On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 20:35:20 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > On 27/10/15 13:07, Chris Dickinson wrote: > > I mentioned the 1623 famine because that is traditionally seen as the last major famine in England. One way that you might be able to determine its severity in your area is by looking at your local probate index and counting the annual quantity. I did this a while back for West Cumberland, not expecting to see any hike (as I was assuming famine would hit the poor more than will-making yeomanry), but got this: > > > > 1619 44 > > 1620 49 > > 1621 3 > > 1622 54 > > 1623 158 > > 1624 6 > > 1625 4 > > 1626 35 > > 1627 52 > > That's a very impressive series of figures there, Chris. > > -- > Hotmail is my spam bin. Real address is ianng > at austonley org uk Thank you. It's not impressive in terms of work - with an online index it only takes a few minutes to compile - but it is impressive in nailing the 1623 famine. Leaving aside the 1621 anomaly (and any potential methodological error ), the figures might suggest that people who were vulnerable died slightly before their time. A 1623-5 breakdown might otherwise have looked more like 50/50/50. And that raises a question of why they died. If these are mainly older people, then one could see maybe three options: that a lack of food was disastrous in comparison to younger and healthier individuals; that they were not fed deliberately to save the rest of the family; or that they chose to starve. If they are mainly younger, then it suggests that people were living much closer to the edge of life than one might expect. Furthermore, if the deceased were past the child-bearing part of life, then that might explain why famines (and mild 'plague' outbreaks perhaps) didn't have such a great impact on population growth. Chris

> On Tuesday, 27 October 2015 20:35:20 UTC, Ian Goddard wrote: > > On 27/10/15 13:07, Chris Dickinson wrote: > > > I mentioned the 1623 famine because that is traditionally seen as the last major famine in England. One way that you might be able to determine its severity in your area is by looking at your local probate index and counting the annual quantity. I did this a while back for West Cumberland, not expecting to see any hike (as I was assuming famine would hit the poor more than will-making yeomanry), but got this: > > > > > > 1619 44 > > > 1620 49 > > > 1621 3 > > > 1622 54 > > > 1623 158 > > > 1624 6 > > > 1625 4 > > > 1626 35 > > > 1627 52 > > > > That's a very impressive series of figures there, Chris. I remember many years ago that Colin Rogers gave a lecture on the 'Lancashire famine' of 1623, which he had identified. There was also a couple of bad dearth years in )approx) 1715-17, which affected the more southerly areas at least - and in Bucks, the housewives got together and ambushed a waggon bringing in what little corn there was, which Mr X intended to sell a a huge profit. The magistartes were sympathtic for once - X wasn't a popular character. EVE Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society