17t Century village life,

[Garmard]

What would happen to a village in the 17th century ,that would be owned by a rather well-to-do family living in the big manor house relating to the village, if the family died and the male line ended?
Would the village then cease to exist? Or would it merely carry on regardless?

[Mosaic]

Carry on.
The 17th century is an interesting choice, as in some parts of the country we start to see changes that herald the next two centuries. But by and large in the time of which you speak, the broad rights of the people were entrenched in law. Either the nearest baron or the king would decide how to apportion a title that came up for grabs. In the 17th century, Charles I raised money by selling these newby titles to the highest bidder.

[Garmard]

What were the peoples rights in those times mosaic? If the family who owned the village died......what would happen tom the villagers?

[dothawkes31]

The entail would go to the next male heir, if the family had no sons just daughters and the squire died, but he had a younger brother, then the brother would inherit and the daughters would be ousted along with his widow. If the brother was dead but had a son, the son would inherit, if the brother had no sons just daughters and was dead, but the squire had a living uncle, the living uncle would inherit over the nieces, but if the uncle was dead but had sons, the sonds of the uncle, the squires 1st cousins once removed would inherit. The village would have relied on the bounty o the manor and aquire for their kindling, the common land to graze their cow and pig, the small area to grow their own vegetables and fruit and for the seasonal employent of planting harvesting and beating. The village would pay rent to the manor and rely on the manor or housing and employment and religious leadership. By the time of the enclosures and the start of mass sowing of huge wheat crops, villagers were being forced to move into the towns and cities to survive or end up on the parish

[Mosaic]

As Dot says, the rights of the people wer determined in part by who owned the land they farmed and whether they owned their own property or rented it. Most rural people at the tme you describe seem to have lived in rented 'tied' cottages ie the house came with the job. The basic protection of the law extended to everyone - you could not be raped, murdered or robbed by your landlord - but as at the time the actual daily administration of law was still often done by the manorial court, the interpretation of justice could be a bit patchy. The manorial court met quite literally in the squire's hall and decided in matters that fell below the radar of the county sessions.
However it is interesting that our revolution in the 17th century was not aimed at changing the laws of the land, but at making sure the king obeyed the law same as everyone else.

[Garmard]

Thanks for all your answers................It makes it a lot clearer for me.