The W G Hoskins Lecture 1991

‘Family history and local history’ presented by Dr. David Hey

The second Hoskins Lecture

4 May 1991

The lecture was presented by David Hey who is no stranger to Leicester, having worked under W.G. Hoskins in the Department, he is now a Friend and a frequent visitor to Marc Fitch House. As a prolific author on a wide range of subjects, it is hardly surprising that his lecture attracted a large audience, so large indeed that the preceding day was spent in frantic re-assessment of crowd control in the University Library’s seminar room and in negotiating with the University’s portering service over the movement of spare chairs from one part of the campus to another. We were not disappointed, and were treated to a highly entertaining but enlightening talk which clearly demonstrated how the phenomenal interest in family history can provide a wider understanding of the social and economic history of England. If, like me, you occasionally show a little impatience with the scores of genealogists who fill our record offices and who always manage to arrive early in their enthusiasm, thus securing the best seats, think again: they have much to offer.

David Hey began by reminding us that the appeal of family history is not new, pointing appropriately to research by W.G. Hoskins into his own family history. But family history did not begin in the twentieth century. The Tudor period saw a growing fascination for genealogy and it would be wrong to suppose that this interest was confined to the wealthy. Richard Gough’s preoccupation with his parish and the families living in Myddle resulted in a remarkable manuscript, combining family and local history. Thomas Bewick in the eighteenth century noticed this concern with ancestry and Thomas Hardy, in the nineteenth, drew on family memories for his novels.

Having established the wealth of relevant source material both in the past and the present, the question was posed: ‘How can family history add to local history?’ It is necessary to relate family history to the local societies of which the families formed part. For many years, since Laslett’s early study, it has been acknowledged that the majority of the population in the Tudor and Stuart period was mobile. Yet family historians frequently note stability. How can we explain this dichotomy? David noted a number of factors, but one of the most important considerations was the tendency of demographers to focus on a single town or parish. It is becoming increasingly apparent that families in the past had a sense of identity with a wider neighbourhood area than their own parish. Core groups provided stability and ensured that the local culture was kept alive. They set patterns to which newcomers into the area conformed. It was to these stable families that others turned in the case of disputes, thereby ensuring that the distinctive traditions persisted. When these core families moved into neighbouring parishes, customs were taken with them, including the distinctive characteristic of speech. This point was amply demonstrated by the speaker’s own distinctive accent, from a very localised part of Yorkshire, one often not recognised in Sheffield some seven miles away from its place of origin.

Turning to examine surnames as evidence for stability, David noted that while there are now a number of printed hearth-tax returns for different parts of the country, the editors of such collections rarely comment on the genealogical context. This material provides considerable evidence on the distribution of surnames, demonstrating differences in the stock of names within and between counties. This point was illustrated by the surname Daft found in Nottinghamshire, where all ten named in the 1664 hearth-tax lived in Hickling. Ten years later there were twelve Dafts in the same parish. Later evidence suggests they all had a single common origin. Moving on to a more up-to-date source, David went on to show the importance of the modern telephone directory in studies of the distribution of surnames. The Blankbys, for example, are found in the Chesterfield and Sheffield directories having originated from Blingsby in Derbyshire. In some 600 years the Blankbys have rarely moved outside a 20-mile radius of the original village site. Similar evidence was provided by the Bagshaws, the Downers and (inevitably) the Crappers. The speaker concluded by using his own ancestors to illustrate some of his earlier comments. Here we were encouraged to label our own photographs more carefully if they are to prove a useful source of evidence in the future. A photograph of his grandparents taken outside their home had the unhelpful comment on the back: This was taken 10 years ago!’

Despite such setbacks, more family histories are needed in order to enrich our knowledge of local societies. They can add to our evidence on topography, population, upward and downward mobility, stability, corporate identity: the list is long and varied. As the audience retired, after this stimulating lecture, to Marc Fitch House for an excellent tea, I for one determined to view family historians in a new light.

From an original report by Anne Mitson.