Ullock Mains
John Woodall made his will 05-07-1719.
The opening words describe him as 'of Ullock'. Later he drills that down, describing his freehold as being at Ullock Mains.
Occupation
He described himself as a shoemaker. There isn't any evidence for the family carrying on that trade in earlier times, but his connection with Peter Mirehouse, who was a witness to his will, is suggestive (see below).
"I John Woodall of Ullock in the parish of Dean ..... shoemaker" - [from his 1719 will]
"my freehold messuage and tenement will all house and appurtenances thereunto belonging situate lying and being in ullock mains" - [from his 1719 will]
Connection to Oswald Woodall (-1714)
We can be reasonably certain that Oswald and John were father and son. The family size is exactly right: Oswald stated in his 1714 will that his son John had four children; and John, in his 1719 will, mentioned a son John and three daughters.
Furthermore, Oswald also mentions a daughter Mary Mirehouse, and a Peter Mirehouse was witness to John's will. This Peter was probably Peter Mirehouse of Mockerkin (-1730), whose widow was a Mary. This may resolve why John was a shoemaker - it seems probable that he did an apprenticeship in Mockerkin (which had a strong tradition of shoemaking) and the Mirehouse connection sprung from that. Such an apprenticeship might also be taken as evidence that he was originally a younger son - an eldest son about to inherit the farm was unlikely to be given a further education.
Connection to Oswald Woodall (alive 1661)
Does this help to resolve the Oswald dilemma?
We know that Oswald in 1661 had two children, Oswald and Thomas. This was still a young family, and it is perfectly possible that John (and others) were on the way. Say John was born 1665 and married between the age of 25 and 35 - he would then have started a family between 1690 and 1700. How does that fit in with the details of his will?
John stated in his will that his three daughters were under the age of 21. He doesn't say this for his son, nor was special tuition provision made for the daughters in the probate (the cut-off point being the age of 15). So it sounds as though the age range of the children was 16-21+ in 1719. This suggests a marriage in the late 1690s, entirely consistent with being Oswald's son.
Could John have been the son of Oswald or Thomas, the known children of Oswald in 1661? These children would not have been older than 10 years old, and that is presuming that their father married unusually early. It is much more likely that they were born in the late 1650s. If we say that Oswald married unusually early too, at 20, with a marriage date of 1670 then John could have been his son with a marriage in the late 1690s. If we go for more likely dates, say 4 in 1661, and married at 25 in 1682, then John as a son appears considerably less credible.