The probate accounts of Edward Harpur, a mercer and alderman from the town of Stockport in the Northwest of England who died in 1650, records almost 13 years of expenditure for his four teenage daughters after this death.
Harpur was a prominent member of the town of Stockport, in both business and law, so his probate was large and listed various properties including ‘burgages tenements’ that he leased, as well as six shops in the market. At the time of their father’s death, Edward’s daughters Hannah, Sarah, Esther and Deborah were aged approximately thirteen, twelve, ten and nine respectively, and his probate provided a detailed account of their expenditure for a period of almost thirteen years.[i]
During this time the three eldest daughters moved to London. Sarah went in 1653, Hannah in 1654 and Esther in 1657. As their uncle, Francis Harpur, continued to pay for their maintenance for some time it is unlikely that they went into service in the capital. Instead, it is possible that they went to boarding school or to arrange suitable marriages. The youngest sister Deborah is the only daughter who stayed in Stockport and boarded with six different households until she was put into service in Bury in 1658.[ii]
Although Deborah later launched a lawsuit over the handling of the probate executorship by her uncle, detailed court investigations show that the four sisters were relatively well looked after.[iii] Certainly the expenditures listed by their uncle, also a mercer, in the maintenance accounts support such a conclusion, as the girls continued to wear the garments fit for the daughters of a mercer-cum-alderman.
The 1650s is a visual black hole for women’s dress in England, for both elites and non-elites alike, owing the political turmoil of the decade. This is where written sources like probate records come in handy. The Harpur accounts demonstrate that during this decade the sisters’ wardrobes consisted mostly of bodies, bum rolls, petticoats and waistcoats, with only some gowns and hoods listed. All these garments were made from practical woollen fabrics such as kersey, broadcloth, serge and minikin, and occasionally silk.
During the Interregnum puritanical ideas preached simplicity in adornment. However, the republican government made no attempts to legally restrict dress.[iv] Fashionable accessories and trims such as gloves, bands and neckerchiefs, coifs and aprons of various colours and hats therefore appear often in the Harpur probate too.
I have summarised the main aspects of their wardrobes in the table below:
| Garment category | Main fabrics | Colours recorded | Construction and other materials |
|---|---|---|---|
| Waistcoats (sleeved jacket-bodice) | Kersey, “cloth”, linsey, Holland, Yorkshire cloth, broadcloth, minikin, fustian, serge, “stuff”; possible silk | White Holland; red-grey cloth | Buckram, whalebone, tape, hooks and eyes, silk thread, lace. Eg. one red-grey waistcoat trimmed with 7 yards of gold and silver lace |
| Petticoats (coats) (a skirt that could have an attached bodice) | Mohair, minikin, “stuff”, kersey, serge, shag, cloth, Scotch cloth; linen and woollen materials for repairs | Green minikin | Buckram, thread, bindings, lace, inkle bordering, bordering, silk lace |
| Gowns (a skirt with a matching bodice, either attached or separate) | “Stuff”, linen cloth, silk, serge | No colours recorded | Gowns were also made, inherited/reused and mended. Eg. “1 gowne which Hanna hath which was my mothers prized” |
| Smocks (basic linen undergarment resembling an oversized shirt) | Linen cloth | No colours recorded | Lace on Sarah’s “best” linens |
| Bodies (garment that covered the torso and could be outer or underwear; stays) | Linen cloth, “cloth”, unspecified | No colours recorded | Whalebone, thread, lace busk, lace, thread; stomachers with busks also recorded |
| Bum Rolls (a roll that tied around the waist or hips and bolstered the skirts) | Scotch cloth is the only fabric potentially associated with a roll; otherwise the fabric is unspecified | No colours recorded | Thread and pins |
| Stockings and hose | Unspecified | No colours recorded | Tape and footing; some hose were mended |
| Aprons | Calico, linen | green apron; blue calico | Inkle, tape, cotton tape, apron strings, thread. Aprons were recorded as being dyed. A “pinafore” is also recorded. |
| Coifs (close-fitting cap) | Calico, Holland, taffeta | Black, blue; black taffeta | Twist and worsted, strings |
| Hats | Materials unspecified | No colours recorded | Hat bands and linings |
| Hoods (loose, soft head covering often tied under the chin) | Silk taffeta | Black, e. a black taffeta hood. | None recorded |
| Neckwear and Handwear | Cloth for neckcloths; Holland for Esther’s whisk; pairs of gloves | No colours recorded | Most entries simply record finished accessories |
| Footwear | Material unspecified for “shoes” | No colours recorded | Shoe ties. |
| Unassigned / Miscellaneous | Handkerchief, Silk cloth, minikin, Scotch cloth, round cloth, kersey, hemp cloth, woven cloth, Chincloth (China Cloth?), linen cloth | Green minikin, red minikin, red kersey, pink kersey | Ribbons, points and laces Lace, copper lace, galloon, silk, buckram, whalebone, thread, inkle, hooks and eyes, pins, strings. |
[i] The following discussion of the sisters’ clothing is based on the expenditure accounts detailed in the probate record of Edward Harpur. This probate is ‘Inventory 99’ transcribed in C.B. Phillips and J. H. Smith, eds. Stockport Probate Records, 1620-1650 (Alan Sutton Publishing: Records Society of Lancashire and Cheshire, 1992), 249-98. I also discuss this in my first book, Shaping Femininity.
[ii] C.C. Phillips, ‘Orphan and Family: Bringing up Edward Harpur’s Orphan Daughters, 1650-66’, Historical Research 68, no. 167 (2007), 293-7.
[iii] Ibid., 291.
[iv] Ribeiro, Fashion and Fiction, 200.
