{"id":1357,"date":"2024-04-23T04:00:00","date_gmt":"2024-04-23T04:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.exeter.ac.uk\/materialcultureofwills\/?p=1357"},"modified":"2024-06-27T09:32:15","modified_gmt":"2024-06-27T09:32:15","slug":"will-of-the-month-a-fashionable-lady-and-her-cloath-of-gold-shoes","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.exeter.ac.uk\/materialcultureofwills\/2024\/04\/23\/will-of-the-month-a-fashionable-lady-and-her-cloath-of-gold-shoes\/","title":{"rendered":"Will of the Month: a fashionable lady and her Cloath of Gold shoes"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Our third will of the month, that of affluent fashionable lady Helen Spratt (d.1726), is as long and as detailed as that of the Lincolnshire farmer Ralph Wrighte [link]<\/a>, <\/strong>and is full of rich detail about Helen’s possessions and what they meant to her. She itemises silk dresses, crimson quilts, and chinaware, and sets out her intentions for her cherished gold wedding ring, and portraits of her grandparents. Despite listing a wealth of treasured objects, Helen’s will mentions far fewer beneficiaries than Ralph’s. Helen explained why she had a relatively small number of people to divide her estate between in her own words: \u2018I have but very few Relations and fewer acquaintance\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\nRead more: Will of the Month: a fashionable lady and her Cloath of Gold shoes<\/span><\/a>\n\n\n

\"\"
Excerpt from PROB 11\/609\/123, Will of Helen Spratt or Sprat, 13 May 1726. <\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Helen’s moving will therefore lays bare the losses she had suffered in life: she asked to be buried \u2018by my dearest husband and best of friends Doctor Thomas Sprat who was Deane of Westminster and Bishopp of Rochester and where my two sonns lye by him\u2019.[1]<\/a> Helen\u2019s son George had died as an infant in 1683, her husband Thomas in 1713 aged 77, and her son Thomas in 1720 aged 41. Helen lived another six years, and died aged 79.[2]<\/a> Her closest surviving relatives, according to her will, were her nieces and nephews.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Helen, the daughter of Colonel Devereux Wolseley, had married a prominent clergyman and was buried alongside him, according to her wishes, in Westminster Abbey. Her detailed will reveals the personal and household possessions of a woman of some standing, of fashionable tastes and inherited wealth, who left many of her belongings to other women. To her niece by marriage, Christian Knipe, she left among other furniture \u2018foure pieces of Tapestry hangings one great looking glass one dressing glass foure glass sconces\u2026 four large wrought Curtaines lined with Crimson silke and Quilt of the same\u2019. These were substantial and fashionable items: the list reveals that Helen owned more than one mirror (and that these mirrors had different uses), and decorative tapestries that likely covered the walls, (although as is usual for wills, we don\u2019t have any further information about what these tapestries looked like, or the images or patterns they depicted). While ownership of decorative furnishings such as looking glasses was becoming more widespread in the early eighteenth century, the possession of two different types of mirror was still significant.[3]<\/a> Alongside the \u2018crimson silke\u2019 curtains and quilts, we get the sense of a woman whose household furnishings comprised multiple decorative and luxury items.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To her niece Alicia Ross she left \u2018a Box with China to be putt upp safe and sent to her if liveing and I give her my six new smocks\u2026 my new black Lutestring scarfe and velvet scarfe\u2026 one black silke Mantua and petticoat one striped silke Mantua and petticoat\u2026 all my finest Aprons\u2019. In this bequest Helen signalled her ownership of a range of items of fashionable clothing, identifying which items were newly purchased or made, which she considered the \u2018finest\u2019, and which were made of expensive materials of velvet and \u2018lutestring\u2019 or \u2018lustring\u2019 silk. We also see evidence of her engagement in global markets: her ownership of chinaware, and, in her instructions for it to be carefully packed, her awareness of both its fragility and value.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
A china bowl and saucer that may have been similar to the pieces found in Helen’s ‘Box with China’. Bowl and Saucer, 1662-1722 (made). \u00a9 Victoria and Albert Museum, https:\/\/collections.vam.ac.uk\/item\/O77989\/bowl-and-saucer-unknown\/<\/a> <\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

The next items listed, which were also set aside to be given to her niece Alicia Ross, are some of the most interesting in the will. She bequeathed \u2018my Cloath of Gold shoes made of one of King James\u2019s Buskins that was at his Coronation and one pair of Gold stuffe out of Queen Anns pall she wore at her Coronation\u2019. We know that Helen\u2019s husband was a senior clergyman, and his position as Dean of Westminster would have included involvement in coronations, but this is a surprising detail that suggests that Helen owned shoes that had been made from the gold buskins (a kind of boot) worn by King James II at his coronation. The \u2018Gold stuffe\u2019 of Queen Anne\u2019s pall refers to a type of finely-woven wool that was a popular choice for clothing. These were striking and unique items that were described by Helen seemingly with a degree of pride. These entries appeared in the will not only with details of their appearance and materiality, but also their provenance. The will was a means of memorialising the origin and historical significance of these items of clothing, of putting the meaning of these objects in writing, and ensuring that their provenance was remembered as they were passed down to other generations of Helen\u2019s family.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
A pair of shoes that were perhaps similar to Helen’s ‘Cloath of Gold shoes’. Pair of shoes, 1740-1750, English, cream satin with gold braid<\/em> \u00a9 Victoria and Albert Museum,<\/em> https:\/\/collections.vam.ac.uk\/item\/O356904\/pair-of-shoes-unknown\/ <\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Helen Spratt\u2019s will was unusually forthcoming about the meaning or emotional resonance of her possessions, including those that had belonged to or had been associated with her late husband (and which may have ordinarily been passed down to the son who had pre-deceased her). In one bequest she left \u2018to my deare husbands Nephew Mr Thomas Glover now liveing a student of Christ Church in Oxford\u2026 I give him all the books my deare husband left me in his will\u2019. Helen\u2019s son Thomas had followed in his father\u2019s ecclesiastical career, and would have been the likely recipient of these learned or theological books prior to his untimely death. In a separate bequest she gave \u2018to my Nephew Knipe a little Chest that had all my husbands letters and paper in it\u2019 \u2013 using this entry not solely to clearly identify the item of furniture, but to record its function and its personal and tactile connection to her deceased husband. Other bequests further reiterated Helen\u2019s affection for her \u2018deare\u2019 late husband and the time of her marriage: \u2018I give to my Neice Mrs<\/sup> Ann Done my Wed<\/sup>ding Ring and wish her as happy if ever she has one as I was in mine\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n
\"\"
These seventeenth-century wedding rings may be similar to the one owned by Helen. Gold ring, 1600-1700 (made)<\/em><\/em>, England. \u00a9 Victoria and Albert Museum<\/em>, https:\/\/collections.vam.ac.uk\/item\/O118508\/ring-unknown\/<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n

Helen ostensibly had so many possessions to disperse that she forgot some, and had to correct this with a later codicil that was added to her will three weeks after it was first drawn up. She noted \u2018having forgot part of my furniture for my Chamber my husband gave me leave to take\u2026 which I suppose nobody will believe was only a feather bed and blankets but what was fit for me as his wife\u2019. This hints at the fact that some possessions continued to be viewed as belonging discretely to either the husband or the wife after marriage. It is possible that these items of furniture were also those that Helen has brought with her upon her marriage. In the codicil she also left her daughter-in-law several paintings: \u2018they are my fathers picture and good old Grandfathers and Grandmothers drawne most them at least a hundred years agoe so of no great value but to me\u2026 which pictures whether large or little to go still to those that have Children\u2019. This is a striking clause that emphasises the deep sentimental value of these portraits, and her firm desire that they remained in the family, perhaps particularly pressing as Helen had no direct descendants. This clause also makes an interesting inference about the \u2018value\u2019 of paintings \u2013 that perhaps older artwork was considered to have less monetary value or artistic merit \u2013 and also emphasises the deep meaning an object could have for one individual but not another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Helen Spratt\u2019s will is extraordinary in many senses, including in its level of detail, and its itemising of fashionable and expensive clothing and furnishings which were inaccessible to much of English society. But most striking is that Helen appeared unusually forthcoming in setting out the emotional resonance of her possessions. She included descriptions of her \u2018finest\u2019 or \u2018new\u2019 clothing, she set out the provenance and meaning of family heirlooms or objects which signalled her connection to royalty. Most poignant are descriptions not of the most economically valuable items, but of objects associated with her late husband, or which would have ordinarily been passed down to her son. There are suggestions of a rethinking of legacies, and the passing down of family treasures and memories, to account for the children that did not survive, the grandchildren she did not have. Every object described in Helen Spratt\u2019s will has some meaning either explicitly or implicitly attached, but most affecting were those items that could no longer be left to their original intended beneficiary.<\/p>\n\n\n