Yes, I agree about the pigs but that is what I found. Poor hill farmers were perhaps not quite the same as those from the fertile plains, the flatter more profitable parts. Regarding the cavalry. I've seen pictures of these old war horses and they're certainly not the average shire type horse - not nearly so large and heavy. They seem to have been more like the cob, sturdy but not particularly tall - an average height of around 15-16 hands I would think. I shall have to get Prof Pete Edwards' book from the library to see the expert's view. Thank you for the reference, Matt. As regards horses in the 17th century around where I live, the riding horses were highly priced but then there were the nags and geldings which weren't. There could be a difference of around £10-12. Heriots. These were not always the best beast although that was the tradition. All sorts of goods were passed down as heriots and were stipulated as such in wills and inventories. Audrey ----- Original Message ----- From: "Eve McLaughlin" <eve@varneys.demon.co.uk> To: <OLD-ENGLISH-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 11:02 PM Subject: Re: [OEL] Common vs Open > In message <00b301c47eca$74b79b60$9cd1fc3e@oemcomputer>, "norman.lee1" > <norman.lee1@virgin.net> writes > >Can anyone remember when Arab horses first came into the country? I have a > >feeling it was sometime in the 18th century. All thoroughbreds trace their > >breeding back to the first one, I think, although I may be confusing this > >with something else.? > exactly - the Byerley Arab was responsible for a lot,. So cavalry of > Rupert's time were after heavy draught horses, fully up to the job. > > > >Horses of any sort around here seem to have been on the rare side in the > >17th century. Those for riding only were very few. > Well not really - It was normal for the gentry to ride around across > country on horseback, and farmers did the same. When coaches came in, > there were sneers that only pregnant ladies and old folk should be using > them, not 'normal' men or even young women/ > > > >Someone mentioned pigs? I found that these were also for the wealthy. The > >richest man between 1650-1700 in three townships had two. > TRhat must have been a very odd community. Pigs were general around > cottages, and on farms - the numbers are conditioned by the time of > year, since in winter oink oink becomes bacon. But every manor had its > pigs, and the right to pannage to feed them. > > -- > Eve McLaughlin > > Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians > Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society > > > ==== OLD-ENGLISH Mailing List ==== > OLD-ENGLISH Web Page > http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > >