Family and Marriage Patterns in Early Modern

Europe
Early modern Europe (roughly 1500–1800) saw distinctive family and marriage systems that varied across
regions and evolved over time. Historians have long debated these patterns, especially the so-called
“European Marriage Pattern” (EMP) identified by John Hajnal, but newer scholarship emphasizes flexibility
and context. In general, northwestern Europe (England, the Low Countries, parts of France and Germany)
tended toward late marriage, a substantial minority remaining unmarried, and separate nuclear
households, whereas southern and eastern Europe often featured earlier weddings, almost universal
marriage, and more extended or multigenerational households. This essay examines demographic data
and social customs – from female age at first marriage and celibacy rates to household composition,
economic roles, legal norms, and emotional life – drawing on case studies and diaries as well as scholarly
research. Throughout, we note how factors like economics, religion, and law shaped family behavior, and
how historians (Hajnal, Laslett, Ogilvie, Carmichael, and others) have interpreted these phenomena.

Age of Marriage and Celibacy

One of the most striking features in demographic records is the relatively late average age of first marriage
in parts of early modern Europe. In England and similar regions, women typically wed in their mid-twenties.
Studies of parish registers and population reconstructions show English women marrying around ages 24–
26, and men often a few years older. By contrast, in Mediterranean countries such as Italy or Spain, and in
Eastern Europe (Poland, Russia), brides often married in their late teens or early twenties. John Hajnal’s
influential 1965 thesis described a northwestern zone (west of a line from Trieste to St. Petersburg) where
women married later, many remained single, and nuclear households prevailed 1 2 . Hajnal reported
that as much as one-third of the population might never marry in this zone, whereas in the south and east
nearly everyone married young. This has been broadly confirmed by later demographers: for example,
Cambridge researchers note that throughout the 16th–18th centuries the average Englishwoman’s
marriage age rarely dropped below 24 3 . By contrast, in India or other parts of Asia at the time, nearly all
women married by age 20. In early modern France and Germany, marriage ages were intermediate; French
women might marry in their early twenties on average, and German women often in the low twenties or
late teens depending on region.

High female age at first marriage implies lower fertility, since women had fewer childbearing years. Late
marriage arose largely from economic considerations. In northwestern Europe, young people usually had
to save or work away from home before marrying. For example, English youths commonly entered service
as domestic servants or apprentices to accumulate the “seed capital” needed to set up an independent
household 4 . Servant service not only trained them but provided room and board as they earned wages.
When wages were low, marriage was delayed (people needed more time to save), but in prosperous
decades marriage could occur a little earlier 5 . This pattern made marriage age sensitive to business
cycles: famines or wars tended to push marriage later and depress nuptiality. Because many young adults
postponed marriage for economic reasons, a sizable portion of adults in their twenties and even thirties
was single. Census and parish evidence indicate that perhaps 20–30% of women in England or the Low

1
Countries never married at all 6 . (By comparison, only a few percent of women in southern Europe
remained permanently single.) Some of the unmarried were elderly widows or spinsters, and others were
wealthy clerics or nuns. But in any case, a significant celibate minority is characteristic of the classic EMP.

The EMP and its causes have been debated. Hajnal and later demographic historians (Laslett, Flinn, Wrigley
& Schofield) treated late marriage and celibacy as a cultural pattern unique to western Europe, possibly
rooted in land inheritance customs and social institutions. They argued this “height” (age) and
“breadth” (proportion married) of marriage had profound social consequences: nuclear households and
relatively slow population growth. More recent scholars have challenged a rigid interpretation. Economists
Tracy Dennison and Sheilagh Ogilvie (2014) questioned whether the EMP was geographically uniform or
economically decisive, noting that demographic patterns varied widely even within Europe 7 . Sarah
Carmichael and colleagues (2016) likewise contended that focusing on average age is misleading: instead,
one should see marriage timing as a response to economic opportunity rather than a fixed region-wide trait
8 . Their statistical analyses show that when wages were high or land was available, people married

earlier, and when economic prospects dimmed, they delayed marriage. In short, female age at marriage in
the early modern period was both a cause and an effect of economic conditions.

Family Structure (Nuclear, Stem, Extended)

The composition of households also differed. In much of northwest Europe, the nuclear family
predominated: a husband, wife, and their children living in a single household, often independently of other
kin. This neolocal residence pattern contrasted with other forms. In parts of Germany, the Alps, and in some
towns in Italy, a stem family arrangement was common. There, parents remained in the family home after
their children married, but only one (often the eldest son, or occasionally a daughter) brought a spouse into
the house. That one heir took over the farm or business, while other sons and daughters married out and
established separate households (or joined their spouse’s family). Thus the household was “stemmed” by
one line of descent. Anthropologists note that stem households bridge nuclear and extended forms: they
are multigenerational but with a controlled inheritance pattern.

Elsewhere in Europe, particularly in Eastern Europe and parts of the Mediterranean, extended or joint
families were more frequent. Such households could include multiple married siblings (e.g. two or more
brothers each with wife and children) living with parents, or even grandparents and cousins under one roof.
For example, rural Russia or Poland in the early modern era often had several generations living together in
the same homestead. In southern Italy and parts of Spain, it was common for adult children and
grandchildren to remain with their parents, partly because agricultural estates were kept intact. These more
complex households pooled labor and consumption but also required intricate negotiation of authority.

Economic and inheritance factors shaped these patterns. Nuclear families were easier for land-poor
peasants and town-dwellers to support, whereas extended arrangements made sense for wealthy
landowners who wanted to concentrate property. Some regions even enforced patterns by custom: e.g. in
traditional Irish “gavelkind” areas land was divided equally among heirs, promoting the breakup of holdings
(and often requiring young couples to seek land elsewhere, such as the New World). In parts of Italy,
impresa or dowry customs meant daughters left with a dowry but did not inherit land, encouraging one line
of sons to keep the estate together. Historian Peter Laslett and others used parish registers to show that in
17th‑18th century England extended households were relatively rare, confirming a nucleus model for that
core EMP area. However, household forms could be fluid: for instance, a nuclear family might take in
orphaned grandchildren, or a widow might continue living in her late husband’s home with her son’s family,

2
making an ad hoc extension of the household. In summary, early modern Europe saw a spectrum of
household forms, with nuclear arrangements dominant in the west but stem and extended families
prominent elsewhere, influenced by local custom, economics, and property rules.

Household Economy and Economic Role of the Family

Before industrial factories, the household was essentially an economic unit. Families produced many of the
goods they needed and managed their own finances. In rural villages, this meant that farming was a family
affair: fathers and older sons plowed fields, mothers and daughters tended gardens and livestock, and even
young children had chores like fetching water or minding animals. Wives typically oversaw the most time-
consuming tasks: grinding grain, milking cows, making butter, or brewing ale – work vital for subsistence.
Historian Mary Beth Norton and others have stressed that women’s contributions in these tasks were
indispensable. In urban settings, similar dynamics applied: a family of artisans or shopkeepers would run
the business together. For instance, an apothecary’s wife might help with measuring ingredients, or a
merchant’s daughters might assist in the shop. Guild regulations sometimes required wives to be “quiet
spouses,” but in practice they often handled work, allowed the husband to focus on external trade or craft
specialization.

Young people often entered the labor force long before marriage. In northwestern Europe it was common
for boys to become apprentices and girls to serve as domestic servants in towns. This served multiple
purposes: it provided the household with an additional income (many households took on an extra person
for the labor they provided), and it enabled youths to learn trades and save wages toward establishing their
own household. The Cambridge Group notes that serving in another household gave young people a way
to acquire household furnishings for their future marriage (pots, tools, bedding) while also deferring the
costs of marriage 4 . Some families sent children away to earn money for the parents’ debt or to build
capital. In all these ways the domestic economy was deeply interconnected.

The family also functioned as a social safety net. Without state welfare, elders typically relied on adult
children for support in old age, and conversely parents cared for young, sick, or disabled members. Savings
and credit usually remained within kin networks: dowries were a key example of this. In many societies
(notably much of Catholic Europe), brides came into marriage with a dowry – a sum of money or goods
provided by her kin. The dowry was both a contribution to the new household’s economy and a bride-price
of sorts that confirmed the marriage contract. If properly drafted, part of the dowry could be reclaimed if
the husband died or left the marriage (the woman’s dos or jointure). Conversely, among Protestants like the
English, a similar concept was the “marriage portion.” These arranged transfers show how economic
strategy and family support intertwined with marriage.

The intertwining of economy and marriage meant that labor market conditions influenced family behavior.
Scholars such as Jane Humphries have estimated that women’s paid labor was a substantial share of the
rural economy – perhaps a third to half of total work in some areas 9 . When labor markets offered good
wages for single women (for example, during industrialization or crop booms), many young women found it
worthwhile to delay marriage. This labor-market incentive acted as a form of Malthusian “preventive check”
on population growth: higher wages encouraged later marriage and thus lower fertility (and vice versa).
Similarly, economic historians point out that couples’ decisions about family size and marriage timing
responded to price fluctuations. In the centuries before birth control, the family economy and the broader
economy were in continuous dialogue, with household formation patterns both affecting and reflecting
financial conditions.

3
Marriage Patterns and Determinants
Marriage in early modern Europe was influenced by a web of social, economic, and cultural determinants.
Across classes, people generally married within their social stratum. Noble families often arranged
marriages early and strategically for alliance or inheritance; commoners and artisans typically married later
and more locally. Parental and kinship interests were important: parents often negotiated marriages for
children, especially daughters, arranging dowries and seeking grooms of equal status. Nevertheless, there
was room for personal choice: letters and diaries of the period indicate that courtship did occur and that
many families hoped for matches of compatible temperament. For example, anthropologist Alan
MacFarlane notes that in 17th‑century England it was expected “that couples would find a good match in
personality and temperament,” and surveys of Anglican marriage licenses show that consent of the parties
(not just parents) was required, at least officially 10 .

Economic capacity was usually the most practical determinant of marriage. Both men and women needed
enough resources to support a household. A young man without a farm, land, or trade would find it hard to
marry. Consequently, increases in wages or availability of land in new colonies often led to marriage booms.
Conversely, crop failures, war, or urban unemployment could delay or prevent marriages, resulting in higher
bachelor and spinster rates. In some places, local regulations could directly limit marriages: parish officials
might refuse to wed a couple they believed would become paupers. The Poor Laws (for example, in England
from 1601) gave parishes some power to control marriage if dependency was a concern.

Customs like dowry also shaped marriage patterns. In Mediterranean societies a girl’s marriage was
expensive because her family had to gather a sizable dowry. If dowry inflation outpaced earnings, some
families delayed daughters’ marriages or arranged them for older ages. For instance, noble and wealthy
families often gave much larger dowries for their daughters to preserve honor or contract lucrative
alliances, but this could lead to great disparities in marriage age even within the same village. In northwest
Europe, where dowries were smaller or structured differently, the need to save personal funds (rather than
giving wealth to the husband) tended to make marriage timing more equal between genders.

Marriage spread through kin networks too. People often married their neighbors or even cousins. In many
towns and villages there was a strong tendency toward endogamy (marrying in the same locality), which
historians observe from genealogical studies. This sometimes led to a limited pool of spouses; in isolated
communities, youths might leave home to find partners. Some governments encouraged marriage by
granting bonuses or easy access to land for new couples; for example, in Prussia or Scandinavia
colonization programs offered land to families willing to settle.

Finally, religion and ideology also entered the picture: Protestant countries emphasized the union as a
covenant under God, which some reformers portrayed as a contract of mutual consent. Catholic churches,
on the other hand, stressed the sacramental nature of marriage, which elevated its lifelong commitment.
Across all confessions though, love was not entirely absent; spiritualists and moralists often urged husband
and wife to love and honor each other as part of their Christian duty. The diaries of clergymen like Ralph
Josselin reflect this blend: though he and his wife married in their twenties with his career established (the
norm for clergymen), he described their relationship in warm terms, noting how he “enjoy[ed] her
delightsome embraces” and valued her counsel 10 . Such testimonies suggest that even “arranged” unions
could be affectionate.

4
Religious and Civil Legal Influences on Marriage
Marriage was deeply regulated by both church and state, and the balance of control shifted over the early
modern period. Canon law (the church’s legal system) set fundamental rules: marriage required the free
consent of both parties, and a public ceremony with witnesses. The Catholic Church forbade marriages
within seven degrees of kinship (a very distant cousin) unless a dispensation was granted, and strictures on
consanguinity meant many potential unions needed special approval. The Council of Trent (1563) reformed
marriage practices for Catholics: it condemned secret marriages and required marriages to be officiated in
the presence of a priest and witnesses, and to be recorded in parish registers. This helped standardize
marriage practices and created archives of marital data. In Protestant regions, where marriage ceased to be
a sacrament but remained a church-affiliated act, authorities often imposed their own rules. For example,
some Lutheran princes required marriages to be done in writing or before a magistrate.

Secular governments increasingly asserted power over marriage. In many places civil authorities required
proof of age (typically at least 14 for girls, 16 for boys) and parental consent for minors, in line with
medieval law. English law, after Henry VIII’s break with Rome, left marriage under the Church of England,
with bans and the Book of Common Prayer ritual. By 1753 the English Parliament (Hardwicke’s Act) made
marriage strictly a formal church ceremony, banning clandestine marriages in chapels and requiring
parental consent for under-21s. In France, royal edicts and later the Napoleonic Code (1804) defined
property rights in marriage (dower and community property) and eventually turned marriage into a civil
contract, though this was more an 18th-century development. Some Germanic and Nordic regions even
instituted Lutheran “Kirchspiel” registers for births and marriages, blurring ecclesiastical and civic record-
keeping.

These legal frameworks had practical effects on family life. The requirement of banns and witnesses meant
neighbors often intervened (or at least observed) marriage plans. Restrictions on divorce or separation
meant that once married, couples were generally bound for life (in Catholic and Anglican areas, divorce was
nearly impossible). Property rights within marriage were defined by law: under English common law
(coverture), a married woman had no separate legal identity, whereas in Catholic countries wives often had
some share of the dowry or could be entitled to a set jointure if widowed. Protestant reformers tended to
respect classical Roman law on marriage (which stressed household unity), but Catholic canon law
preserved some traditions like dower (one-third share to widow). By the late 18th century, enlightened
rulers sometimes secularized marriage altogether: for instance, the Habsburg Emperor Joseph II decreed in
1783 that marriage was a civil right no longer requiring a church ceremony.

In short, early modern marriages were embedded in legal institutions. Canon law stipulated the
sacramental or covenantal nature of marriage, while secular laws regulated age, consent, property, and
record-keeping. Historians observe that as these rules evolved – for example, through Reformation changes
or Enlightenment reforms – they subtly altered family patterns. The enforcement of standard marriageable
ages and bans on incest maintained social order; the legal control of divorce and legitimacy framed how
couples resolved conflicts; and the documentation of marriage forged valuable demographic data for later
scholars.

5
Reproduction and Childbearing Patterns
Childbearing in early modern Europe was intimately tied to marriage and demography. Because premarital
births were socially discouraged (though not unknown), most children were born within wedlock. A typical
married couple might have one child every two to three years from soon after marriage until menopause or
death. In practice, childbirth carried high risks: both infants and mothers faced significant mortality. Infant
mortality rates were often between 15–25%; a woman might have six or seven live births on average, but
only three or four children might survive to adulthood. These high mortalities meant that families often had
more births than their eventual surviving offspring count suggests.

Patterns of fertility reflected marriage norms. Late marriage meant that many women entered childbearing
age in their mid-twenties, and often ended it by age 40. Extended breastfeeding was customary and often
long – sometimes two years or more – which naturally spaced births by delaying the return of fertility
(lactational amenorrhea). For example, in Ralph Josselin’s family (17th-century England) breast-feeding
lasted 12–19 months per child, with weaning frequently coinciding with a new pregnancy 11 . After
weaning, conception usually resumed quickly, given the absence of systematic contraception. However,
contraception methods (herbal abortifacients or rhythm methods) were rudimentary and socially frowned
upon (and officially condemned by churches).

Because of these factors, the gross fertility rate (children per married woman) was high by modern
standards, but the net fertility rate (surviving children per mother) was moderate. Demographic historians
calculate that even in the most fertile preindustrial societies, factors like miscarriages, stillbirths, and birth
spacing kept births around 5–7 per woman if she married young and remained fertile long. In northwest
Europe, however, the late marriage and celibacy features (the EMP) significantly reduced fertility. One
demographic analysis notes that in early modern England, family size was comparatively modest partly
because many women “spent many of the most fertile years of their life unmarried,” and a substantial share
(sometimes over 20%) never married at all 12 . Thus, England’s population grew relatively slowly despite
sizable family size per marriage, because the marriage patterns themselves capped aggregate births.

Religious and cultural attitudes also played a role. The Catholic Church, for instance, was vocally opposed to
abortion and infanticide and strongly encouraged sexual abstinence outside marriage. Protestant clergy
likewise preached marital fidelity and proper Christian childrearing, although their doctrines on
contraception varied. Many parishes baptized infants within days of birth, partly out of fear of high infant
mortality and the desire for salvation rites. Foundling hospitals emerged in some big cities (e.g. Paris from
the 1630s) to save abandoned infants, indicating that outright infanticide did occur where families were too
poor or the child was illegitimate, but these were exceptions in Catholic Europe. Overall, birth control by
modern standards was minimal, so reproduction largely followed the ebb and flow of marriage and
biological factors.

Family dynamics around children included deep emotional investment. Parents often expressed great
concern for their children’s health and moral upbringing. It was common to see families sending a child to
wet-nurses or boarding schools as part of childcare, and those leaving the home for apprenticeship often
corresponded with their parents. Genealogists note naming patterns (reusing names of deceased children)
as evidence of grief. At the same time, the danger and sadness of child loss was an accepted part of life;
birth and baptism entries were matched by records of early deaths. The balancing act between having
many children as labor and insurance against death, versus the strain on family resources, was a constant
in this era.

6
Emotional Life and Familial Relationships
Beyond economics and demographics, early modern family life had an emotional dimension that is visible
in letters, sermons, and especially personal diaries. Contrary to the stereotype of cold, purely transactional
marriages, many families experienced genuine affection and conflict. The diary of Yorkshire yeoman Adam
Eyre (1647–1649) provides a vivid case of domestic emotions. Eyre and his wife Susannah constantly
quarrelled over daily matters – religion, money, her illness, and his indulgences – yet they also sought
peace. Historians Wrightson and Capp characterize Eyre’s record as a rare look into “conjugal
negotiation” 13 . Eyre’s entries mention anger and cursing, but also a so-called “peace treaty” they
negotiated to restore harmony, indicating that marital arguments were normal yet potentially resolvable.

Similarly, the journal of the Puritan vicar Ralph Josselin shows warmth between spouses. Josselin frequently
wrote of missing his wife and valuing her companionship. In one poignant reflection he says he used to find
in his wife comfort and partnership in the burdens of life 14 . He and his wife also made decisions jointly:
for example, when considering suitors for their daughter, the wife’s judgment prevailed, showing that
power in marriage could be negotiated 15 . Josselin’s concern for his children – tracking their births,
illnesses, and even miscarriages of his wife – reveals an attentive father. Scholars note that Puritan family
life, as seen in such diaries, often emphasized a partnership of spiritual duty and affection.

Children, too, were objects of love. Parents grieved intensely at miscarriages and infant deaths. Letters of
the period frequently express sorrow at separation or loss. Siblings often formed strong bonds; wills
sometimes mention legacies left to especially beloved brothers or sisters. At the same time, parental
authority was strict: children were disciplined physically or morally as deemed necessary. Early modern
sermons likened children to ‘broad arrows’ on their parents’ estate – meaning they must be guided – but
this did not preclude tender care.

The rise of sentimental attitudes in the 18th century gradually shifted public ideals of marriage and family
toward greater emphasis on companionship and private affection (what Lawrence Stone famously called
the companionate marriage). However, historians caution that affection was always part of family life, even
if later cultural movements heightened its expression. Overall, the family was both a loving and a
hierarchical institution: spouses and parents cared deeply for each other, but fathers (and to a lesser extent,
husbands) retained legal and moral authority. Diaries and correspondence of the period underscore that
families sought both stability and emotional fulfillment in their relationships.

Inheritance Customs and Kinship Networks

Patterns of inheritance shaped the structure of families and extended kinship networks. The dominant
principle in aristocratic and many peasant contexts was patrilineal: land and family name passed through
the male line. However, practices varied. Primogeniture (the eldest son inherits the bulk of the estate) was
common in England and some parts of northern Europe, especially among nobility and large landowners.
This often meant younger sons had to find other careers (military, clergy, colonial ventures). Partible
inheritance (division of property among all heirs) was common in eastern Germany, Switzerland, and much
of Eastern Europe, leading to ever-smaller holdings unless countered by practices like celibacy or migration.
In southern Europe, versions of impartible inheritance existed too: for example, it became customary in
many Italian villages that the youngest son inherited the house (so that the older brother would marry out,
or vice versa). Daughters typically received movable property or dowries rather than land.

7
Because inheritance could leave younger children without land, extended family ties and kin networks were
vital. Families with multiple children often pooled resources to provide dowries or support emigrating sons
and daughters. For instance, in rural France or the Alps, it was common for entire kin groups to contribute
to the dowry of a bride if a prominent marriage was to be arranged. Kinship also had official aspects:
godparents were drawn from among kinsfolk and close friends, weaving ties between families across
villages.

Landholding families often deliberately kept a close-knit kin group. In parts of Spain and Italy there were
even “lineage societies” or confraternities based on descent which managed common property or religious
duties. Neighborhoods were frequently composed of people who were cousins or in-laws. Such networks
provided informal social insurance: a widow might return to her natal family if her husband died, or a
dispossessed younger brother might live with an uncle.

Historians note that inheritance customs could also affect marriage patterns: for example, if a large estate
passed intact to one heir, others might delay marriage until they secured a profession. The linkage between
inheritance and marriage is seen in legal documents: wills often spelled out precisely how wives were to
receive their dower, and recorded agreements show how property was divided among kin upon marriage.

Kinship terminology of the time underscores close family feeling: brothers and sisters were important
companions, and terms like “cousin” could signify nearly as much as blood relations. Overall, the early
modern family extended its household outwards through marriage and kin, forming networks that
supported political alliances, economic endeavors, and social welfare for members from birth to old age.

Gender Roles and Household Authority

Within the early modern family, gender roles were clearly delineated but also negotiable in practice. Fathers
or husbands were legally the heads of households. Under prevailing legal doctrines (such as English
coverture or Roman-influenced civil law), a married woman had no independent legal identity apart from
her husband. He controlled family property and made the ultimate decisions. The father had the patria
potestas (parental power) and could arrange his children’s lives – though within the period’s moral codes he
was expected to act in their best interest.

Despite this formal authority, women often exercised considerable influence in the household economy and
daily management. Wives typically managed the household budget, food provision, and the supervision of
servants and children. In the case of the vicar Ralph Josselin, for example, his wife was consulted on family
decisions and could sway outcomes 15 . Many sources suggest that an educated wife might even help keep
accounts or oversee business matters when the husband was away. Unmarried or widowed women could
and did operate businesses on their own – London’s borough records show widows running alehouses and
workshops under their own names.

Widowhood brought a particularly striking shift in gender dynamics. A widowed mother often became the
head of her household and inherited a life-interest in her husband’s property (a “dower” of about one-third
in many places, or full control if no male heirs existed). Many widows used this autonomy to remarry, which
in itself gave them a choice of partner and sometimes a higher social match. Others managed estates or
shops and could hire help. Legal systems recognized some of these changes: for example, under the
English Common Recovery procedures, a widow with only a life interest might convert it into money for
immediate use.

8
Women’s economic roles were significant. In rural families, wives and daughters engaged in hard physical
labor alongside men, and in towns women spun thread, wove cloth, brewed beer, sewed, or worked as
shopkeepers. Some regions formally acknowledged women in labor laws: early German guilds, for instance,
sometimes allowed widows to continue their husbands’ crafts. Even among the peasantry, women often
brought work animals, tools, or jewelry as part of their marriage portion, contributing visibly to the marital
estate.

Despite women's contributions, patriarchy was unmistakable. Husbands could discipline wives and children
(at least legally), and wives were culturally expected to be obedient. Inheritance laws usually favored male
lines; even so, daughters did inherit personal property and occasionally land, especially when male heirs
were lacking or customs allowed (for example, under English dower rights, or Sicilian equal partition).
Nonetheless, a strong majority of family wealth passed through men.

Intergenerational authority typically rested with the eldest men: grandfathers, fathers, and older brothers
could command obedience from younger kin. Yet emotional life and informal power could soften this. A
beloved mother might veto a punitive father, or an older daughter might help train younger siblings and
thus hold parental authority in practice. Protestant ethic encouraged a certain “companionship” in marriage,
emphasizing mutual counsel, which sometimes led to slightly more egalitarian spousal relations (as seen in
Josselin’s household).

In summary, gender in the early modern family combined patriarchy with cooperation. Men were the
official heads, but women’s roles were essential and sometimes empowered. Widows and unmarried
women could enjoy unusual liberties for the time. Both patriarchy and partnership coexisted in this era’s
households, with the precise balance depending on class, region, and individual family.

1 2 6 Western European marriage pattern - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_European_marriage_pattern

3 4 5 The Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure, Cambridge
https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/blog/2024/07/11/what-age-did-people-marry/

7 Microsoft Word - EMP Demog - 13-03-10h.doc

https://eml.berkeley.edu/~webfac/eichengreen/Dennison.pdf

8 (PDF) The European Marriage Pattern and Its Measurement

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/297790936_The_European_Marriage_Pattern_and_Its_Measurement

9 Putting women back into the early modern economy: Work ...
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ehr.13323

10 11 14 15 English Historical Fiction Authors: Ralph Josselin: A 17th Century Vicar

https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2018/03/ralph-josselin-17th-century-vicar.html

12 The Cambridge Group for the History of Population and Social Structure, Cambridge
https://www.campop.geog.cam.ac.uk/blog/2024/07/18/high-family-size/

13 Marital Conversations: Using Privacy to Negotiate Marital Conflicts in Adam Eyre’s Diary, 1647–1649 |

SpringerLink
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-46630-4_9