Will of 1659

[horselydown86]

The OED (and a few others) gives an archaic meaning of caul:

A woman's close-fitting indoor headdress or hairnet

I think this, rather than the biological kind, is what is meant in the passage.

A fascinating detail, as goldie has said.  It puts us right there.

[venelow]

Hi HD 

Thank you for sorting that strange word for me. Now I know the writer formed his small a in that manner I will probably be able to decipher some of the other gaps I have in the document.

I have to disagree with you about what the locket contained. I think it was the biological sort of caul. I don't see how a woman's head covering would fit inside a piece of jewelry.

Googling to find out more, it seems caul lockets containing all or parts of a birth caul did exist and some survive in museums. The most famous one is in the V & A. The Monson locket is from the Tudor period.

http://collections.vam.ac.uk/item/O11007/locket-unknown/

There is also an example in the Royal College of Physicians Gallery from 1820.

https://history.rcplondon.ac.uk/gallery?tid=All&page=8

To have a caul locket made in precious metal would be fairly rare as first you had to have been born with a caul and secondly be born into a family wealthy enough to afford a silver or gold/gilt locket. The less wealthy would save the caul in lockets of baser metals which have not survived.  Because of the belief that a caul would protect one from drowning they were sometimes sold to sailors.

My sister was born with a caul and the midwife asked my mother if she wanted to keep it. She didn't.

Thank you to all who responded to my post.

Venelow
Canada

[horselydown86]

I have to disagree with you about what the locket contained. I think it was the biological sort of caul. I don't see how a woman's head covering would fit inside a piece of jewelry.

A fine knotted hairnet or facial covering would fit easily.  It depends on whether one interprets it as being on the face of the mother or the new-born.