When the gods created man they allotted to him death but life they retained in their own keeping . . . cherish the little child that holds your hand, and make your wife happy in your embrace; for this too is the lot of man.

If we accept the etymological definition of a Carlton as someone who came from the homestead of the free peasants or freemen from the time of the Danish Kings in England, possibly from King Cnut's men, it is possible to conjecture the following sequence of historical events as including our ancestors.

410-815

It is possible that our ancestors were present in England prior to the Anglo-Saxon invasions of the mid 400s. If so, they would have been members of the ancient Britons/Celts who were conquered first by the Romans under Julius Casear in 55-54 BC and then later by the Anglo-Saxons, for whom they remained to work for (and later intermarry).

It is also possible that the Carlton ancestors were originally part of the three Teutonic tribes, the Angles, the Saxons, and the Jutes, who had been residing in the lower Rhine Valley, the Dutch coast, and in present day Denmark, until they took part in the Anglo-Saxon invasions of Britain. These invasions occurred after the Roman legions withdrew in 410, leaving the Britons to struggle as best they could against the Picts of present day Scotland. In 449, by invitation of King Vortigern, Hengest and Horsa, Anglo-Saxon chieftains, arrived in Thanet (which was then still an island at the northeast of Kent). However, as one author put it, "this was rather like trying to put out a fire by throwing petrol on it." In 455 Hengest killed King Vortigern, and by 457 had conquered Kent himself becoming the first recorded Anglo-Saxon settler in England. As word spread among the tribes on the continent they swarmed to Britain in relief of the invasion pressure they were experiencing from the central plains of Asia. Victorious warriors brought their relatives and friends over from the mainland in long boats with small stocks of tools and household goods. Settlers moved westward looking for suitable land to farm, much as American pioneers would 1,400 years later. The Venerable Bede wrote, "From the Jutes are descended the people of Kent," and this could also refer to the Carltons if the family originated in Kent. When this period of conquest ended in 815, the Britons had been pushed west into Wales.

Farming continued much as it had on the mainland, even to the extent of reorganizing the square Briton fields into long, narrow fields as they had been accustomed to in Europe. Families lived close together for protection, often within a stockade much like the forts that would be built centuries later in western North America. These protected settlements were known as tuns, later called "tons," the form in which it became part of our name. Saxon kinship was very strong, with relatives as distant as sixth cousins regarded as family members for whom all were responsible. Because we believe the Carlton ancestors settled in the more eastern region of England, it is possible that we were among the earlier of the settlers if this was when our family arrived on the island.

At this time our ancestors would not have carried the Carlton name, as surnames were unknown. People of this time used descriptive names (for example, the Teutonic William means "helmut, resolution") and the names were not passed on to children. After they settled in England, the tribes continued to worship their Teutonic Gods, disregarding the Roman christianity of the Britons. After the arrival of Augustine in Kent in 597 the entire area slowly became Christian, with the Kingdom of Kent (where our ancestors may have been living at the time) becoming the first Christian Kingdom in England in 598 with the founding of St. Augustine's Abbey in the capital city of Canterbury. Although our family first appears in written record very near this city, it is very unlikely that we would have remained in the immediate region for nearly a millennium.

As this christianizing took place, the parish churches which survive today around Canterbury were built. Nearly without exception they are composed of flint set in mortar. The round flint stones of the region were hammered to break and form a flat side. The stones were then stacked in mortar with the flat side facing outward. Traditionally the local lord, as the patron of the church, would build it and maintain the chancel (where the altar is located) but the upkeep of the nave (where the congregation sits) has always been, and continues to be, the responsibility of the villagers. Churches were built on high ground with the chancel to the east and the nave facing west whenever possible. When a tower was built it would usually include a door, but the main entrance was always on the south side of the nave. Marriages always took place at this south door, not inside the church.

Many churches had (and some still retain) a small door on the north side known as the Devil's or baptismal door. Christenings were recommended to take place the day after birth because it was believed that infants who died unbaptized would be cast into hell. During the ceremony the Devil's door would be opened to allow evil spirits to escape as the christening was performed. Another belief that today seems strange, was the conviction that sacred water from the baptismal font had all kinds of virtues, such as curing various ills, assisting in good luck, and of course fear of theft of holy water for use in satanic ceremonies was always considered. As a result the baptismal fonts had to be supplied with locked covers. It was also a tradition to plant a yew tree in the consecrated churchyard, usually on the south side of the church. In a few places, including our eventual ancestral village of Tilmanstone, what is believed to be the original tree, now aged well over 1,000 years, still lives. English churchyards of today are inundated with tombstones on the south and east sides, as these areas were reserved for those who died in the grace of God. The north side was reserved for those who died out of the grace of God and only unbelievers, such as baptists, other nonconformists, excommunicants, and suicides were buried there.

815-991

Our Carlton ancestors could have been residing in present day Denmark prior to 850 A.D. Beginning in 787, and continuing into the early 800s, poverty and a love of fighting in the early scandinavian Danish warriors was sparked by the attempts of local rulers to organize large kingdoms and impose central authority and resulted in the adventurers' (or Viking, as they were known) raids on northern Europe, Scotland, Ireland and England. These raids were not then seen as acts of piracy, as they would today, but were part of the rugged culture of the region. In 787 only three ships arrived but by 833 the annual count was 35 and in 851 over 350 in the Thames alone. Aboard these ships came men with names such as Eric Bloodaxe, Wolf the Unwashed, and Thorkel the Skull-splitter. The first opportunity for settlement occurred in 851 when a large band of Vikings wintered in Kent. Ten years later, in 861, the Vikings controlled the area on the east coast of England north of the Thames River and London that became known as the Danelaw.

During this period the land was parceled out among the military leaders who then settled it with common soldiers. This period of 851-861 in the Danelaw is the first period in which settlement by the common Viking warriors who could have been the Carlton ancestors could have occurred. During the next 60 years the freemen of the Danelaw continued to utilize their Danish language, laws and social customs, but nearly all were converted from their worship of Teutonic and Germanic gods to the christianity of the Anglo-Saxons.

In 911 Rollo settled a large group of people from the Danelaw in Frankish Danelaw, which became known as Normandy. Although unlikely, this could have included our ancestors. By 920 most of the English Danelaw had recognized Edward the Elder as sovereign and the common heritage of the English and Norman Danes began to diverge.

991 - 1066

In 991 scandinavian based Vikings again began major raids on England and many of the Danes of the Danelaw rejoined their Viking brothers, who by 1013 conquered all of present day England. William of Malmesbury chronicled that beginning in 991 an annual tribute was given to the Danes that rose to exceed £20,000 by 1002. The year 1005 was a famine year and was followed in 1009 by Vikings ravaging east Kent. Because of the constant passing of conquerors through east Kent it is more likely that the Carlton ancestors were of later than earlier arrival as each succeeding wave of invasion tended to sweep the descendants of the previous wave before it. It was not until 1017 that the Viking Cnut became the true King of England. It is unlikely that Carlton ancestors came with the invasion under Cnut as he sent nearly all of his warriors back to Denmark after he became King. However the opportunity for our ancestors to improve their economic and social standing would certainly have occurred.

1066 - 1150

In 1066 William of Normandy (William the Conqueror) invaded England from Normandy with his armada of 696 ships and, after winning the Battle of Hastings and marching first to Dover and then to London, became King of England on Christmas day. A genealogist of the noble Baldwin de Carleton line holds that he was the founder of Carleton Hall (which was a medieval manor) near Penrith in Cumberland at about this time. However, historical data indicate that this far northwestern region of England was such a hinterland that it may not yet have been possible for William the Conqueror to give it as a fief at this time. Baldwin de Carleton's name indicates that he was a favored noble with William the Conqueror, in fact it has been stated that he was one of the first 2 men granted estates in the new England of that day. It is not impossible that we are descended from a non-inheriting branch of this illustrious English family, however it appears that the gap between 1066, when the family appears in Cumberland, and the 1500s, when our ancestors appear in east Kent, will never be established. All the existing English Carleton coats-of-arms were established by the various Carletons descended from Baldwin de Carleton who distinguished themselves in the service of England and the Crown.

The Danish and Anglo-Saxon freemen suffered various fates during the period of Anglo-Norman civilization from 1066 to the mid 1100s. Those who had been wealthy enough to make good bargains with their new Norman lords were able to continue to farm on a small scale and were well defined as freemen by the Norman Kings. Most of these freemen fell into the class of villeins, who formed the chief part of the peasantry. The Normans lumped them all together, freemen and serfs, into the semi-servile villein class. The Men of Kent, who may have included our ancestors, fared much better as they shared common ancestry with the Normans. There is record of several property settlements of Richard de Karleton in the area around Charlton Court Manor at Bishopsbourne between 1268 and 1272. Since this is the area in which our first known ancestors appear in the mid 1500s, it is possible, although unlikely, that he is one of our ancestors who descended from Baldwin de Carleton.

Among this rural laborer class, life was a hard, close, unremitting struggle to make a living for themselves and their lords. At this time the Normans operated manors consisting of the lord (or in many cases a religious order), his agents, tenants, servants and all their families. Most manors included about 150 workers who tilled the land and provided all the products required for farm life. Manors consisted of the rude 1 or 2 room houses of the peasants grouped around the large manor house with a parish church and a commons or village green. Most villeins owned 1 or 2 oxen and farmed between 5 and 30 acres of land. The poorer villeins (called cotters) held only a cottage. Cooperation between families was essential to survival, for example a plow team required 4-8 oxen but villeins were never allowed to own enough oxen to form a team. At this time about 70% of all English belonged to the villein class. The most common crops of the time were wheat, barley, oats and peas. In addition the serfs raised cattle, sheep and pigs and provided milk, meat, leather and wool for the manor. Raising bees and fish and the tending of woods for wildlife were also common occupations. During this period the Danish freemen began to lose their Viking culture, and began to use English as their language.

It is important to view the daily life of this time from the perspective of the medieval mind. Each person's place in life had been determined by God and in keeping with the principles of Divine Rights, goodfolk did their best to fulfill their ordained role in life be it as plowman or lord. No one owned property at this time, all things belonged to God who had designated his King or Queen, who in turn had designated various nobility, who in their turn had granted holdings to the people. The "modern" concept of a downtrodden peasant class does not even remotely relate to the state of our ancestors minds at this time.

1150 - 1349

As time went on, a class of tenants emerged and it is likely that our Carlton ancestors became freehold tenants. Freehold tenants held their land in return for a promise to perform services for the manorial lord on certain specific days each week and usually specified extra "boon-days" at harvest time. Newcomers were seldom admitted to the manor and high mortality kept large families from disturbing the economic stability of the community. Although life remained quite hard, attendance at the parish church and daily cooperation in working must have caused close social relationships between manor inhabitants. Of course the isolation of the manor from the rest of the world tended to prevent change and resulted in very limited perspective of the outside world on the part of the residents.

During the middle ages the church was the focal point of the village but there was no differentiation between the religious and social life of the peasantry. The church was the center of social life as the manor house and it's outbuildings were the center of working life. It represented the only power capable of coming between the peasants and the gentry and as such served as meeting place, center of business transactions, bank and strong room (parishioners would often deposit deeds, money and other valuables in the church chest), as well as the main source of holiday festivities. The church was gaily painted with all manner of pictures and green rushes would be strewn on the floor. Harltley and Elloit paint a normal parish church scene by asking that you:

". . . imagine one half the village holding a vociferous argument in the porch, while the other half rehearses some very amateur theatricals up near the chancel."

Medieval village fairs were begun as feast days for the saint to whom the church was dedicated. As Easter, Whitsun and the local saint's day, ale and food (previously donated as tithes by the parishioners) would be sold at great profit to the parish. An Elizabethan Puritan described such fairs or "church-ales" (which today have evolved into village fetes) as follows:

". . . the Church-wardens . . . with the consent of the whole parish provide half a score or twenty quarters of mault, whereof some they buy out of the Church stock and some is given them of the parishioners them selves, every one conferring somewhat, according to his abilitie; which mault, being made into very strong ale or beere, is sett to sale either in the Church or some other place assigned to that purpose . . . well is he that can get the soonest to it and spent the most at it; for he that sitteth the closest to it and spends the moste at it, he is counted the godliest man of all the rest; but who either cannot, for pinching povertie, or otherwise wil not stick to it, he is counted one destitute of both vertue and godlynes."

The religious aspect of the church was quite different from its operation today. In the 1200s the Knights of St. John (also known as the Knights of Malta or the Knights Hospitallers) had the patronage of many of the parish churches in eastern Kent. There would often be a cross incised near the church porch (as at Tilmanstone) to indicate this fact. This meant that the Knights received a part of the tithe from the church to assist in carrying out their operations in the holy lands. This arrangement often lasted until the 1500s. Mass was held at 6:00 AM daily and attendance was expected of everyone. Many persons would also attend the Sunday high mass at 9:00 or 10:00, especially on special days. Toward the end of the 1200s a sermon would be given in English, but mass was always in Latin. It was not uncommon for the parish Priest or Parson to be unable to read or even hold a proper Latin mass. In fact they sometimes could not even name the author of the Lord's Prayer or where it was to be found. In Tilmanstone during this period 2 Priests were removed due to drunkenness, a not unheard of cause. In even the more respectful congregations women would laugh and chatter and men would walk about discussing business during the services, not bothering to respect even the mass itself. However there were conscientious Priests and Parsons who were a credit to their faith, teaching and assisting their parishioners in every walk of life.

Many peasants were quite ignorant of much of the fundamental teachings of Christianity that are today so well known. There was much misunderstanding about the nature of prayer and the meaning of the mass. Religious relics were often worshiped by the populace, including the most famous in all of England, the tomb of Saint Thomas a' Becket, situated behind the high altar in Canterbury's Christchurch Cathedral. This shrine was adorned with gold and jewels worth about $5,000,000 (US 1986). In 1496, a few years before it was destroyed by King Henry VIII, it was described by an Italian:

"The magnificence of the tomb of St. Thomas the Martyr, Archbishop of Canterbury, surpasses all belief. This, notwithstanding its great size, is entirely covered over with plates of pure gold; but the gold is scarcely visible from the variety of precious stones with which it is studded, such as sapphires, diamonds, rubies, and emeralds; and on every side that the eye turns, something more beautiful than the other appears. And these beauties of nature are enhanced by human skill, for the gold is carved and engraved in beautiful designs, both large and small, and agates, jaspers, and carnelians set in relief, some of the cameos being of such a size that I dare not mention it. But everything is left far behind by a ruby, not larger than a man's thumb nail . . . they say it was the gift of a King of France."

Most of our ancestors certainly would have made the short pilgrimage to Canterbury (which was probably their Cathedral), just as in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales, to be in the presence of this holy relict. Worth noting is the fact that today several of these jewels are set in the coronation crowns included in the Crown Jewels of England.

The workingman's dress at this time was usually a plain tunic with tight fitting hose. Hair was worn long and curly and occasionally men would develop a penchant for beards. Women's dresses were all very long and full with high waists and tight fitting bodices with long sleeves. Fashion usually dictated that as little hair as possible be visible, especially in the later 1300s.

One aspect of medieval life that has been lost to us in modern times was the popularity of games in which adults joined children in play. A great favorite was "hot cockles," in which one player knelt down, blindfolded, and was struck (none too gently either) by the other players, whose identity he had to guess. Another was "hoodman's blind," in which one player had his face covered by reversing his hood as he tried to catch the others. It seems that this was often played in the churchyard where, although memorial stones were not yet in existence, there were many hazards of uneven ground and brush. An aspect of medieval life that has only been restrained instead of lost is the keeping of pets of all sorts. Medieval villagers kept everything from birds to rabbits and dogs about their homes as companions. Cats seem not to have been pets as they were expected to work by catching mice and other rodents for their keep.

Chaucer provides excellent images of each of the persons with whom our ancestors must have dealt on a daily basis during this era. A steward (who was the representative of the lord of the manor) would probably be seen only at court when tenency rights were passed on or changed or in the event of disagreement between neighbors. A bailiff was usually in direct charge of the day to day working of the manor lands and would have been the foreman to whom our ancestors were responsible. The bailiff supervised a number of subordinates as were needed for the particular manor. These persons might include a hayward (who kept the meadows, hedges and woods), a cowherd, a swineherd, a shepherd, a dairymaid (who also took charge of poultry), and a reeve. The reeve was usually elected from among the villeins themselves and he was responsible for the actual running of the manor. His duties included making sure everyone was started in the morning and that they stayed at work all day. He had to insure that all work was done properly and that no theft occurred.

Medieval agriculture was very different from what is done today. Much of the husbandry would today be considered subsistence farming because nearly all the fruits of the labor were used by the local people for daily life. Plowing was done with a plow of two heavy beams, one above the other, connected by vertical struts. The lower beam had at its front a pointed, curved piece of iron, known as the share, to cut the earth. In front of the share was the coulter, a knife-life piece of iron, to start the furrow. At the rear end were two wooden uprights to form the tail, or plow-start, by which it was guided. The older Saxon plows were drawn by 8 oxen, but by this time both 4 and 2 oxen plows were used. Medieval plowmen refused to be hurried and, even when horses were used, kept the plowing pace to the slow step of oxen. When large clods resulted, they were broken up by hand with sledges or clubs (usually by the women and children). Of course all harvesting was done by scythe and stacked by hand during August and September. All livestock, except breeding stock for the coming year, had to be slaughtered each fall after the harvest because there were no fodder crops to carry them through the winter. In the spring the sowing was done by hand. In The Vision of Piers the Ploughman, (probably written between 1362 and 1400) William Langland provides a good feeling for the sustenance of our ancestors in the 1300s:

"I have no peny,"quod Pers - "poletes to bugge, Nouther gees ne grys - bote twey grene cheeses, And a fewe cruddes and craym - and a therf cake, And a lof of benes and bren - i-bake for my children. And I sigge, bi my soule - I have no salt bacon, Ne no cokeneyes, bi Crist - colopus to maken. Bot I have porettes and percyl - and moni colplontes, And eke a cou, and a calf - and a cart-mare To drawe a-feld my donge - whil the drouhthe lasteth. Bi this lyflode I mot lyven - til Lammasse tyme; Bi that, ich hope forte have - hervest in my croft; Thenne may I dihte thi dyner - as the deore lyketh."

Because the English spoken by our ancestors in the 1300s is so foreign to modern ears, the following translation of this piece is helpful:

"I have no penny, pullets for to buy, neither geese nor pigs, but I have two green cheeses, a few curds and cream, an oat-cake, two loaves of beans and bran baked for my children; yet I say, by my soul, I have no salt bacon, no, nor eggs to make callops, but I have parsley, leeks, and many cabbages, and also a cow and calf, and a cart mare to draw my dung afield while the drought lasted; and by this provision we must live till Lammastide; by then I hope to have harvested my crop, then I get dinner as it pleaseth me well."

At this time both the freemen and villeins were perfectly free citizens although opportunity to leave the manor for life elsewhere was practically nonexistent. Sons who were to inherit their father's holdings were usually required to pay a fine to the lord for the right to hold the land. Marriage prior to holding was prohibited. Sons who did not inherit left the manor or remained unmarried and worked for their brother who was holding. Langland (the author of Piers Ploughman) makes it clear that in most cases marriage was regarded purely as a business arrangement. Women were regarded as chattels who entitled their owners to a certain amount of property. Landowners or holders arranged their children's marriages with a view to acquiring further possessions. Young girls married old men and rich widows were married for the sake of their property. (As late as the early 1600s our Carlton ancestors Stephen and William of Ash both married widows, most likely for their property.)

Few villeins had much in the way of household goods during this period. At best the only things of value would be some brass cooking pots and perhaps a chest for clothes and a stool or two. The greatest assets were always in livestock. Later in this period villeins were allowed to have tenants of their own as well as own land. These types of arrangements lasted from the mid 1100s into the early 1600s.

Contrary to popular opinion, there is now evidence that our medieval ancestors traveled quite extensively. It was very common for men to be required to attend mass at the Cathedral several times each year (probably at Canterbury in the case of the Carltons). Pilgrimages, including those on the continent, were very common (in fact almost expected) and courts and fairs in distant locations were often attended. Except for the main highways there were very few roads of any kind. Many of those that did exist were narrow muddy tracks that were almost impassable after heavy rain. In the forests roads would often be lined with high overgrown hedges and were so narrow that a horse could not turn around. If local landholders neglected their hedges, roads could easily be blocked by the overgrowth. Few good bridges existed and rivers were usually crossed by a ford at the shallowest part. It was also common for sections of roads to be in dire need of repair and fallen trees and broken bridges often were ignored for years.

It is unlikely that our ancestors were part of feudal subinfeudation (the more popular notion of the feudal system), where the lord granted land to vassals in return for military duty, although the local gentry were almost certainly expected to provide this type of service. Throughout this period our ancestors would not have been using the surname of Carlton unless they had already left their original manor. They would have been referred to by their christian baptismal name with a descriptive name which often changed from year to year (for example, Edward the son of William might be listed as "Edward William's-son" one year and "Edward [of the] East-field" the next year.) In this manner our ancestors could have adopted the Carlton surname as descriptive of their manor of origin (perhaps Charlton Court of Kingston-Bishopsbourne). Of course this would indicate that we have no relationship with the Carleton family descended from the Norman lord Baldwin de Carleton.

Worth noting is the fact that of the many Carlton derived place names in England, two are located in the eastern Kent region where our ancestors first appear in the early 1500s. Charlton Park and Charlton Wood, the site of Charlton Court Manor (which was built in 1548 but named after an earlier manor on the site) are located at Bishopsbourne, which is separated by a ridge of land from Lower Hardres to the west. Charlton Court was recorded in 1227 as "Carletone" which is phonetically identical with today's "Carlton". In addition there is a Charlton in Dover, only 6 miles south of Tilmanstone. A third possibility might be Charlton next to Greenwich in northwestern Kent.

1348 - 1536

The years 1348 and 1349 were the years the black plague swept England, decimating over 30% of the total population in a 14 month period. The plague arrived in Kent between June and August of 1348 from Normandy across the English Channel. Assuming that the Carltons were living in the area at that time, they would have been some of the first to experience the plague in England as it did not reach London until after the winter of 1348-1349. The sick suffered severe pain and died quicky within five days of the first symptoms. As the diesase spread, other symptoms of continuous fever and spitting of blood appeared instead of the swellings or buboes. These victims coughed and sweated heavily and died even more quickly, within three days or less, sometimes in 24 hours. In both types everything that issued from the body - breath, sweat, blood from the buboes and lungs, bloody urine, and blood- blackened excrement - smelled foul. Depression and despair accompanied the physical symptoms, and before the end death was seen seated on the face.

Although the plague would continue to be a hazard for the next 150 years, the great social and economic changes that certainly affected our ancestors were a result of the great plague of 1348-1349. Because of the labor shortage created by the plague deaths, for the first time villeins were at the advantage in dealing with the feudal economy (although they certainly did not realize such at the time). Especially after severe plagues in 1361 and 1369, manorial lords were forced, in spite of stiff legislation to the contrary, to offer better terms to the villeins. In some cases families were able to move to new locations with better situations as tenancy replaced servitude as the prevalent farming arrangement. However, labor was cheap, even by the monetary standards of the day. In the 1300s sarcling (haymaking) brought 1 pence a day; threshing, 2 pence per quarter of wheat and 1 pence for barley or peas. The annual rent on a messuage of a quarterium of land (40 acres, more or less) might be 1 shilling.

Our ancestors would most likely have lived in single room mud "wattle-and-daub" huts with thatched roofs. Doorways (usually without a door) stood open to allow pigs and chickens to wander in and out. If there were any windows, they were also open most of the time. Floors were of beaten earth and were strewn with fresh rushes when possible. A prevalent English custom, which as late as Elizabethan times was commented on as barbaric by visitors from the continent, was the presence of ancient food droppings, animal refuse and other garbage beneath the rushes. During the winter a fire would burn in the middle of the earthern floor, which although causing much smoke inside, probably helped hide the odors rising from the floor. Fireplaces were becoming known outside the manor houses, but were still considered somewhat of a luxury at this time.

Although the standards of living were improving, household furnishings of this era were simple and crude. They were even simpler than the household effects of John Charlton which were inventoried in 1571 (see Chapter 1). Furniture usually consisted of planks on trestles for a table, a bench or stools, a chest, an iron cauldron and a few pots, with bowls, mugs and pitchers of earthenware. A diligent effort in spinning or another cottage industry in a good year would allow a few pennies to be scraped together which might be used to purchase a brass pot, pewter candlesticks, or some useful furniture. These things would be passed on to the next generation and would form the nucleus of further collections. By the 1500s most families had a few household valuables. Beds were simply heaps of straw covered with coarse woolen rugs. William Harrison, who wrote in the early 1600s, said the old men of his village talked of:

"the great amendment of lodging; for, said they, our fathers yea and we ourselves also, have lain full oft upon straw pallets, on rough mats covered only with a sheet . . . and a good round log under their heads instead of a bolster or pillow . . . If it were so that our fathers . . . had within seven years after his marriage purchased a mattress or flock bed, and thereto a stack of chaff to rest his head upon, he thought himself to be as well lodged as the lord of the town . . . Pillows . . . were thought meet only for women in child-bed."

Medieval ideas of propriety and cleanliness were very different from modern concepts. All members of the family, including guests if there were any, slept in the same area of the hut. Everybody slept naked with only a sheet (which was in earlier times a course coverlet more like a rug and in later times of rough flax or linen). Although much of the literature holds that baths were completely unknown and hand and face washing were extremely unusual, some authors cite evidence that hand, face, and body washing was frequent among the common people. They claim that many of the accounts that refer to unwashed peasants were written by or for the wealthy and referred to the masses of people seen in the streets, who were often poor, or workers in fields, who may well have been clean when at home and out of sight of travelers. Clothing was expected to last a lifetime. Records from the 1400s clearly indicate a suit of clothes lasting for 40 years and, if the owner died prematurely, the clothes often became a major item in the will. In his will of 1571 John Charlton willed "my beste cote one shirt . . . jerkine a paere of hose paere of shoes a cape or hate" to his friends Thomas Peele and Wyllyam Stoddom. As late as 1734 Edward Carlton of Tilmanstone willed his "wearing Apparrel both Linnen and Woollen" to his sons. However, men were often clean shaven (with a pumice stone - ouch!) and it was quite common for pungent herbs and wildflowers to be cultivated for making houses more pleasant.

During this period it became common practice for families to send children away from home to be educated in the houses of the gentry. The poor might be put out to service, as it was called, as early as the age of 7 and there can be no doubt that Carlton children were often educated in this manner. This practice became a long standing tradition in England and as late as 1905 the American immigrant Frederick Carlton spoke highly of the years he spent "in Gentleman's service" near Tilmanstone.

Breakfast was usually eaten about 8 in the morning, dinner about 11 o'clock and supper about 5 in the evening. Our English peasant ancestors, unlike those on the continent, had meat, bacon (known as ham in America), beef or a herring almost every day, as well as bread and cheese. Common dishes such as mutton broth with onions and barley, baked beans and bacon, ham and eggs, omelets with chopped parsley, roasted meat with mint, roasted birds with bread sauce, baked apples and milk puddings were all popular. The family garden also contributed as nearly anything that would grow was eaten. Roses and violets were chopped and stewed (a strawberry and violet soup was popular for a time) and onions, leeks, peas, kale, cabbage, lettuce, nettles and watercress were all grown for the table. Medieval cookery was much more elaborate than is often realized. A great variety of soups, stews, pastries, fritters, jellies, etc. were in common use, many being quite complicated to prepare. All types of fish, from minnow to whale, were consumed with the medium sized usually boiled in ale and shrimp or crabs usually served with vinegar sauce (which evolved into the vinegar and malt used on today's fish and chips). A popular recipe for dried cod called for a sauce of walnut kernels, garlic, pepper, bread (crumbs), and salt. Numerous fruits such as pears, apples, cherries, damsons and plums were enjoyed but small wild strawberries which were served with cream were even then the great national favorite.

It was common to use as much spice as possible in cooking and dishes were often over-flavored (by modern standards) with cinnamon, pepper, ginger, cloves, garlic and vinegar. Verjuice, made from crushed sour crab apples, was used in medieval cooking as lemon juice is today. Great quantities of meat were eaten with little emphasis on vegetables and other food sources. An example of a very popular recipe for leche lumbard is given in Salzman's English Life In The Middle Ages:

"Take pork and pound it in a mortar with eggs; add sugar, salt, raisins, currants, minced dates, powered pepper and cloves; put it in a bladder and boil it; then cut in slices . . . serve . . . with a sauce made of raisins, red wine, almond-milk coloured with saffron, pepper, cloves, cinnamon and ginger"

A popular recipe for a custard called for minced veal with various herbs and spices mixed with eggs, dates and ginger. The appendix 16th Century Recipes includes some wonderful examples of the type of foods our ancestors may have prepared, in both medieval and modern versions.

The appearance of many medieval dishes would be unusual to modern sight. Those that were not canary yellow with saffron might be crimson red with blood or ash black with toast crumbs. Food was eaten on the trestle and plank tables from trenchers [thick slices of 4 day old bread or in later years wooden (treen) or metal (latten) platters] with spoons, knives and fingers (forks were not used in England until the 1600s.) Most dishes were composed of chopped or mashed substances that could be eaten with a spoon. Birds and joints of meat were eaten in huge quantities that were hacked into small lumps or gobbets that could easily be eaten with fingers or knife; slices of meat were unknown. Bones and other particles were flung onto the floor in true medieval style for the animals. The principle drink of the common people was ale, which was served in wooden or pewter cups. Beer was introduced by the Dutch in the 1400s and, after a short time during which it was denounced as poison, quickly became a strong second choice.

Evenings, especially in the winter, could be spent in the village alehouse where a kindly host might allow credit to his customers, chalking up their accounts upon the crossbeams or accepting payments in kind, such as a rabbit for the pot or a jar of honey. In the summertime there were outdoor sports with archery, the prime defense of England, practiced above all. For many years, targets of straw were required to be set up on the village greens at 200 paces from the marksmen and a high standard of accuracy was the rule of the day.

Livestock of this era were small and, by modern standards, quite poor. Sheep were very small and their poor quality wool was full of long hairs. Braxy mutton (the flesh of sheep found dead), although illegal to sell, was often eaten anyway. Hogs, the most common source of meat, were very much like the small wild boars with bristles on their backs that are found in remote areas of the world today. Cows were also extremely small. Cheese and butter were quite cheap in comparison to other goods and as a result formed a goodly part of the farmer's diet. Poultry was abundant and prolific, geese and ducks were herded on the village commons and everyone kept chickens. Poultry was turned into stubble to fatten on fallen grain after harvest with excellent results. In fact, the order by which families in the village were allowed to use the fields for stubble was a common source of argument before the local authorities.

During this period, primarily due to people changing their place of residence, it became necessary to have a satisfactory and consistent method of identifying individuals and this is when surnames came into everyday usage among those common people who had not yet adopted them. By this time our ancestors would certainly have begun to call themselves the Carltons, or the people from the homestead of the freemen. Our name would seem to indicate that our ancestors at a distant time left one situation and took up residency in another place, thus being from the freemen's homestead.

The end result of the conditions that arose beginning with the black plague of 1349 was not only economic but social as well. Because tenants were less and less beholding to the manorial lords they began the enclosure movement, in which they marked out and enclosed tracts of land which became theirs for all time. Tenancy became known as copyhold as the new tenants held a copy of the court record as proof of their right to ownership. These conditions persisted through the 1400s and in some places lasted into the 1800s. The major developments were in the changes in the ownership of the manors as the aristocrats enlarged their estates during the civil wars of the period.

Carlton Freemasonry and the Peasant's Revolt of 1381

An alluring enigma from this period related to the Carlton family involvement with Freemasonry is connected to the Peasant's Revolt of 1381. Although the Freemason Lodge records are sketchy and secret, we know that David Henry Carlton, Edward Arthur Carlton, and David Raleigh Carlton achieved the highest possible rankings in their lodge at Long Point, Illinois (33rd degree). It is easily possible that David Henry's father, Edward Carlton the Immigrant, was a Freemason and that his father, Edward the Carpenter, was also a Freemason in England. The question arises as to how far back Carlton Freemasonry actually goes. It is well understood that Freemasonry existed as a secret society in England long before it announced itself publicly in 1717. There is probably no answer to this question due to the secrecy (and subsequent lack) of appropriate records.

However, it is entertaining to consider the admittedly high level of speculation in John J. Robinson's Born in Blood: The Lost Secrets of Freemasonry. Robinson has speculated that the Peasant's Revolt of June 7, 1381 that was led by Wat Tyler was actually organized and carried out by the English Freemasons. As evidence, he cites several references in the literature of the Peasant's Revolt that mention a "Great Society" with no name that could have been behind the obvious organization of the Revolt. There is certainly no question that the Revolt was well planned and executed. Barbara Tuchman, the winner of two Pulitzer Prizes, in A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century, says the rebellion spread "with some evidence of planning." The Encyclopedia Britannica refers to the Revolt as a "curiously spontaneous" rebellion. And no less a personage than Winston Churchill, in his Birth of Britain, said, "Throughout the summer of 1381 there was a general ferment. Beneath it all lay organization. Agents moved round the villages of central England, in touch with a 'Great Society' which was said to meet in London."

Robinson theorizes that the Freemasons were actually the remnants of the medieval Knights Templar who had gone underground in England when they were suppressed 74 years earlier in 1307 by Pope Clement V and King Philip IV (Philip The Fair) of France. Their supression may have been prompted by the huge war debts owed the Templars by the King along with the Pope's desire to eliminate the Templars in favor of the Knights Hospitallers (now the Maltese Knights of St. John). The suppression cumulated with the burning of 70 year old Knights Templar Grand Master Jacques De Molay at Paris in 1314.

Wat Tyler exploded into English History with his mysterious uncontested appointment as the supreme commander of the Peasant's Revolt only 8 days before he was killed on June 15, 1381, thus ending the revolt. Nothing is known of his existence before June 7th (although there are not normally records of common people from this period of English history). Robinson speculates that Tyler was not using his real name but instead was using his Masonic title. The Tyler is the sentry, the sergeant-at-arms, the enforcer of a Masonic Lodge. His duty is to screen visitors for credentials, secure the meeting place, and then stand guard outside the door with a drawn sword in hand. Robinson claims that "Tyler" would be an appropriate title for a Masonic commander.

On June 10th Tyler and his contingent arrived at Canterbury, where thousands of rebels crowded into the Cathedral during high mass. After kneeling, they shouted to the monks to elect one of their number to be the new archbishop of Canterbury because the current one "is a traitor and will be beheaded for his iniquity." After asking for the names of traitors, locating three men so named, and beheading them, the rebels left, allowing 500 Canterbury men to join them but leaving many sympathizers to defend Kent in the event of attack by the French.

Because the Carltons first appear near Canterbury in the 1500s it is not impossible that Carltons were not only living in the immediate area at the time, but that they joined the Peasant's Revolt because they were members of the "Great Society" that surfaced four centuries later as Freemasonry. Whether they were involved in the revolt, and if so, whether they continued with Tyler's men to London on June 11th and the historical meeting with Richard II on June 14th or whether they remained in Canterbury will probably never be known.

On June 14th Wat Tyler led the takeover of the Tower of London (where he found the gate wide open) and the subsequent beheading of Sir Simon Sudbury, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Sir Robert Hales, Prior of the Order of the Knights Hospitaller, on Tower Hill. The rebels followed the ancient tradition of mounting the heads on poles and displaying them on the London Bridge. They then carried out what Robinson calls a selective destruction of Hospitaller sites in the city.

While this was going on the majority of the rebels had met with the 14 year old King Richard II at Mile End, outside the city beyond the Aldgate. The rebels reportedly asked for the right to hunt down and execute all traitors to the King and common people and that no man should be bound to another in serfdom or villeinage, in other words that every Englishman should be a free man. The King agreed to both demands and ordered his clerks to begin producing writs of manumission on the spot. However, it is worth remembering that Richard II was only 14 at the time and it is extremely unlikely that he acted as heroically as recorded by history. In fact, he was so timid and slothful that he was dominated by his regents well past the age of 23, when he finally mustered the courage to assert that he could rule as King himself. The apparent ruse at Mile End worked as many of the rebels took their manumissions and returned to their villages the same day.

Another meeting was set to include Wat Tyler and Richard II at Smithfield the next day. Accounts of this famous meeting seem to indicate that Tyler read a list of similar demands to the King but he was interrupted when he was attacked and wounded by two of the King's men. Some accounts claim that Tyler insulted the King when he rinsed his mouth with beer. Richard II is then credited with singlehandedly riding to face the rebels and calming them while they could still see their stricken leader. At any rate, Tyler was later found having his wounds attended at St. Bartholemew's Hospital, where the King's men dragged him outside, beheaded him, and stuck his head on a pole on the London Bridge, replacing the heads of the Archbishop and Prior of the Hospitallers. The Peasant's Revolt continued for several days as the mob burned and pillaged Hospitaller sites throughout Kent and Essex.

Whether or not Carltons were involved in the "Great Society" of the Peasant's Revolt or were even living in the Canterbury and Kent area at the time will probably never be known. However, the speculation on the possible convergence of these historical events is certainly entertaining to members of the family.

This page was updated on 2-21-98. If you have queries or comments, email rcarlton@arkansas.net