Introduction

Two rural kinship networks, detected amongst the dairymen working in Stour valley villages, may offer insights into the societies in which they lived.

The terrain and the people

Settlements in rural Greater Westover

‘Milk, butter, and farm-house supplies of the very best description, the valley of the Stour abundantly yields.’ Dr A.B. Granville included this reference when endorsing Bournemouth’s qualities as a watering-place. The 1841 and 1851 Census listings for settlements running along the lower Stour reflected his statement. They recorded a number of dairymen present in the ‘rural terrace’ of seven villages running along the lower Stour. Within this group, Muscliff, farthest west, appears to have had its own manorial history. Its orientation perhaps turned towards Kinson and the nearby settlements of Moordown and Redhill. Furthest east lay Iford, Tuckton and Wick, across the river from Christchurch, to which they perhaps acted as ‘rural suburbs’. Between these settlements lay Muccleshell and Throop – almost a single entity – and Holdenhurst, lying a little to the east. Dairymen operated in all the settlements at this time.

Evidence for two rural kinship networks

Little if any genealogical linkage has emerged amongst the dairymen of Muscliff or amongst those present in Iford, Tuckton and Wick. Two rural kinship networks, however, appear to have connected dairy families, one in Holdenhurst, one in Throop with Muccleshell. As its eldest member, perhaps the Holdenhurst network rotated around Isaac Budden, having entered his early fifties by 1851. Other dairymen in the network consisted of Thomas Butler (his brother-in-law), Richard Stainer (husband of a cousin, Dinah Budden), and Edward Perry (son of another cousin, Lydia Budden). Perry, born in 1816, belonged to the next generation, but only a decade separated Isaac Budden from his youngest contemporary, Thomas Butler, his wife’s younger brother. The Throop cluster of dairymen consisted of Jabez Taylor, the oldest, born around 1810, his younger nephew by marriage, Robert Nutbeem (born 1832) and James Cosser, uncle to Robert Nutbeem (his mother’s brother).

Local and mobile

A comparison between the two rural kinship network members’ origins suggests a possible difference. Most people in Isaac Budden’s Holdenhurst network, husbands and wives, came from Holdenhurst or just across the river, Hurn and Dudsbury. Only Thomas Butler’s wife, Thirza Hall, came from a distance: Milborne St Andrew, 25 miles away. The Throop network, however, came from elsewhere as much as from the village. Jabez Taylor, his niece and nephew came from Shepton Mallet, over 50 miles away. The nephew acted as his servant. His niece married Robert Nutbeem, from Parley, across the Stour. Nutbeem’s uncle had married a woman from Sixpenny Handley, 20 miles northwards. The Holdenhurst network came from the village or from very nearby, but much of the Throop network had migrated there from outside places. The former therefore might qualify as a local network, but the latter looks more like a collection of mobile relatives.

Family first or commerce?

Kinship group built through commerce

The Holdenhurst kinship network linked to Isaac Budden has the feel of a network functioning as a form of local commercial control. The marriages seemed to fit a pattern if viewed within the context of a group sharing the same commercial activity: dairy produce. Isaac’s wife’s brother worked as a dairyman. So did his cousin’s husband and the son of another cousin. Furthermore, the families stayed in the area during this period, for the most part not leaving Holdenhurst. Very late in life, the aged Isaac Budden, 84 and widowed, but still a dairyman, did leave. His emigration, however, took him just three miles away to Redhill. By 1881 he lived there in his widowed daughter’s house, the old man perhaps helping with the grandchildren. In this kinship network, therefore, the marriages appear to have responded to a commercial imperative.

Success built through a kinship network

In contrast, the Throop nexus did not appear wedded to that area. Jabez Taylor thereafter lived with Robert Nutbeem and his family, the group moving eastwards. Nutbeem had taken his family (and Jabez Taylor) away by 1861, moving east towards Lyndhurst and Romsey. He experienced success as a farm bailiff, also having a holding extending over 250 acres. The Taylors had a willingness to travel, for Jabez’s sister also chose migration, her husband and children went north from Shepton Mallet to Preston, Lancashire. The ties remained close, however, as in 1861 she appeared in the Nutbeem household as well as Jabez, her brother. James Cosser, however, remained in Throop after his nephew’s departure. This kinship group, therefore, perhaps emphasised family connectivity over attempting commercial control over a single product category. To achieve success and social mobility, Robert Nutbeem, for example, perhaps needed his family more than dairy work.

Networks as a reflection of communities

Strong and weak ties

Network theorists distinguish between strong and weak ties. The former connect families and friends, whereas weak ties join together people having connections outside their immediate group. Strong ties characterise groups who look inwards, seek similar individuals, remain closed to outside information and discourage innovation. Weak ties draw together people from disparate contexts, who value differentiation, thrive on new information and welcome innovation. Despite the descriptors of strong and weak, some see communities based for the most part on strong ties as brittle and having a likelihood for obsolescence (i.e. weakness). Weak ties, however, help communities win longer life and continual success (i.e. strength). Under this pattern, therefore, the Budden kinship network would qualify as a network based on strong ties, staying within dairy for success. Jabez Taylor’s group, however, illustrated one comprised of weak ties, not needing dairy to win.

Open and closed communities

This bipolar framework fits well with an analytic system developed in English Local History to explain differences between rural communities that otherwise appear similar: open and closed. A large literature and debate has grown up around this theoretical framework. Under this proposed combination closed rural communities equate with networks built from strong ties, while their open counterparts incorporate weak ties. The research has suggested a number of criteria or characteristics associated with each social format. Religious nonconformity and poachers flourished in open communities. Anglican control and gamekeepers patrolled their closed counterparts. Hence, the latter look inwards, rejecting outside influences, the former act in the opposite fashion. It seems possible that successful strong networks might indicate a closed community. Weak networks, therefore, would show the existence of an open one.

How Holdenhurst and Throop societies may have differed

The difference between the two rural kinship networks – Budden in Holdenhurst, Taylor-Nutbeem in Throop – may have reflected similar contrasts in these neighbouring communities. Holdenhurst perhaps functioned as a closed society (strong ties), while Throop-Muccleshell had more open characteristics. Substantial research needs to precede the designation of a rural settlement as open or closed. This lies beyond the scope of the current project, but a short-hand or rule of thumb does offer some support: a comparison between the percentages of settlements’ residents born there or outside. For Holdenhurst in 1851, just over half of residents consisted of people born there. At the same time, the population living in Throop-Muccleshell consisted of only about a third of local people. On this dimension, Holdenhurst would have had characteristics of a closed society, Throop-Muccleshell open. These conditions perhaps shaped or responded to different attitudes and behaviour of the Budden and Taylor-Nutbeem rural kinship groups.

Takeaway

Uncovering and analysing apparent rural kinship networks present in parts of Greater Westover suggests that genealogical research of this nature may contribute to the wider historical enquiry about the range of society models present in local settlements during the nineteenth century.

References

For references and discussion, contact here.

Thanks to Bournemouth Grant for this shot of an old dairy near Throop.