A question for history buffs

[BadDinner]

It's regarding poor people in Britain particularly during the 15th and 16th centuries, the Tudor period etc.

I always get the sense that poor people or the peasantry were much better off particularly during this time period than during the ages of progress like the 18th and 19th centuries for example and were overall happier.

But I don't know why I have this idea at all, having never specifically studied the lives of the poor (although I have heard of the Victorian slums etc) during either period or attempted to contrast and compare them. It's just a vague sense I pick up in the background of general reading (I have read about Tudor housewives and also the biography of Bess of Hardwick and other miscellaneous readings) Things seem overall more broadly socially refined before the Victorian era although that seems silly when the Victorian era is considered the the both the socially conservative era and the era of so much major structural engineering feats and improvements.

Am I totally wrong? Where do I get this sense from that the poor fared worse closer to the present day than the past?

I don’t have an answer for you OP but it’s an interesting question. I wonder if you theory has taken root in your mind because of the Industrial Revolution and the deleterious effect that had on rural poor? There was also the corn laws in the UK and the Irish potato famine so yes I can think of a few 18/19 century examples that support you! Mind you the 15&16 century had the bubonic plague so that evens things out.

Rose tinted glasses

People like to romanticise life before the industrial revolution as everyone living healthy uncomplicated lives in the countryside with lots of fresh air etc
Think of the start of the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony

In reality it was back breaking intensive work. If you watch any sort of farming show now you'll see how hard it is -imagine it without any machinery or electricity.

The only difference is that the type of work would change with the seasons and availability of light rather than working 12hr shifts every day - so you might have a few days that were a bit easier and then others that were even harder rather than everyday in a factory being very similar.

It's true that for lots of poor people life in cities during the mid 19th to early 20th c was pretty horrific - terrible air quality, incredibly long working hours, unsafe jobs etc. But what came before it wasn't great either. Victorian slums were horrific but if you go to an open air museum like St Fagans or highland folk etc you'll see that for centuries it was very normal for whole families to live in one room cottages, often with their animals as well.

It's hard to exactly compare like for like because we don't have sufficient records to work out exactly how life compared pre and post industrialisation. But roughly there wasn't any great change in life expectancy in the UK until the mid 20th century once you take into account child mortality - basically if you survived until age 5 in 1520 or 1840 your chances of then reaching 60 were pretty similar.
While overall living conditions and spread of disease were bad for many during victorian times you never had deaths to the extent of the plague where 25-30% of the population could be wiped out.

Also relevant to say that who the "poor" were varied as well. For most of history 99% of us would have been poor - with industrialisation came the increase in the middle classes which was beneficial for millions. As were the introduction of labour laws, compulsory schooling etc.

I love history but there is no way I'd ever want to have been born any time before now!

You're totally wrong! 😀

Life for poor people in the industrial revolution wasn't all bad. They gained significant freedoms. Read Emma Griffin's 'Liberty's Dawn'.

Equally, the poor during Tudor times may have been happy with their lot until various things created waves: the Reformation, famines, enclosure and other farming changes which created unemployment. This was a very long period (1485-1603) and there was significant social upheaval during it. Possibly as significant upheaval as during the IR (1750-1900).

I accept that cheerfully, but it's why I am wrong (or adversely right) that I'm interested in

I think it was while reading one of the two books (or it might have been Starkey's work on Elizabeth 1st) I mentioned earlier, that I learned that the monasteries had paid a big part in society. They provided work, apprenticeships and gave relief to the poor.

The Victorian era you get the workhouse, but they seem grim and some charities, but you have to jump through hoops to get it and it just seems the attitude to the poor was worse.

Again it's just this vague sense, but I feel the rich and aristocratic class seem closer to the poor during the previous centuries to the Victorians. It's like just something indefinable in the background.

Of course ignorance about how germs were spread resulted in deaths, and I see the point about people living all together with their animals, but living with your animals that provide warmth and direct sustenance like milk, still sounds better than living with several other families in two rooms and even milk has to be paid for.

Also, you are comparing apples with bananas I think.

I think the difference is maybe the migration of the poor into cities and towns during the Industrial Revolution, as their previously rural/farming livelihood and the previous way key industries worked was completely changed over that time. Not sure that would make life better or worse though - seems not comparable. Sudden changes in technology would cause people to lose their livelihoods if they can’t adapt. An inner city slum might seem worse than a 1 room countryside hovel but not sure it was in reality!