[4] One source, Wikipedia (!), notes they all died in childbirth. We can’t attest to the accuracy of this statement, nor even if their deaths were a result of childbirth. For example, infections incurred during the highly dangerous and all-too-often deadly for mother and/or prospective child birthing process could take at least many months to do their ghastly deeds. While life for adult males was also pretty deadly, the death of women in childbirth highlights the dangers of being female in the 18th/19th centuries, and the deaths of these 3 women in particular perhaps indicate the dangers of being married to William Jones, being as fertile, long-lived, and sexually demanding as he appears to have been.
[5] There was at least one case, however, of a lower income person achieving a divorce, although it resulted in him losing his job, and we don’t know what happened to him after that. It was in the latter half of the 19th century that a Westminster parliamentary officer responsible for drafting legislation successfully slipped an extra clause into a piece of legislation he was certain none of the members of parliament nor any of the parliamentary staff would bother to check before passing it through the parliamentary approval processes, nor would the Queen (Victoria at the time) nor her staff check it prior to her signature. While amusing in its own way, we don’t know what his wife’s view was, nor do we know quite why this man went to the extreme of a measure he would have known would lose him his job. In reality, this is an example of why we in Australia are so lucky the Australian Labor Party’s Lionel Murphy and Gough Whitlam pushed through fault-free divorce provisions. Provisions, we might add, which at the time of writing Britain still does not have! Mind you, Bronwyn and I have never been married, to other people nor to one another. Nonetheless, we have known those who have, and the changes in the divorce legislation led to a significant reduction in the traumas of problematic marriages and problematic divorces, to the benefit of most parties, and especially children. Of course, it wasn’t a cure-all, but it was a great step forwards.
These pre-Sarah wives produced at least 5 children, being the ones who appear to have survived to William's death, presuming Sarah hadn't produced more after Caroline. We don't know the names, or birth, marriage, or death ages of either the wives or the children, or how many living (or dead) children each woman produced. We're sure at least some of the information's out there somewhere, so if you come across it please feel free to let us know by way of our contact page.
Oh, how do we know for certain these pre-Sarah wives died? Well, we don't for absolute certain, although their death records would probably be floating around somewhere. However, in William's lifetime divorce was as close to impossible for a person of his social standing and financial worth as it is possible to be. Besides all the legal costs, as an Act of Parliament was required, the bribes to pass through each stage of this process, especially the last stage, were horrendous[5].
What is somewhat surprising here, however, is not so much the number of wives and births, but that the products of a possible 12 births appear to have been still alive when William died, with many at adult ages when they were most likely themselves both married and parents. The average size of families at the time was around 5. In addition to these possible 12 there may have been many other pregnancies, and even births, with the hidden, to us, tragedies of miscarriages and/or stillbirths, and baby, childhood, and teenage deaths.
[4] One source, Wikipedia (!), notes they all died in childbirth. We can’t attest to the accuracy of this statement, nor even if their deaths were a result of childbirth. For example, infections incurred during the highly dangerous and all-too-often deadly for mother and/or prospective child birthing process could take at least many months to do their ghastly deeds. While life for adult males was also pretty deadly, the death of women in childbirth highlights the dangers of being female in the 18th/19th centuries, and the deaths of these 3 women in particular perhaps indicate the dangers of being married to William Jones, being as fertile, long-lived, and sexually demanding as he appears to have been.
[5] There was at least one case, however, of a lower income person achieving a divorce, although it resulted in him losing his job, and we don’t know what happened to him after that. It was in the latter half of the 19th century that a Westminster parliamentary officer responsible for drafting legislation successfully slipped an extra clause into a piece of legislation he was certain none of the members of parliament nor any of the parliamentary staff would bother to check before passing it through the parliamentary approval processes, nor would the Queen (Victoria at the time) nor her staff check it prior to her signature. While amusing in its own way, we don’t know what his wife’s view was, nor do we know quite why this man went to the extreme of a measure he would have known would lose him his job. In reality, this is an example of why we in Australia are so lucky the Australian Labor Party’s Lionel Murphy and Gough Whitlam pushed through fault-free divorce provisions. Provisions, we might add, which at the time of writing Britain still does not have! Mind you, Bronwyn and I have never been married, to other people nor to one another. Nonetheless, we have known those who have, and the changes in the divorce legislation led to a significant reduction in the traumas of problematic marriages and problematic divorces, to the benefit of most parties, and especially children. Of course, it wasn’t a cure-all, but it was a great step forwards.
Caroline's Old Man: Post Marriage to Sarah
Various of Caroline's biographies/hagiographes refer to William at this time in words along the lines of "prosperous", or "well-to-do", making much of Caroline's "fortunate upbringing". There's mention of Caroline having a nanny at some stage, but it appears to have only been a temporary arrangement, and the circumstances are not examined in the few sources that mention it. Was Sarah ill? Had she given birth? Or suffered a bad pregnancy or birth? Why was it only a temporary arrangement? Was it prior to or following Williams' death? We don't know and the sources make no effort to examine or explain their claimed "fact".
Another source tells a story about Caroline's father bringing in a French priest, presumably a prisoner of war, to protect him from the village folk. This priest apparently told a wide-eyed Caroline stories that it is implied influenced her later life. We note that if true, Caroline must have only been 6 or younger, considering when William died.
Yet another source tells a similar story about a wounded soldier. During and after the various French Wars England was flooded with men who had been "lucky", having survived the loss of limbs while following the orders of their mostly incompetent, uncaring, and murderous generals. The care provided these men was even worse than that meted out in the 21st century, meaning it was next to none. Why Caroline's parents would have allowed this man into their home, and not all the others wandering and starving around the country for which they had been fighting is unexplained. We cannot attest to the truth of either of these stories.
Thus, yet again, we are stymied in our efforts to tell how and in what degree William may have influenced Caroline's later humanitarian actions in Australia. As with so many "ordinary" folk who, in themselves, have not been of any significant interest to record keepers and biographers of their time, William Jones has simply slipped out of history after performing what history regards as his most important action - having sex with his wife and fathering his 16th child, then spending 6 years as the father of the woman we know as Caroline Chisholm.
And Caroline did not become famous enough early enough, and certainly not to the English or the folk of Northampton, for anyone to think it important to try and collect independent information about her father from others who lived with and near him.
And if this is true of William Jones, it's even more true of Caroline's mother, Sarah.
Another source tells a story about Caroline's father bringing in a French priest, presumably a prisoner of war, to protect him from the village folk. This priest apparently told a wide-eyed Caroline stories that it is implied influenced her later life. We note that if true, Caroline must have only been 6 or younger, considering when William died.
Yet another source tells a similar story about a wounded soldier. During and after the various French Wars England was flooded with men who had been "lucky", having survived the loss of limbs while following the orders of their mostly incompetent, uncaring, and murderous generals. The care provided these men was even worse than that meted out in the 21st century, meaning it was next to none. Why Caroline's parents would have allowed this man into their home, and not all the others wandering and starving around the country for which they had been fighting is unexplained. We cannot attest to the truth of either of these stories.
Thus, yet again, we are stymied in our efforts to tell how and in what degree William may have influenced Caroline's later humanitarian actions in Australia. As with so many "ordinary" folk who, in themselves, have not been of any significant interest to record keepers and biographers of their time, William Jones has simply slipped out of history after performing what history regards as his most important action - having sex with his wife and fathering his 16th child, then spending 6 years as the father of the woman we know as Caroline Chisholm.
And Caroline did not become famous enough early enough, and certainly not to the English or the folk of Northampton, for anyone to think it important to try and collect independent information about her father from others who lived with and near him.
And if this is true of William Jones, it's even more true of Caroline's mother, Sarah.
Caroline's Old Lady
As noted above, Caroline's mum was Sarah Jones. Jones, of course, was her married name[6]. According to one source, "Allen" was Sarah's maiden name[7], although that's presuming Sarah was not previously married and had not retained her previous married name (phew!).
We suspect, again, that some official records of the time may fill these gaps in our information[8].
However, we also note that the records of the time are not complete, and are not entirely reliable. For example, "Sarah", "Allen", and "Jones", not to mention "William", were all fairly common names, and one cannot always be absolutely certain that apparent references to our person of interest are in fact references to that person.
However, as she lived with Caroline for some 16 years longer than William was part of her life, if either parent had an impact on the way she turned out then Sarah's role would seem to be of greater importance. It's worth noting here that one of the only criticisms of Caroline of any importance was that of Charles Dickens, who appears to have been critical of Caroline's oft-absent parenting. Mind you, Charles was far from an ideal father and husband.
However, like everything else, we know nothing of Sarah's parenting style, although several of the Caroline hagiographies comment on both her and Caroline spending a lot of time in charitable work, whatever that was. Whether they did it separately, with Sarah spending her widowhood away from the house leaving the older children to raise the younger, or inculcated Caroline with the concept of charitable work for the greater number outweighing in importance her parenting role is completely unknown - at least, to us.
This brings us at last to what is said to be behind Caroline's future work for the poor, and consequently the reason for all the hagiographies about her: Caroline's religious beliefs.
[6] “of course”? We note in Scotland married women commonly retained their birth family names, as we’ve observed on their gravestones.
[7] That is, "pre-marriage name". Yes, okay, we know defining "maiden name" is probably unnecessary for most of you, but who knows who may access this site around the world. And yes, that's probably over-confident, we're not completely silly!
[8] It's possible someone with access to the English Ancestry material may be able to do some tracking of William, Sarah, Caroline and/or their forebears, or maybe someone has already done so. Among other things, we know nothing about her antecedents, her upbringing, her pre-marriage religious views, nor whether she brought anything to the marriage other than her apparent fertility. If you find anything of relevance we would greatly welcome your advice.
We suspect, again, that some official records of the time may fill these gaps in our information[8].
However, we also note that the records of the time are not complete, and are not entirely reliable. For example, "Sarah", "Allen", and "Jones", not to mention "William", were all fairly common names, and one cannot always be absolutely certain that apparent references to our person of interest are in fact references to that person.
However, as she lived with Caroline for some 16 years longer than William was part of her life, if either parent had an impact on the way she turned out then Sarah's role would seem to be of greater importance. It's worth noting here that one of the only criticisms of Caroline of any importance was that of Charles Dickens, who appears to have been critical of Caroline's oft-absent parenting. Mind you, Charles was far from an ideal father and husband.
However, like everything else, we know nothing of Sarah's parenting style, although several of the Caroline hagiographies comment on both her and Caroline spending a lot of time in charitable work, whatever that was. Whether they did it separately, with Sarah spending her widowhood away from the house leaving the older children to raise the younger, or inculcated Caroline with the concept of charitable work for the greater number outweighing in importance her parenting role is completely unknown - at least, to us.
This brings us at last to what is said to be behind Caroline's future work for the poor, and consequently the reason for all the hagiographies about her: Caroline's religious beliefs.
[6] “of course”? We note in Scotland married women commonly retained their birth family names, as we’ve observed on their gravestones.
[7] That is, "pre-marriage name". Yes, okay, we know defining "maiden name" is probably unnecessary for most of you, but who knows who may access this site around the world. And yes, that's probably over-confident, we're not completely silly!
[8] It's possible someone with access to the English Ancestry material may be able to do some tracking of William, Sarah, Caroline and/or their forebears, or maybe someone has already done so. Among other things, we know nothing about her antecedents, her upbringing, her pre-marriage religious views, nor whether she brought anything to the marriage other than her apparent fertility. If you find anything of relevance we would greatly welcome your advice.
11 Mayorhold Street
At some stage, Caroline's family moved into a house in Northampton, at 11 Mayorhold. Whether this was before or after her father's death is unclear to us. The most likely (but not only) derivation of "Mayorhold" is Middle English for "horse market"[9].
An alternative, that the name comes from the establishment of a town council building in the area (i.e. something along the lines of the "Mayor's Place") seems less likely to us, if only because that part of what was (and apparently still is) called Mayorhold in which the old town hall is located seems to be on an edge of the district.
Mind you, the horse market is also on an edge, the far edge from the town hall. So? Buggered if we know! What is clear, however, is that the horse market was outside the Northampton city walls, and was not suitable in the centuries of butchery through which England passed for housing any except the absolutely dirt poor who were easily replaced after any army rampaged through the area.
Why is this stuff important? Well, only because we can't describe the address "11 Mayorhold" for you, or give you advice on how to see it. Why? Well, for the very good reason that it no longer exists. Indeed, a street called "Mayorhold" no longer exists, although one of Northampton's main streets has a section that is labelled "Mayorhold", but is far from either the horse market, or the area of Caroline's residence. Indeed, the only other placename referencing "Mayorhold" is a relatively modern shopping centre which is also nowhere near the horse market or the location of Caroline's long gone house. Both of these Mayorhold references, however, are within the general area of Northampton that came to be called "Mayorhold".
While the area around a town hall may on the surface appear to sound more salubrious than that around an area stinking of horse piss and shit, the old town hall and any associated dwellings were crammed into the higgledy piggledy of a medieval town, with little or no substantial separation between a "good" or a "bad" area for the house of a "prosperous" farmer or his family. In other words, the pong of human piss and shit, along with dumped food scraps and other rotting waste, may have been significantly worse than the stink of the horse market.
Over the centuries after the construction of the medieval town hall and probably much longer use of nearby land for a horse market, Northampton underwent at least two major triggers to urban redevelopment of some importance to our tale. Both occurred in the second half of the 17th century. In fact, both occurred within 13 years of one another.
As you will already have discovered if you've tried to locate Northampton Castle, Charles 2 conducted further urban reforms when, in 1662 in a fit of pique at the leading folk of Northampton for having quite reasonably supported the mob who offed Chas's old man's sconce, and probably also understandably ignoring the reasonableness of Northampton's leaders of the time, ordered the demolition of Northampton's city walls and gates and some of the castle. The remainder of the castle was removed to make way for a railway station in the 19th century, apart from a pissy little bit moved to be part of the resulting railway station's walls.
In 1675, Northampton was substantially destroyed by fire. Sources indicate that of the 850 or so buildings in Northampton, some 700 were destroyed. The extent to which these numbers included residential buildings, especially those of the poor, is unclear to us. However, the redevelopment that followed was principally around the town market, as that was the area principally destroyed. The medieval town hall had survived, as, probably, had the nearby residential buildings. The redevelopment certainly impressed Daniel Defoe. In 1724 he extolled its wondrous nature. a century or more had caused at least some deterioration. And as the medieval town hall appears to have survived the fire, presumably so did some of the less salubrious elements around it.
The demolition of the walls, and the generally growing understanding that developments in the field of artillery had made city walls next to obsolete, eventually enabled those who had the wherewithal to move out of their cowering spot in the midst of their less well-off brethren to move into nearby fields and construct houses more fitting to their station (as in position in society rather than railway!). The second half of the 18th century saw an increase in this movement.
A map from 1808 appears to indicate the horse market was on the then outskirts of Northampton, on the edge of open farmland, and could well have been an area developers of the time may have seen as one for better homes than those still, at that time, extant in the old part of the town. To our knowledge, in the general area of the horse market only one house appears to still date from that time. That house was largeish and almost certainly occupied by a family quite a bit more wealthy than Caroline's. But maybe the houses along Mayorhold, perhaps overlooking the horse market, were more within the price range of a reasonably well-off farmer and/or his widowed family, but still within the "well-off" part of the growing town.
While the name "Mayorhold" came to cover a wide area of the oldest parts of Northampton, the area William's family appear to have moved into seems to have been part of a process of separation in urban development, meaning increased separation between the poor, the well-off, and the wealthy as the need to cower within the walls of the town decreased. Indeed, in Northampton's case, after King Charles 2 ordered said walls' removal in retribution for the town's support of the mob who offed his old man's sconce.
It is, perhaps, ironic that within only a few decades the name "Mayorhold" came, in Northampton, to refer to one of the most dangerously violent slums in England. It exhibited all the appalling outcomes of capitalism's explosive industrial revolution, the worst of the drunkeness, disease, filth, violence, overcrowding, and hopelessness we read of in Dickens. Only worse.
When the English ruling classes could no longer pretend this was a suitable way of life in a post-second world war state, and with the growth of a political party that, at the time, at least in part, represented the working class and understood what it was to live in poverty, almost all the area was demolished and redeveloped into large blocks of government housing flats. An improvement? Well, yes, but ...
The fact is, and this is not meant to be a criticism, Caroline could perhaps have helped far more people if she had stayed at home. Such. however, was not to be her fate, and for that a great number of Australians should be thankful.
[9] “Mayorhold” is a word combining two others, “mayor” and “hold”. “Mayor”, when related to horses, may be seen to be similar to the modern English word for a female horse, “mare”. However, the possibly germanic-derived Old English word “meare”[10] applied to any hooved animal of either gender, including a "horse", male or female, and this could have held on into early Middle English. “Hold” is probably derived from the germanic-derived Old English in which it’s recorded as “halden” in the Anglian dialect and "healdan" in West Saxon. This entered Middle English as “halden”, and later “holden”. The word had multiple meanings, but a number related to something being physically held or protected, and was used to designate places where something was physically held and protected. In 21st century English we see the same usage being continued in the word “stronghold”. Thus the Nottingham horse market called “mayorhold” could have originally been a place where at least female horses, maybe all horses, and maybe even other hooved animals, were being held for sale. By the way, “mayor” as in the all-too-often pompous ass heading up certain types of municipal councils derives, as do many, if not most, of our words for political positions, from Latin via Medieval French and probably Norman French.
[10] Some sources claim at least some of the western celtic languages used a similar word, “mere”. One of these languages is Breton, which was derived from the celtic Brythonic language spoken by the Britons who fled England (mostly via Cornwall, apparently) prior to or as a result of the arrival of the germanics (principally Jutes, Saxons and Angles) in the mid-5th century. Although English linguistics “experts” tend to shy a long thousand miles from any hint of celtic influence on the origins of their language, there are other indicators of such influence, albeit relatively minor, from the considerable number of the germanics’ new subjects who were Brythonic speakers at the time of the germanics’ arrival. Mind you, it’s also possible both language groups picked the word up when passing through similar linguistic areas on their movements west. The lack of any apparently similar word in the other Indo-European languages tends to point towards it not coming from that original source.
An alternative, that the name comes from the establishment of a town council building in the area (i.e. something along the lines of the "Mayor's Place") seems less likely to us, if only because that part of what was (and apparently still is) called Mayorhold in which the old town hall is located seems to be on an edge of the district.
Mind you, the horse market is also on an edge, the far edge from the town hall. So? Buggered if we know! What is clear, however, is that the horse market was outside the Northampton city walls, and was not suitable in the centuries of butchery through which England passed for housing any except the absolutely dirt poor who were easily replaced after any army rampaged through the area.
Why is this stuff important? Well, only because we can't describe the address "11 Mayorhold" for you, or give you advice on how to see it. Why? Well, for the very good reason that it no longer exists. Indeed, a street called "Mayorhold" no longer exists, although one of Northampton's main streets has a section that is labelled "Mayorhold", but is far from either the horse market, or the area of Caroline's residence. Indeed, the only other placename referencing "Mayorhold" is a relatively modern shopping centre which is also nowhere near the horse market or the location of Caroline's long gone house. Both of these Mayorhold references, however, are within the general area of Northampton that came to be called "Mayorhold".
While the area around a town hall may on the surface appear to sound more salubrious than that around an area stinking of horse piss and shit, the old town hall and any associated dwellings were crammed into the higgledy piggledy of a medieval town, with little or no substantial separation between a "good" or a "bad" area for the house of a "prosperous" farmer or his family. In other words, the pong of human piss and shit, along with dumped food scraps and other rotting waste, may have been significantly worse than the stink of the horse market.
Over the centuries after the construction of the medieval town hall and probably much longer use of nearby land for a horse market, Northampton underwent at least two major triggers to urban redevelopment of some importance to our tale. Both occurred in the second half of the 17th century. In fact, both occurred within 13 years of one another.
As you will already have discovered if you've tried to locate Northampton Castle, Charles 2 conducted further urban reforms when, in 1662 in a fit of pique at the leading folk of Northampton for having quite reasonably supported the mob who offed Chas's old man's sconce, and probably also understandably ignoring the reasonableness of Northampton's leaders of the time, ordered the demolition of Northampton's city walls and gates and some of the castle. The remainder of the castle was removed to make way for a railway station in the 19th century, apart from a pissy little bit moved to be part of the resulting railway station's walls.
In 1675, Northampton was substantially destroyed by fire. Sources indicate that of the 850 or so buildings in Northampton, some 700 were destroyed. The extent to which these numbers included residential buildings, especially those of the poor, is unclear to us. However, the redevelopment that followed was principally around the town market, as that was the area principally destroyed. The medieval town hall had survived, as, probably, had the nearby residential buildings. The redevelopment certainly impressed Daniel Defoe. In 1724 he extolled its wondrous nature. a century or more had caused at least some deterioration. And as the medieval town hall appears to have survived the fire, presumably so did some of the less salubrious elements around it.
The demolition of the walls, and the generally growing understanding that developments in the field of artillery had made city walls next to obsolete, eventually enabled those who had the wherewithal to move out of their cowering spot in the midst of their less well-off brethren to move into nearby fields and construct houses more fitting to their station (as in position in society rather than railway!). The second half of the 18th century saw an increase in this movement.
A map from 1808 appears to indicate the horse market was on the then outskirts of Northampton, on the edge of open farmland, and could well have been an area developers of the time may have seen as one for better homes than those still, at that time, extant in the old part of the town. To our knowledge, in the general area of the horse market only one house appears to still date from that time. That house was largeish and almost certainly occupied by a family quite a bit more wealthy than Caroline's. But maybe the houses along Mayorhold, perhaps overlooking the horse market, were more within the price range of a reasonably well-off farmer and/or his widowed family, but still within the "well-off" part of the growing town.
While the name "Mayorhold" came to cover a wide area of the oldest parts of Northampton, the area William's family appear to have moved into seems to have been part of a process of separation in urban development, meaning increased separation between the poor, the well-off, and the wealthy as the need to cower within the walls of the town decreased. Indeed, in Northampton's case, after King Charles 2 ordered said walls' removal in retribution for the town's support of the mob who offed his old man's sconce.
It is, perhaps, ironic that within only a few decades the name "Mayorhold" came, in Northampton, to refer to one of the most dangerously violent slums in England. It exhibited all the appalling outcomes of capitalism's explosive industrial revolution, the worst of the drunkeness, disease, filth, violence, overcrowding, and hopelessness we read of in Dickens. Only worse.
When the English ruling classes could no longer pretend this was a suitable way of life in a post-second world war state, and with the growth of a political party that, at the time, at least in part, represented the working class and understood what it was to live in poverty, almost all the area was demolished and redeveloped into large blocks of government housing flats. An improvement? Well, yes, but ...
The fact is, and this is not meant to be a criticism, Caroline could perhaps have helped far more people if she had stayed at home. Such. however, was not to be her fate, and for that a great number of Australians should be thankful.
[9] “Mayorhold” is a word combining two others, “mayor” and “hold”. “Mayor”, when related to horses, may be seen to be similar to the modern English word for a female horse, “mare”. However, the possibly germanic-derived Old English word “meare”[10] applied to any hooved animal of either gender, including a "horse", male or female, and this could have held on into early Middle English. “Hold” is probably derived from the germanic-derived Old English in which it’s recorded as “halden” in the Anglian dialect and "healdan" in West Saxon. This entered Middle English as “halden”, and later “holden”. The word had multiple meanings, but a number related to something being physically held or protected, and was used to designate places where something was physically held and protected. In 21st century English we see the same usage being continued in the word “stronghold”. Thus the Nottingham horse market called “mayorhold” could have originally been a place where at least female horses, maybe all horses, and maybe even other hooved animals, were being held for sale. By the way, “mayor” as in the all-too-often pompous ass heading up certain types of municipal councils derives, as do many, if not most, of our words for political positions, from Latin via Medieval French and probably Norman French.
[10] Some sources claim at least some of the western celtic languages used a similar word, “mere”. One of these languages is Breton, which was derived from the celtic Brythonic language spoken by the Britons who fled England (mostly via Cornwall, apparently) prior to or as a result of the arrival of the germanics (principally Jutes, Saxons and Angles) in the mid-5th century. Although English linguistics “experts” tend to shy a long thousand miles from any hint of celtic influence on the origins of their language, there are other indicators of such influence, albeit relatively minor, from the considerable number of the germanics’ new subjects who were Brythonic speakers at the time of the germanics’ arrival. Mind you, it’s also possible both language groups picked the word up when passing through similar linguistic areas on their movements west. The lack of any apparently similar word in the other Indo-European languages tends to point towards it not coming from that original source.
Caroline's Religion
According to the hagiographies, Caroline's parents were highly religious. They were christians, belonged to the anglican sect, and in particular that part of that sect known as the "evangelicals". These folk had a more human/humane approach to christianity than the ruling anglicans of the time, and today tend to be referred to as "low church" as opposed to the so-called "high church".
At its "highest", the high church is little removed from the roman catholics, from whom the anglicans split so the English king could marry a second time way back in 1534. Indeed, at that end of the high church at least some of its adherents are apparently happy to refer to themselves as "catholics", albeit not "roman" catholics. And, just to add to the confusion generated within christianity, or any religion or ideal for that matter, just as not all high churchers call themselves catholic, not all low churchers are evangelicals.
The evangelical movement got going in the latter half of the 18th century. We don't know when or how William and Sarah became involved with this sub-sect. Whether it was one or the other's family's influence, their own decision, simply the belief of their local preacher, or was brought to the marriage by either or both is, like so much, unknown to us.
The evangelicals had a number of theological and structural beliefs relevant to their religion, but not to us, at least for the purposes of this website. The importance to us, or more particularly Caroline's story, are the evangelical approaches to conversion and, more particularly, achieving their god's purposes by way of charitable work. In essence, helping the poor is believed to better the chances of the giver to meet their god's requirements for getting to their heaven after death, and being saved when their "humane" god kills the universe. In turn, the giving enhances the likelihood the recipient will turn to the christian god and themselves better meet his requirements when the big crunching comes.
In this sense, the charitable work is not carried out specifically for its humanitarian purposes, that being a by-product of the primary purpose, which is religious. This raises a question as to Caroline's formal status as a "humanitarian", but whatever her reasons for doing what she did, there's little doubt that the humane by-product was significant and, we feel, does not deserve to get lost in the midst of wrangling over words, meanings, and purposes.
Not that this wrangling is of and in itself unimportant, but in Caroline's case she does not appear to have been hypocritical, and genuinely appears to have given the greater part of her life to helping those unable to help themselves. It's possible to develop a story that while on the surface Caroline did no harm, in reality there were a number of unintended victims. But there were plenty of others who were significantly more responsible for the bad things that happened in settling this country and in the promotion of roman catholicism, and few, if any, of them had anywhere near Caroline's helping and caring record.
At its "highest", the high church is little removed from the roman catholics, from whom the anglicans split so the English king could marry a second time way back in 1534. Indeed, at that end of the high church at least some of its adherents are apparently happy to refer to themselves as "catholics", albeit not "roman" catholics. And, just to add to the confusion generated within christianity, or any religion or ideal for that matter, just as not all high churchers call themselves catholic, not all low churchers are evangelicals.
The evangelical movement got going in the latter half of the 18th century. We don't know when or how William and Sarah became involved with this sub-sect. Whether it was one or the other's family's influence, their own decision, simply the belief of their local preacher, or was brought to the marriage by either or both is, like so much, unknown to us.
The evangelicals had a number of theological and structural beliefs relevant to their religion, but not to us, at least for the purposes of this website. The importance to us, or more particularly Caroline's story, are the evangelical approaches to conversion and, more particularly, achieving their god's purposes by way of charitable work. In essence, helping the poor is believed to better the chances of the giver to meet their god's requirements for getting to their heaven after death, and being saved when their "humane" god kills the universe. In turn, the giving enhances the likelihood the recipient will turn to the christian god and themselves better meet his requirements when the big crunching comes.
In this sense, the charitable work is not carried out specifically for its humanitarian purposes, that being a by-product of the primary purpose, which is religious. This raises a question as to Caroline's formal status as a "humanitarian", but whatever her reasons for doing what she did, there's little doubt that the humane by-product was significant and, we feel, does not deserve to get lost in the midst of wrangling over words, meanings, and purposes.
Not that this wrangling is of and in itself unimportant, but in Caroline's case she does not appear to have been hypocritical, and genuinely appears to have given the greater part of her life to helping those unable to help themselves. It's possible to develop a story that while on the surface Caroline did no harm, in reality there were a number of unintended victims. But there were plenty of others who were significantly more responsible for the bad things that happened in settling this country and in the promotion of roman catholicism, and few, if any, of them had anywhere near Caroline's helping and caring record.
William's Leavings
When William died, according to several sources his will divided his farmland holdings between his 12 remaining children, which, of course, included Caroline. We don't know the value of each twelfth, but one's inclined to think that each would not be sufficient to enable each individual child to achieve their own rise to prosperity. Any surviving adult children would probably already have moved into their own homes, and begun their own families. The land would possibly have been a nice addition, but not significant.
The younger children would have been still at home with Sarah, who would have acted as their guardian, unless that role was taken by another male, probably a relative. What happened to their land is unknown to us. Sarah could have sold it or had it sold on behalf of the children, or she could have retained it until such time as the children achieved control over their own holdings and/or let to other landholders, or maybe even used by one of the older children to continue William's business, sharing some of the profits with their siblings. We presume the will also left the 11 Mayorhold House to Sarah, if the family was already resident there, or she bought it after his death.
Of course, throughout this waffle we've
It's surprisingly difficult to determine the modern value equivalence of historical amounts. In 2017 terms, the value of Sarah's £500 inheritance varies greatly, depending on the means and purpose of the conversion. In this case, the 2017 value varies from around £33,000 (around $A54,500) to around £2.2 million ($A3.7 million).
The purchasing power equivalence, however, is down at the lower end of the scale, representing around 10 years' salary to the average 1814 adult male agricultural labourer, if that labourer was both casual and paid the average daily non-harvest wage for every work day (phew!). This might sound like a reasonable amount, but we don't know how old Sarah was in 1814 and therefore how long she might live. At least some of William's children would still not be old enough to earn a wage and would need to be supported by Sarah. Caroline, for example, lived on with her mother for some 16 years, with the only income being Sarah's inheritance and any probably small earnings Caroline and her younger siblings earned from their own inheritance.
At best, it seems the Jones family lived "comfortably", and Sarah doesn't appear to have felt it necessary to seek out another husband to help maintain the children. Further, Caroline doesn't appear to have been farmed off to a husband at a young age. According to the hagiographies, Caroline had decided not to marry, and to give her life to charitable works.
The younger children would have been still at home with Sarah, who would have acted as their guardian, unless that role was taken by another male, probably a relative. What happened to their land is unknown to us. Sarah could have sold it or had it sold on behalf of the children, or she could have retained it until such time as the children achieved control over their own holdings and/or let to other landholders, or maybe even used by one of the older children to continue William's business, sharing some of the profits with their siblings. We presume the will also left the 11 Mayorhold House to Sarah, if the family was already resident there, or she bought it after his death.
Of course, throughout this waffle we've
It's surprisingly difficult to determine the modern value equivalence of historical amounts. In 2017 terms, the value of Sarah's £500 inheritance varies greatly, depending on the means and purpose of the conversion. In this case, the 2017 value varies from around £33,000 (around $A54,500) to around £2.2 million ($A3.7 million).
The purchasing power equivalence, however, is down at the lower end of the scale, representing around 10 years' salary to the average 1814 adult male agricultural labourer, if that labourer was both casual and paid the average daily non-harvest wage for every work day (phew!). This might sound like a reasonable amount, but we don't know how old Sarah was in 1814 and therefore how long she might live. At least some of William's children would still not be old enough to earn a wage and would need to be supported by Sarah. Caroline, for example, lived on with her mother for some 16 years, with the only income being Sarah's inheritance and any probably small earnings Caroline and her younger siblings earned from their own inheritance.
At best, it seems the Jones family lived "comfortably", and Sarah doesn't appear to have felt it necessary to seek out another husband to help maintain the children. Further, Caroline doesn't appear to have been farmed off to a husband at a young age. According to the hagiographies, Caroline had decided not to marry, and to give her life to charitable works.
Archibald Chisholm
But it turned out, Caroline had just not met the right bloke. According to the hagiographies, the Caroline and Archie story was all about true romantic love. As usual, of course, we can't say nay to this picture, and being unlike the world's most powerful liar we wouldn't even suggest the truth was Caroline felt strangely pleasant stirrings in her loins at the sight of Archibald Chisholm's manly knees in a kilt, nor that marriage may have become essential for Caroline's survival in case of the winding down of Sarah's inheritance. Whatever the reason, Caroline agreed to marry Archie around 1830.
Archibald Chisholm was, in financial terms, far from a good catch. While we don't know much about his background, we can tell from what is known of their life together he did not bring much cash to the family. Indeed, of course, nor did Caroline. Then, of course, Archibald was a fearsome savage Scot. Worse, however, Archibald was one of that terrible breed, a roman catholic!
At this time, the constraints on roman catholics were reducing, and it had been quite some time since one had been burned at the stake or otherwise executed merely for being a roman catholic. They had been able to buy land since 1779, and could, if otherwise qualified, vote after 1829. However, a monarch could not marry a roman catholic until 2013, and is still not permitted to convert. And, roman catholic preachers could not perform the marriage rites until 1837.
Archibald Chisholm was, in financial terms, far from a good catch. While we don't know much about his background, we can tell from what is known of their life together he did not bring much cash to the family. Indeed, of course, nor did Caroline. Then, of course, Archibald was a fearsome savage Scot. Worse, however, Archibald was one of that terrible breed, a roman catholic!
At this time, the constraints on roman catholics were reducing, and it had been quite some time since one had been burned at the stake or otherwise executed merely for being a roman catholic. They had been able to buy land since 1779, and could, if otherwise qualified, vote after 1829. However, a monarch could not marry a roman catholic until 2013, and is still not permitted to convert. And, roman catholic preachers could not perform the marriage rites until 1837.
Not that either, and especially the latter, gave a toss for those fighting for them, or the many dying, and/or suffering the inevitable psychological and physical trauma for them (although the former, on the whole, was unable to give anything, let alone a toss!). Prinnie was acting king while his poor dad still lived, if it could be called living. The poor old bugger, after some 10 years of constant insanity and blindness, didn't cark it until 1820, after which Prinnie became king, but only lasted a few years himself.
So it was Prinnie who showed how much he cared when the war finished in 1814, and England filled with armless and legless former soldiers attempting to survive as beggars, and returned soldiers forced into unemployment by mechanising industry (including the shoemaking industry) and seizure of peasant lands to replace the peasants with sheep.
These unemployed men, and the now actually or effectively single women and their children whose fathers, brothers, and sons were no longer able to provide for them, were forced into beggary, prostitution, and/or if they could find it, work for uncaring, low-paying employers in their unsafe, unhygienic factories, and forced to live in even worse housing.
We also wonder how William's innkeeping, dealing in the socially destructive and addictive drug alcohol fitted with he and his wife's reported "evangelical anglicism", although their adoption of this sub-sect of the christian sect generally known as "anglican" may have occurred later. And, more ignorance (!), the evangelical anglicans may not have been puritanical with regard to booze, nor opposed to selling that drug to boozers.
But, finally, William became a pig fattener. During this change of professions, William appears to have financially bettered himself, apparently buying some properties, including that (or those?) on which he fattened his pigs. So, when he finally dropped off his mortal coil, he was able to leave £500 to his wife, and various bits of property to what the source mentioning this describes as his 12 "remaining" children. It would be no shock if some of his 16 had died before him, even in 2017 this would be no great shock, but it's interesting that the number who inherited property equates with the number of children William had prior to marrying Sarah if Caroline was her last child. In which case Sarah's £500 may have been intended to provide for Sarah for the remainder of her widowhood (it's unclear how old Sarah was at this stage, and how likely it was for her to remarry), and for the raising of William's younger children to adulthood.
We (that is Bronwyn and Lex) know nothing about the value of the property William left, especially when divided among so many children, and we don't know whether some were already involved in the pig fattening business, perhaps enabling William, his wife, and the younger children to move off the farm and into Northampton. Nor would we describe the family as "wealthy", as one source claims, although we note that another source claims Caroline had a "governess" at some time - but at what time, for how long, with what purpose and responsibilities, for how long (although the source noted it was just for a short while), and whether before or after her father's death, is unmentioned.
In 2017 terms the value of Sarah's £500 inheritance varies greatly depending on the means and purpose of the conversion - in this case from around £33,000 to around £2.2 million. However, the purchasing power equivalence is down at the lower end of the scale, which represented around 10 years' salary to the average 1814 adult male agricultural labourer, if that labourer was casual, and was paid the average daily non-harvest wage for every work day (phew!).
This might sound like a reasonable amount, but remember that at least some of William's children would still not be old enough to earn a wage and would need to be supported by Sarah, while others would almost certainly have children of their own, some quite probably older than William's youngest (we don't know if that was Caroline). We don't know if Sarah was able to continue William's business, or if any of the older children were able to do so and willing to provide some income for Sarah and the younger siblings.
Most sources claim Caroline was born in Northampton, but one claims it was in Wootton, in 1806 a village some 3km from Northampton, and that the family later moved into Northampton, although whether before or after William's death is unclear. However, another source claims William was born in Wootton, and while both Wootton claims may be correct, it is possible one or the other is simply wrong, or even was misled by a misunderstanding of the other.
Again, a number of sources mention Caroline lived in, or more correctly "on", Mayorhold in Northampton. It is unclear if this was or was not prior to her father's death, and whether or not William owned the house Sarah and the younger children lived in and left it to Sarah, at least for the remainder of her widowhood. This area's original purpose is indicated by the name of a nearby part of Broad Street called Horse Market. "Mayerhold" appears to be derived from "Marehole" or "Marehold", meaning "horse market". There is a bit of argument about this, and how the area later came to be called "Mayorhold", but it could be related to the fact Northampton's medieval town hall was located in the same general area.
This area is known as the "Boroughs". Again, the etymology is uncertain, but a likely story is it came about because the streets and houses were so crowded and unplanned the area resembled rabbit "burrows". The Boroughs was the oldest area of Northampton, comprising that part located within the Norman walls, under the protection of the castle, at least until King Charles 2 destroyed the walls in revenge for the town's support for the mob who quite understandably chopped off the head of his weird, totally untrustworthy, holier-than-everyone-else dad. The castle's gone, too. It's remains were replaced by a railway station!
One source describes Caroline's Mayorhold address as 11 Mayorhold. However, the area has been massively demolished and rebuilt, some of it several times, and this address no longer exists, nor have we been able to precisely place it. Or, indeed, imprecisely place it, apart from the likelihood it was somewhere near the actual location of Mayorhold. If visiting the town, it's worth noting Mayerhold was not really all that close to either Horse Market or the Mayorhold High Rise Carpark, which seems to be the only place bearing the Mayorhold name these days, or, for that matter, the medieval town hall on Scarlet Street.
We've also not been able to assess the kind of residential area it was in which Caroline lived, nor are we certain she lived there for the entirety of her time in Northampton. It would not be unreasonable to assume a house near a major horse market was a bit shoddy, but on a map of the place at around the time Caroline lived there, the area seems a bit undeveloped, on the outskirts of the Boroughs. This could indicate an unsavoury area, or an area of new development and conceivably larger, nicer houses.
What we do know of the Boroughs and the area around Mayorhold from the mid to later 19th and the 20th centuries is that it was an appalling slum, full of booze, violence, and unemployment. In the 1960s, the place was ripped apart, especially around Mayorhold, and replaced by multi-storey flats, becoming what in Victoria we would call a housing commission area. It has remained , if not a slum, on the whole, an area one suspects the police and welfare services/charities find "difficult" on a regular basis. Realistically, it's not as bad as it was, but that's not for want of trying by at least some of the residents, driven to that extreme by governments like the one busily wrecking Britain at the time of writing (2018), and will almost certainly worsen after Brexit, if, of course, it proceeds, something that's still up in the air as I write.
The Brexit disaster in the making may proceed because a third of British voters couldn't be bothered turning out to vote to remain part of Europe. Oh, yes, of course "the people", maybe including some from the Boroughs, voted for Brexit. But it was, in fact, only one third of the public able to vote who supported Brexit, and just under a third who voted to remain. And now, possibly too late, many of those who didn't understand the consequences of Brexit, but, dancing on the strings of a bunch of self-serving puppeteers, voted for it, and many of those who also failed to understand the impacts Brexit would have on them and didn't bother to vote, now also want to vote against it. And a prime minister who opposes Brexit is having to push it through despite it being clear a genuine majority of voters, if given the chance, would now vote to remain with Europe.
But, back to the point, the later appalling nature of the area Caroline had lived in does not mean it was like that when she lived there, or even on the way to that state. We're also unclear about what happened to Caroline's mother and siblings after she left Northampton.
The online biographies we've accessed, and we reiterate that many of these are hagiographies, say Caroline did lots of good works while living in Northampton, and she was influenced in this by her parents. One wonders how much influence William had before he died when Caroline was only 6, although we note the old saw about the jesuits and their belief that getting a child before the age of whatever it was (we've seen ages ranging from 6 to 8) enabled one to mould the child's mind however one wanted.
But this simply says one has to get hold of the child by the age of 6 (or 8), not brainwash them by that age. The brainwashing would be carried out over the next 10 years or so. We suspect Caroline would remember her father, but poorly. The far more influential parent was, of course, Caroline's mother, with whom she lived the next 18 years. Although, Sarah may in her years with William have been influenced by his beliefs, whatever they were. Or, of course, he may have been influenced by her, or shock of shocks each may have been or not been influenced by the other. Goodness gracious me!
One hagiography claims William befriended, protected, and housed a French preacher, probably, if true, an exile from the French Revolution and the later Napoleonic rule. Another hagiography tells much the same story of a French prisoner of war, which seems unlikely considering they were, we believe, ordinarily held in large P.O.W. camps, although they appear to have had some wandering abilities in the sense of being able to sell craftwork at nearby towns to raise funds for food.
Whether in Wootton, presuming that's where William's farmhouse was, although we're unsure whether or not that was the case, Northampton, or somewhere else was not mentioned in either work. Nor were any information sources referenced (although we can't be too critical of that as we've not been academic in giving our own sources, although if we've got time we will come back and correct that situation).
However, it's not beyond possible both stories may be true, and that Caroline got to know and be taught by one French person or more at some time, and that person/those people may have been treated kindly by her parents, or maybe it was her by then single mother after William died and the hagiographers have that fact wrong. One suspects either a catholic priest, when being catholic was not regarded quite as badly as it had been, befriending a catholic was almost as bad as befriending a democrat, or a P.O.W. may have been viewed with more than a little suspicion by the then equivalent of MI5, which was quite willing to arrange murders and fake plots against the government and hang and/or transport the poor buggers falsely accused or encouraged to revolt by government agents over the 20 years or so prior to William's death, and the 20 years or so afterwards.
But William, and maybe Northampton, may have just been lucky enough to have flown under the secret scumbags' equivalent of radar, perhaps sniffing noses, and maybe William was not the kind of man to have enemies who would dob him in for their 30 pieces of silver. Of course, the preacher may have been one of the last protestant preachers in France after the massacres of the 16th and 17th centuries, but that seems unlikely. Sadly, the hagiographies don't mention any of this, so perhaps their imaginations ran out, or their sources of information, whatever they were, were just too vague.
Considering Caroline's future work, however, it does seem likely she, and probably her mother, were involved in charitable works, and while not wealthy, they may have been women at the upper level of the genteel poor, or perhaps even better-off than that, at the lower level of the middle-class, for want of a better descriptor.
We want to be clear here that while we are atheists, as historians we see no reason to allow our views to interfere with our judgement of others' work, even though it probably does to some degree. One of the major reasons we are atheists is we need to be convinced of whatever we accept as the truths we believe in to be subject to the same requirements as our history. Our beliefs, like our statements, have to be substantiated by evidence. Where that evidence does not exist, or is overly insubstantial, we feel free to speculate on likely or probable options, while making clear we don't have any substantive, or at best only limited or "pointer" evidence to support our speculations. In the case of religion, we don't accept that faith alone is enough to claim an opinion or belief as truth.
On the other hand, so long as they do not interfere with our lives or freedoms, or what we believe to be the basic human rights of others, we accept that people are free to have and, when appropriate, express their own opinions on these matters.
You may, however, notice we are more than a little mocking of some of the online biographies, or hagiographies, of Caroline Chisholm. This is primarily because they are lousy biography and even worse history, and has nothing to do with Caroline's or the hagiographers' specific religious views, although the hagiographers are, of course, attempting to achieve a specific outcome as a consequence of their religious views.
Indeed, while we can't pretend to know how Caroline would view this stuff, one suspects she would much rather the cost and effort of the process of making her a saint and proving her sanctity by overblown rhetoric, should much rather be put into genuine efforts to sdirectly help alleviate the situation of the world's poverty-stricken masses, or persuade those who think being poor is a state of mind that they are self-servingly wrong.
The point we are clumsily trying to make is that while Caroline's religious views appear to be at the core of her actions, it would possibly be more accurate to state that her religious views were formed around her specific morality, and in particular her clear belief that those with should provide help to those without. While this is a belief espoused by the man claimed to be the progenitor of her religion, and on a regular basis by almost all of her religious faith, it is actually practised by only very, very few.
Clearly, this is a statement of opinion, but we could, if you wish to argue the point, support it with much in the way of substantive evidence, and while one can raise exceptions to our opinion, they will still only represent very few of even senior members of Caroline's christianity. Of course, our opinion on this matter should not be taken to represent a belief or claim atheists, secularists, or humanists are substantially better!