I'm afraid that there is a short and simple answer to this: Poor people just didn't get grave markers.

 

I can elaborate on this somewhat because the ways in which people were (or were not) memorialised is really, really interesting, but just perhaps not quite within the specific parameters of your question.

 

Why grave markers not gravestones?

A graveyard as we conceive of it now, with some sort of monument for every grave, is a total anachronism when it comes to early modern churchyards. In his incredibly wide ranging study, Birth, Marriage, and Death : Ritual, Religion, and the Life-Cycle in Tudor and Stuart England, David Cressy discusses how 'Even a plain wooden marker' was unusual as late as 1606. He says that, 'Families of the middling sort sometimes erected ephemeral memorials of perishable material, and tidy-minded bishops sought to have them removed [...] permanent outdoor headstones were rare before the eighteenth century' (p.470).

Gravestones in an outdoor graveyard simply weren't common yet, though other types of 'marker' were occasionally used. We have records of them being laid down and cleared away, but to my knowledge, none of these survive. These may or may not have had writing on them, but if they did, then that is unfortunately lost to time.

 

So what kind of gravestones and monuments did exist?

Rich folks would have statuary, plaques and engravings in the floor made to honour their memories. Between the need to get ecclesiastical approval to have a monument placed in church and the cost of the stone/brass/wood and the carving of the materials, this was simply not available unless you were well-connected and wealthy. This would likely accompany burial in the church building itself, not outside. And yes, churches most likely did have a rather grim eau-de-decaying-body as a result. It's not hard to wonder why people from this period are so obsessed with death.

 

How were women and children commemorated?

Women are typically memorialised as 'wife of' or 'daughter of'. To be fair, men are rarely commemorated in a way which figures them as unique individuals either - their achievements are usually noted in terms of business acumen, military success, charity and number of children. For a woman, a noble heritage, good marriage, and a number of children are the equivalent markers for 'yep, this person did good'. Should a woman have remained childless, then her piety and virtue will likely be emphasised.

Children who die in infancy are usually listed on the gravestone with their parents. Their names are not always listed, but an epitaph will often list the number of children who are interred in the family vault.

Manuscript, rather than stone epitaphs, are more forthcoming. The piety, virtuousness, and angelic qualities of children are praised in more detail. Both stone engraving, and real estate in the church was expensive, and some families would endure many, many infant deaths, which perhaps explains why details are less forthcoming in stone.

Some notable exceptions exist. Alice Chaucer (d. 1475), for example, was a one-woman army who has a completely badass grave monument which recognises her as an important member of society in her own right. By and large though, women and children are commemorated in terms of the men they are connected to.

 

To conclude - I'm afraid I don't have good answers to how poor women and children were commemorated, because truthfully, they didn't really have access to permanent, written forms of monument. However, I hope that the answer has still been interesting!