Forums Forums Wirral History : Chasing the Past Wirral History BIRDS HOUSE

Having had plenty of time to examine the date stone in detail, as you can imagine, my conclusion is that the first and last numerals are identical, and as the first must be a one, so is the last, and the third is quite definitely a 2 not a 9, so there's no doubt in my mind that it reads 1621. The book 'English Vernacular Houses' published by the Royal Commission on Historical Monuments in 1975 also describes it as follows: "House built of coursed rubble and dated 1621 over the door. It has two storeys and an attic and is of two cells. The door is at one end of the S. front against the side of the large gable stack heating the hall.There is a winder stair on the N. side of the hall, remodelled on the ground floor. To the W. are two small unheated rooms. Two roof trusses in the attic have collars and curved principals. The windows have chamfered stone mullions and the attic windows are in small gables".

My understanding was that the house was built by William Bird and later passed into the hands of the Vyner Estate, but I haven't seen any evidence for this....

That would certainly help explain part of the mystery. It's a fascinating building whatever the case!

If you are right about the date-stone there are still one or two points which are difficult to reconcile. If the Bird family originally built the property in, for argument's sake, 1621 why was the parcel of land the house stands on known as Williamson's Croft and not Bird's Croft, and why would the Bird family have built a later barn in 1704 and put their names on that if again they were not owners of the property?

As Marty points out the Bird family appear to have become tenants of the property after the Williamsons (according to the amendments made to the survey schedule). There is still, therefore, the possibility that the Williamson's originally owned the piece of land and built the original house, and that this property was later rebuilt or renovated by the Bird family when they became the new tenants after 1665.

Tenancies in those days were not quite the same as what we understand by the term. William Bird would probably have held the land from the Lords of the Manor, the Vyner Family, by a 'lease for lives'. Basically the lease had no set length; it remained valid for as long as a number of persons (usually three) named in the lease were still alive. It was usual to choose members of one's family or close friends as the named 'lives', and if one of the named individuals died you could add a new 'life' to replace him or her upon payment of a fee or 'fine' to the Lord of the Manor. In this way the lease could effectively be extended for years, and when the tenant himself died the lease could be transferred to his son, again on payment of a 'fine' to the Lord of the Manor. In this way families could hold the same land for generations, and as there were no Planning Laws in those days you were entitled to build whatever you wanted on the land you held, within reason!

That's very interesting and very well explained Marty. I still think it's a bit strange though that the land was named after the Williamson family and it is they who are named as tenants on the original survey of 1665. Either they had been tenants there for many years previously or, you would be inclined to think that they were the original owners of the land at some point prior to 1665.

And I can't figure out why, if the Bird family built the property in 1621, the land was called Williamson's Croft (not Bird's Croft) and the Williamsons were named as tenants in 1665. Were the Bird family replaced as owners or tenants at some point after the house was built in 1621, only to be re-instated again as tenants after the Williamson's?

I've not found any evidence at all to link the Bird family with the property in the 1620s; as I said in my post, I think their involvement began some time after 1665 and that the date on the lintel is 1691 not 1621. The plot of land was called Williamson's Croft in 1665 simply because at that time it was leased by a member of the Williamson family. It was quite normal in those days for tenements to be named after the then current occupant, particularly if they or their ancestors had held the property for some time.

Similarly, the house eventually came to be known as Bird's House or Bird's Tenement presumably because the Bird family subsequently held it for such a long time that everyone came to know it by that name, and this time the name stuck. Many books also record that the house was also known as the Old House, simply because it was the oldest surviving property in the vicinity.

Hetheman.

Good work.

I agree Marty, and this is exactly what I've been trying to elucidate from this argument. Up until now people have really only been speculating as to the correct date on the date-stone, and opinions have batted back and forth based largely on stylisation of the numbers & lettering. By asking other questions and looking at the documentary evidence we are now being to see that a date of 1691 is far more likely.

I, personally, don't believe that the stone should be read as 1621, I was merely making the point that if that is what people want to accept it doesn't really fit in with the evidence on the estate map.

By the way, at the time that the survey was originally produced the land belonged to Lord Kingston. It wasn't until after 1680 that the Vyner family took possession of it. I wonder if the change of ownership had anything to do with the former tenants of Bird's House being ousted?

You're quite right that Sir Robert Vyner purchased the Manor of Bidston from Lord Kingston in 1680, and it's possible that the change of tenancy was a direct result of this. It's perhaps more likely, however, that Robert Williamson simply died; it would be interesting to find out if there's any record of his burial in the Parish Registers, as it might give us an idea of when William Bird took over as tenant.

Someone was up late!
Your info is really very interesting, partiularly the maps and I do understand where you are coming from. Is it not possible that the date stone could have been possibly a commerative stone rather than building date? I don't know about those things.So far as the barn in concerned maybe they just took their time as St. Hilary's rectory commenced in 1632 and completed in 1695. The Bird family in that area were pretty numerous as you will see from the list below. Also I wonder if William Bird the Mayor of Chester 1580/81 could be of the same family. He was alloted lands in the time of King James for 64yrs.(Taken from Archives)Richard Bird was the Sheriff of Chester at the same date. Anyway, we don't want an arguement but please have a look at at the list below. If these aren't enough, there are plenty more!! I am sorry,but I don't think they will come through in the correct format.Hope you can understand it.

Bird's of Poulton cum Seacum/ Wallasey

Subsidy Roll 1545
Henrico Bryd
Rico Bryd

Possession of Arms 1582, 1588, 1590
William Bird

Subsidy Roll 1625
Henricus Bird

All but 2 of The following list of births deaths and marriages are all listed in St. Hilary's Parish Register.
William Bird Christened 1577 son to Rico
William Bird " 1579 son to William
William Bird " 1599
Ellen Bird " 1604
Margarete Bird " 1606
William Bird " 1610
William Bird " 1612
John Bird " 1615
Elizabeth Bird " 1617
Thomas Bird " 1618
James Bird " 1622


Rico Byrd Buried 1582
William Byrd " 1585
Thomas Byrd " 1586
John Byrd " 1587
John Bird " 1604
William P.c.S Bird " 1606 Will 1606
Richard Bird " 1608
John Bird " 1614
James P.c.S Bird " 1617 Will 1617

James Bird Married Ales Henson 1602
Henry P.c.S Bird " Elizabeth Billingham 1605 Bidston
William P.c.S Bird " Alice Shurlock 30/6/1628 I Believe this William to be
Church Warden. Died 1663 Alice Died 1655
Margaret Bird " Thomas Shurlock 30/6/1628 Margaret and Thomas died
same day of plague 6/12/1651.
9 members of the same family within 10
days Entry made by William Bird.
Elizabeth Bird " Thomas Strong 1634
Henry P.c.S Bird " Margaret Thomasin 1635
William Jnr Bird " Margery Gill 1661 Widow of Liscard.Chester
.Wm Died 1711
.Margery Died 1706
Henry P.c.S Bird " Mary Dunne age 22 1661

Update!
Having just spoken to the Archives Dept at Wirral. No problems in finding out that Bird's House passed to the Vyner's in 1680.
So a bit more of the riddle solved.

Definition of Yeoman in 17th Century

Yeoman land farmers (a class of wealthy English freeholders, below that of gentry who cultivate their own land)

That's certainly an impressive list, but sadly none of it proves that any of them lived in this particular house in Poulton!

As far as the date on the lintel is concerned I think I've made the point before in one of my posts that it may have nothing at all to do with the building of the house; it may be the date of a major rebuild of an earlier property, or it may possibly commemorate some family event such as a marriage or birth.

The main problem is that stone-built farmhouses such as Bird's House were built all over the country during the period W G Hoskins dubbed the 'Great Rebuilding' (which he defined as c1570-1640), when improved economic conditions in England led to the rebuilding or architectural improvement of large numbers of rural buildings. Others, have pointed out that this occurred much later in some parts of the country, so that in the North of England such houses commonly date to between 1670-1720. As a result it's virtually impossible to date this kind of property accurately on architectural grounds alone, as the style was in use for something like 150 years.

Didn't know about the 'Great Rebuilding'. I don't suppose anyone will ever get to the bottom of this. You obviously have a huge amount of knowledge and research at your finger tips, which is most welcome.
Just one more question. If the Rectory at St. Hilary's rebuild commenced in 1632, could Bird's House have been a somewhat temporary Rectory in the interim?
You know I can come up with all sorts of ideas, probably none of which are even worth considering.
Hope you are not getting fed up!

No Granny, never!

Thanks for your input on the Bird list. Not so much just one family more of a flock I'd say!

There is indeed some evidence of "the Great Rebuilding" in Wirral but it's difficult to prove for Wallasey.
When the Vyner family took over the estate (after 1680) their rentals were comparatively low. It was, however, a condition of their tenancy agreements that the tenants were responsible for repairs to their individual properties, as well as boundaries, and roads.