What is clear is that women were more likely to leave bequests of clothing than were men, though this was not unique to the period as a similar pattern has been observed in sixteenth- and seventeenth-century wills. 45 They were also overwhelmingly more likely to leave clothing to other women than to the men in their lives, which has contributed to readings of bequests as evidence for affective relationships between women. Around 90 per cent of the women in the sample left bequests of clothing to one or more female friends, family members, or acquaintances, though this does not mean that male relatives, friends, or even creditors did not inherit women’s clothing. Many testatrixes simply left ‘all the remainder of my goods’ to male executors, who were often brothers, sons, and nephews. 46 Dorothy Atkinson made no mention of clothing in her will, but an inventory of her goods listed various items of her clothing found ‘In Thomas Shutts Chamber’. Atkinson left the same Thomas Shutt ‘all ye Remainder of my Goods and Personal Estate’, and appointed him as her executor. 47 Nevertheless, if a testatrix did decide to leave a specific bequest of clothing in her will, she was probably going to name another woman as the beneficiary. This is evidence of what Erickson usefully calls ‘personalism’, whereby women did not distribute smaller gifts like clothing among more people because they had wider kinship and friendship networks than men, but because they were ‘freer, by the nature of their property and of their concerns, to express personal preference’. 48 Of course, in some instances this was the result of restriction. For some women, and especially single women, moveable goods simply formed the bulk of the assets available to them, though Berg has highlighted that many of the middling women in her study who left bequests of specific items had property interests to pass on as well. 49 Indeed, Berg’s study also reveals regional variation in patterns of bequest, as she demonstrates the range of real and moveable goods available to women living in the industrial cities of Birmingham and Sheffield. 50
Sisters, cousins, and nieces appeared as frequent recipients of clothing in the wills of unmarried women, who also named friends and acquaintances; for example, Ruth Tennyson left bequests to Miss Nancy Carter, Miss Betty Wilks, Mrs Martha Earle, and her landlady. 51 The wills of widowed women are similar but also, unsurprisingly, include daughters, daughters-in-law, and granddaughters. These were women who already had some established relationship with the testatrix, but the 1783 will of Mary Musgrave suggests that bequests could also anticipate future relationships. Musgrave left ‘the best part of my Cloaths and Wearing Apparel’ to her two granddaughters, and the ‘worst part’ to the wife of her ‘said Son in Law Philip Musgrave’, leaving a blank space for his wife’s name to be added at a later date. When she died in 1787, however, the space remained unfilled, suggesting that Musgrave may have included her son’s future wife out of a sense of social or familial obligation. 52 Though Musgrave’s will is unusual in the context of familial relationships, a number of women made similar provisions when making bequests to servants. In some instances, it is clear that the testatrix was referring to a servant already in her employ. In other cases, however, the testatrix simply bequeathed clothing to the servants in her household at the time of her death; in 1811, Elizabeth Preston bequeathed ‘the least valuable part of my wardrobe to the female servants who shall be living in the house at my decease’ but left it ‘to the discretion of my mother and my said sisters … what part is to be so considered’. 53 Amanda Vickery has shown that, over and above payment, gifts of goods like clothing were a key ‘part of the currency of the mistress-servant relationship’. 54 Bequests were an extension of this, reflecting a culture of material obligation and entitlement, especially as some women appear to have made provisions for a change of staff between the signing of their will and their death. This was clearly understood as a reciprocal relationship; Elizabeth Blount specified that her maidservant had to remain in her employ to receive a bequest, while Sarah Wade left her ‘Inferior Clothing’ to her servants ‘if deserving of them’. 55 Executrixes were entrusted with the dispersal of clothing to servants, as well as with determining the appropriate level of provision. In her 1737 will, Elizabeth Thompson, for example, left her servant ‘my wearing linning & such other wearing apparel as my executrix shall think fit’. 56
Thompson’s bequest to her servant also demonstrates that, as well as being the primary recipients of clothing, women were its preferred guardians and distributors. Often an executrix was charged with its care and proper dispersal, but other family members and friends might be left with the task. In her 1712 will, Mary Dawson left the following instructions for Edith Mountains:
One smale Trunk marked M:D: with all the Cloaths & other things which shall be found therein & of which there shall be a schedule therein at the time of my death Upon this Speciall Trust & Confidence nevertheless that the Said Edith Mountains do give & dispose of what shall be found in the said Trunk at my decease & also the Sd. Trunk unto my Neece Mary Fenton…at such times & after such a manner as the Said Edith shall think fitting & convenient betwixt her & the Sd. Mary’s attaining the age of one & twenty or Marriage. 57
Mary Holdsworth similarly requested in 1770 that her executors deliver her wearing apparel ‘unto the care and keeping’ of Sarah Smith or Ann Wilkinson, who were charged to dispose of it ‘equally’ amongst her three daughters as they ‘shall see occasions may need’. 58 Mary Dawson’s emphasis on the ‘Speciall Trust & Confidence’ placed in Edith Mountains, as well as Mary Holdsworth’s request that the two named women ‘care’ and ‘keep’ her clothing until they felt that her children had need of it suggests that this was understood as a particularly feminine skill. Significantly, Dawson later stipulated in her will that if Mountains happened to predecease her, the trunk was to be passed to her niece’s father who should then distribute the clothing. Rather than passing it directly to him, however, Dawson first preferred a female caretaker. 59
In the case of most women’s wills, we can never recover the motivations which lay behind bequests of clothing. Unfortunately, very few recorded why they wanted an individual to inherit a specific item or items of clothing. Moreover, there is little way of knowing what happened to their clothing once bequeathed. A grant of probate issued after an individual’s death was only the start of what could be a lengthy process. 60 Women’s wills demonstrate that their bequests of clothing were varied, often complex, and are difficult to unpick. Lurking under the surface of each one are a range of textual practices as well as complex social, familial, and material networks of obligation. While women described clothing and textiles with an eye to ensuring their instructions remained clear after their death, the remainder of this chapter shows that these descriptions alone cannot shed light on their meaning and significance.