Spending this afternoon imagining the simplicity of life 300 years ago…

[Gwendimarco]

Around 1700ish, pre industrial revolution.
Life would not be easy of course. Childbirth and infant mortality, no rights for women or the poor, work was hard and physical for many.

Life was hard, for sure.

But it was also simpler.

Imagine knowing (or at least expecting) that your grandchildren’s work and way of life would probably be much the same as your grandfather and great grandfather’s.

Imagine never really knowing many people or hearing much news beyond your own village.

Visiting another village could be a day’s travel, if not more. Letters would be delivered by boys on horseback - the Royal Mail isn’t invented yet.

You know where everything in your house was grown or made, and probably the person who grew or made it.

Most people are illiterate, entertainment is stories and theatre with your local community.

Spirituality and religion are how you and everyone around you unquestioningly (for the most part) navigate the trials and tribulations of daily life.

I couldn’t live that life now, accustomed as I am to the 21st century. But I do think wistfully of the slower pace and simplicity.

The issue here is that posters are imagining what they - the person they are today with their mentality, knowledge and most of all their expectations - would feel like if they were suddenly plonked into those times by a Time Machine. And so they are appalled at the thought, of course. Then they paint a picture so damnably negative that it's entirely gloom and doom.

Believe it or not, people of the early-eighteenth century actually did laugh and have fun and had enjoyable times and thoughts and experiences. They did not know and could not imagine any other life than the one they had or the ones they witnessed.

@Gwendimarco
I can relate to this. In my 20's I spent some time living in rural Africa.
It was a very simple existence. A lot of time was taken up by preparing meals, and daily clothes washing. But strangely I also had lots of time to read and write letters.

But I knew that it was temporary - and if things didn't go well, I had my life back home. I had the luxury of being able to jump on a plane if I got ill.

And I didn't have kids then, so was pretty carefree. I often think fondly of those days - usually when I'm racing around with kids.

No thank you.

It would be the lack of electricity and heating for me.

Fine if you’re part of the 0.02% landed gentry. Shit if you’re everyone else.

This is grim, but … imagine being the laundry maid at Longbourne (was there one? Or was it just Hill?).

6 women of menstruating age to deal with. 😑😑😑

I can't say I'd want to have lived in those days, but I'd love to pop back for a quick visit. I'd only stay long enough that I didn't need the loo, though!

I've got back into the 1700s with my family tree and have found ancestors born in this time who lived well into their 80s, so I guess that childhood mortality must have skewed the life expectancy figures.

I like the idea of a simpler life but the reality of it would be awful.

Without modern medicine both my brother and sister would have died in early childhood. I’d have lost both my parents as a teenager and would have then died in childbirth, my son would have died with me and my other 2 children would never have existed. And that’s if I’d have survived that long anyway without vaccinations. I dread to think what my life would have been like hundreds of years ago.

Life was much much harsher in every way. Unless you were part of the landed rich, life was one big hard slog, especially if you are a women. A very hard existence.

Exactly this! Really glad someone has finally said this!

Almost all posters have responded based on their own knowledge of what's possible today & how unenviable that then made life 3 centuries ago.

In every time, people grappled with present-day challenges, but accepted the realities of their lives then. And their lives were full and happy, as well as challenging & unhappy, as they at at any point in history.

OP was musing on some aspects of the simplicity of a particular period in time, some posters have been crazily harsh in their responses (one said they'd like to throw something at her 😳) - she's not saying she believes, inter alia, life was universally better then.

Has it? I thought the idea of second sleep was well known. It continued in monastic communities for longer.

lLack of privacy would have been awful. I often visit a small town in Southern Europe where there is a lovely community but it is stifling. People help each other but everyone knows everyone’s business and there is no escape from that.

Not sure how you come to the conclusion that pointing out that life was not simpler 300 years ago is proof that those who understand that are 'stressed'. I havent got someone annoyed at me for not replying to their text and Im not the one reaching for a false past utopia to cope with that! I have read a few history books & contemporary novels though. I've also noticed how people with some of the worst, most simplistic solutions for the present often draw on a mythological past - all populist & dictatorial movements do this.So, to give an example, while it might be a bit of fun to pretend there was no pollution in the past, it actually kind of matters to understand that actually there was lots of pollution in the past. Poor people were worthless so it didnt matter to those in power. People campaigned to make things better. Growing democracy meant that more people had a say over things that affected them. Trades unions held companies to account. People began to think about the environment. Some things improved. It matters today to understand why! Doesn't mean I can't enjoy Poldark as much as the next person, but Im not going to take it seriously as evidence of anything, except our love of good stories & good looking romantic leads. We could all get round the smoky fire with our ancestors & agree on that.

Some of us would have been slaves or colonised subjects of a "superior" race. No thanks.

Letters would be delivered by boys on horseback - the Royal Mail isn’t invented yet

The Royal Mail was founded in 1660.

Reported as spam

The judicial system was pretty scary too - a pheasant's life was valued way above that of a human because it belonged to a rich guy. Hanging or transportation for poaching meant very grim prisons rammed to the gills with people just trying to feed their families.

OP I get your yearning for simplicity and a slower pace. I am trying to bring this to my modern day life.

Of course, I fully appreciate modern medicine, running water etc too.

I would highly recommend the book "How to be Free" by Tom Hodgekinson.

Yes. Some lived in a constant state of misery, some tried to make the best of it as best as they could, some did get some enjoyment out of life ,whatever form that took.

Some people, of course. I can't imagine every single woman was happy to do nothing but have babies, they likely knew they had no choice though and it was better for them to not say anything.

I imagine some also found out the hard way what happens if a woman dared to have an opinion back then too.

Well for many it took the form of believing in a better life after death to make up for all the suffering on earth. I’m sure that helped a lot.

So that's pretty much the same as it is now then.

I don't think that it was anywhere near as bad as people are suggesting.

There were lots of holy days sprinkled through the year where you wouldn't have been working and you probably would have only worked during daylight hours so that gives plenty of time to socialise. They ate a pretty wide range of food (many of which have been forgotten because of large companies wanting a monopoly and profit). The food quality only went down when it came to people moving into cities during the industrial revolution.

@TheCountessofFitzdotterel oh, religion was a brilliant tool for controlling the masses. Everything was God's will, or punishment for some perceived sin so it couldn't possibly be anyone's fault. Coupled with the promise of better things to come after.

@Kpo58 you're very naive and I'll leave it at that.

l don’t think they did eat a wide range of food.

The poor ate bread when available, but often ate nothing.

The rest ate tons of meat/fish with not many vegetables.

Of course it wasn’t pretty much the same. Women were no more than property and baby machines and no matter how miserable they may have been, they would’ve likely kept their mouths shut.

No one is saying things are perfect now but women actually have rights and a voice.