The author uses an alternative method based on the implied changes in the housing stock to determine if the population estimates are accurate and links these changes to what is known about London’s economy during this period links of london necklaces. The result suggests (but cannot prove) that the dip was less steep than originally estimated and the rise likely occurred during a longer period.

Scholars traditionally base their estimates of London’s population between 1550 and 1665 on a variety of approaches (Harding 1990, 111 discount links of london). Despite some differences for these years, they broadly agree. Ian Sutherland’s (1972) 1565-1665 estimates, which used fertility and mortality records, are perhaps the most definitive time series (Harding 1990, 119-20). When occasionally put together to form a longer time series, the effort is typically cast in 20-year increments and tends to show a smooth but marked increase in the population during these two centuries (Spence 2000, 63, fig. 4.1 links of london bracelets). One anomaly-a population decline- shows up only in Sutherland’s (1972) population estimates for 1640-60 (the only ones that exist for this period) immediately before, during, and after the English Civil War-including the extended recovery during the Interregnum and shorter intervals. The war caused extensive population relocation-not only to London, as in the past, but also across the countryside. The christenings and burial records Sutherland (links of london bangles) used may have resulted in accurate estimates by Sutherland regardless of socioeconomic and political context during most of the periods he examined, but they failed to accurately track the population during war and its immediate aftermath. I believe that Sutherland’s estimates show an unrealistically steep decline in London’s population during the 1640s and an even more precipitous and dubious population increase during the 1650s.