Talk:Society of Dependants

Cokelers

I think the explanation is backward. The society was known as Cokelers, and this name is used even in scholarly sources. (It may have been the surname of a society founder; Cokelers is a surname.) What is clear is that Cuckolders is a jocular derivative of Cokelers, and refers to the group's professed belief in celibacy. --Una Smith (talk) 00:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have listened to theologian and eminent local historian Peter Jerrome, who has studied the sect more than anybody as far I know, speak on this. From memory he is comfortable with the explanations given, but has not indicated that it comes from a surname. We need to read his book for some better references. I see West Sussex libraries have a few copies, so I will get onto it when the snow melts and we can get out again. Can't remember where I heard this, but it seems that although celibacy was an ideal they allowed trial marriage, where a couple could part if they were not getting on after a year of living together, as long as there was no child produced. This would have scandalised society at that time, and might have been a large part of the explanation.--Charles (talk) 11:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Very good. The more reliable sources I checked on Google Books say they were known as Cokelers. Some mention "Cuckolders" as a derivation of that. The article has it the other way around, as Cokelers derived from Cuckolders. --Una Smith (talk) 17:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I expect you are right about it the being the wrong way round. It probably came from their drinking cocao. The trial marriage reference from 1942 is here.

Which name came first, and origin of the first name, are two different questions. --Una Smith (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC

The 1942 article appears the first article to mentioned the derivation for Cokelers. There is a 1902 article not cited in 1942 that is unable to link the name to any derivation apart from the fact that a part of Loxwood may have been the origin. The 'cuckholder' name mention is dubious and certainly false. It may turn out that the derivation is lost in time.109.152.141.186 (talk) 15:05, 19 November 2017 (UTC)dorkinglad (talk)

Jerrome's work is the best we've got and yet not very scientific. He does not even know how to quote. And his work tends to be rather speculative in a manner which can be annoying. Also he missed important points. It is just the work of a local historian. 84.175.135.162 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I now have my own copy and think your criticism of Jerrome's book is tad unfair. It's full of original research on an obscure sect that has left very little written history. I agree that the quotations format is problematical but I've yet to read a history book that didn't speculate. One historian's speculation is another's educated guess.109.152.141.186 (talk) 15:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)dorkinglad (talk)