Prior to marriage of 1319 between Henry Kroyl junior and Agnes Penifader, in Brigstock, Northamptonshire, social worlds of Kroyls and Penfiaders were discrete. Despite their mutual prominence in community life and their large personal networks, Robert Penifader and Kroyl senior never interacted with each other in court before the marriage of their children. Nor did members of second generation of each family associate before marriage. After summer of 1319, this changed dramatically, although changes varied according to both family position and gender. For Kroyl junior, marriage was accompanied by dramatic rearrangement of his social contracts. He replaced his father's former dominance with an intense and mutually advantageous association with his brother. Although his cognate relatives continued to play the most important roles in his social life, his horizons expanded to include not only moderately frequent associations with his wife's siblings, but also a vast array of contacts with other, non-related individuals within the community. The changes experienced by his wife were qualitatively different. When Agnes became wife of Kroyl junior, she took on a new set of personal allegiances and dependencies that essentially excluded her natal kin, precipitating a totally new familial orientation, rather than merely a rearrangement of various natal ties. Realignment that marriage prompted in social lives of women clearly demonstrated in contrast between personal networks of Agnes and her unmarried sister Cecilia. Appearing in court records not often but with roughly equal frequency, 2 sisters developed typically female court networks, with transactions heavily characterized by receipt of assistance from male kin. Agnes very small personal network included no members of her natal family and focused strongly on her husband. She had multiple contacts with only 3 people: her husband, his brother John, and his close associate, Wm. Werketon. Cecilia boasted much larger personal network that was heavily based on natal relationships: her father and all three brothers, and also numerous contacts with her sister's husband and brother-in-law. Her social world overlapped completely with those of her male kin: every non-relative in her effective network had independent multiple contacts with at least one of her male relatives. Cecilia, who remained single, never altered her primary orientation toward her family or origin; Agnes ignored that same family of origin and focused exclusively on Kroyl family into which she had married.

Because manorial courts are predominantly male forums, tracing activities of females through their records is especially precarious and tentative. Agnes almost certainly did into completely forsake her natal family after her marriage, but presumably maintained untraceable contacts with mother, et al. Her husband's expanding interactions with her siblings reflects a continuing, if indirect exchange between Agnes and her family of origin. But it is significant that her court network, the record of her public alliances and dependencies, never included members of her original family. Her public name, status, and allegiances shifted irrevocably upon marriage to her husband's family.

Importance of their union extended beyond those immediate rearrangements in lives of Kroyl junior and Agnes, to influence lives of their siblings. Wedding did not create tight alliance between various branches of Kroyls and Penifaders, but it did clearly offer possibility for increased interaction. Some siblings expanded their social contacts to take advantage of this new connection, others totally ignored opportunities created by marriage. Slight interaction between John, Kroyl’s younger brother, and Penifaders represented a change from complete lack of contact that characterized period before union, John's social horizons were only marginally expanded by his brother’s marriage. In contrast, Penifader siblings were much more profoundly influenced by their sister's marriage. All of Agnes' siblings developed contacts with her husband; in most cases, Kroyl junior became a vitally important person in networks of these Penifaders. Three Penifader brothers also developed important relationships with their sister's husband. Kroyl junior boasted both more associates and more effective associates in the effective networks of each of his brothers-in-law than they did with each other. Overall contrast between John Kroyl's minimal response to broadened kin network created by his brother’s marriage and fundamental changes that marriage precipitated for Penifaders best explained by their differing social and familial options. John like his brother was an extremely active member of their community. Both men possessed substantial lands, served frequently in local office, and developed exceedingly large personal networks. Cognate family contacts for both were more frequent and more balanced than were other social relationships, but these familial interactions comprised only a small proportion of their total social worlds. Careers of three Penifader brothers much more modest and displayed considerably less economic, political and social power. Faced with narrower set of social options, Penifaders far more likely than Kroyl brothers to rely upon their cognate kin for mutual aid and assistance. Those Penifaders whose social options were most restricted: Cecilia, by virtue of her gender, and Cristina, alone with her husband, by virtues of their residence elsewhere, were most likely to fall back upon familial connections. Marriage had more impact upon lives of Penifaders because they were already predisposed, due to moderate social position, to focus upon familial ties in their social relationships. Still, preeminent social position and political sway of Kroyl jr. did not usually succeed in supplanting primary cognate focus of Penifader's familial orientation.

The social importance of Kroyl jr. and Agnes' marriage stopped with their own generation; neither parents nor offspring were particularly affected by the union ... Even more intriguing than marriage's minimal impact on subsequent generation was its unimportance in lives of principals' parents. The widow of Robert Penifader was sole parent in either family whose social connections expanded in response to union. Her reliance upon Kroyl jr. probably sprang from the same impulses that prompted her daughters Cecilia and Cristina to turn to this new in law; as reflected in her small, family focused network, Alice Penifader's status in community was marginal. Still, marriage did not expand Alice's horizons beyond increased contacts with her daughter's new husband. So, when Kroyl jr. and Agnes exchanged vows, importance of their union redounded strongly on themselves, but only minimally on their families of origin. Marriage a binding tie within narrow limits; impact felt most keenly at center, by principals, and then expanded out in waves that created options, not requirements. These possibilities moved horizontally and extended neither up nor down generationally. Actual responses were always strongly oriented toward marital couples, and most social linkages moved to that center, not beyond or through it. This marriage joined together two individuals, not their families. It created a conjugal family, not a family alliance.

Image of marriage that emerges for these analyses is strongly individualistic. Impact upon siblings of couple, their parents and their descendants was fairly insubstantial. It would be unreasonable, in view of this evidence, to think that Kroyl and Penifader parents manipulated or coerced their children into this marriage; neither parents nor their other children benefited enough to merit excessive familial interference in decision. Kroyl junior and Agnes almost certainly did not marry without recourse to familial advice and support, but such familial input probably did not overshadow the essentially personal nature of their undertaking.

Family structure that most dominated social lives of K's and Ps was small, nuclear group. For men, most important familial ties were to parents and siblings, and to wives and children. Familial relationships that extended beyond these limits were clearly less important. For women, family images are less clear. On one hand, Agnes’ experiences suggest that woman's family identification could shift abruptly upon marriage. On other hand, evidence indicates that Alice her mother, and sisters Cecilia and Cristina, looked beyond normal confines of nuclear relationships to seek closer ties with more distant kin. Two divergent patterns are not mutually exclusive. Women protected within a dependent role in nuclear family could focus very narrowly upon that family; but women who had lost protection brought by a secure position in male headed household might have had to compensate for their social marginality by exploiting all available family ties. Hence, family orientation of women was usually more intense than that of men and depending on circumstances, was either more narrow or more expansive.

Existence of options a fundamental feature of family life. Not only gender, but also social position, familial circumstances, and personal idiosyncrasies determined whether any family relationship would acquire social meaning. Diluted evidence of community court indicates that kin relationships created social options that could be utilized or ignored at will. In almost all cases, kinship ties were used for cooperation and assistance. With only a few exceptions, recorded conflict either among the Kroyls, among the Penifaders, or between two family groups was extremely rare. Familial relationships, went translated into social exchanges, were remarkably harmonious and cooperative.

For Kroyls and Penifaders, family was flexible, small, and ego-focused. It was not insignificant, but provided the primary foundation for social intercourse. Because these people members of upper levels of heterogeneous rural population, they are not necessarily representative of medieval peasantry. Overall features of family experiences might be broadly applicable, but such generations must await verification in further analyses of otehr rural dwellers of different backgrounds. Such studies can best be accomplished not by aggregate analyses, but by close examination of reconstructed microcosms.

Judith M. Bennett/Peasant Marriages/Family/women/kinship/14c/medieval/late medieval/Journal of Interdisciplinary History/1984/Brigstock/manor/manorial/manorial court rolls/local courts/anthropology/networks/network analysis/village/rural/peasants/peasantry/peasant families/social/England/wives/gender/local community