RootsChat.Com
Beginners => Family History Beginners Board => Topic started by: Kait on Friday 23 May 14 16:42 BST (UK)
-
On the 1891 my grandmother (b 1877 shown as age 13) and her older brother (b 1874 shown as aged 16) both have "Cyclist" in the "Profession or Occupation" column. I haven't come across this anywhere else. Is it a recognised entry? is it because cycling is quite new and they want to say they can do it? Is it like people now putting "Jedi" on the census form?
By 1901 she is a "Nurse domestic" and he is an iron monger (I think - he was hard to track down)
I would love to know if anyone else has come across cyclist on census forms
Kait
-
In the 1911 census there are a number of 'Newspaper Cyclists' as well as 'Trick Cyclist', 'Messenger Cyclist' but I think they are just being facetious :)
Stan
-
In the 1911 census there are a number of 'Newspaper Cyclists' as well as 'Trick Cyclist', 'Messenger Cyclist' but I think they are just being facetious :)
Stan
The first two maybe Stan, but could a "Messenger Cyclist" not be just that, someone who delivers messages/deliveries by bicycle....or am I missing something here :-\
Suey
-
And a trick cyclist could have been in a circus or travelling show ???
I would have interpreted a 'Newspaper Cyclist' as someone who delivers newspapers,
or maybe even employed by the newspaper to do errands around town etc. ???
Dawn M
-
Don`t dismiss the "Order Boy " ...1891 - there were very few cars and a lot of groceries to the larger households were taken by a Cyclist - later nicknamed the order boy ...people left their order - and he delivered it AND collected the cash ...it was actually a dangerous job because it wasn`t uncommon for the order boy to be "mugged " for the cash ...a young boy with cash was easy pickings ...as you have stated the brother was 16 ....just another profession for you to think about
-
These occupations today are done on mopeds and motorbikes.
They were the couriers of their day.
And the Trick Cyclist could have been just that, just because we use the term for a psychiatrist (sp.?) today in those days people were easily impressed by those who could perform 'stunts' on bikes rather like the skate boarders of today.
-
Hi Kait,
Your post hit many finds in my research. I have one who entered many cycle races advertised as the new 'Safety Bicycle' from around the 1870s, which were the start of bikes as we know them. They were also the basis for the development of delivery bikes and many others.
Strangely enough I also have a 'Iron Monger' entry for my teenager Grandad, but closer inspection reveals he was a messenger ;D
Colin
-
Hi Kait, is it really your Grandmother born 1877? That would make you quite special.
Looking through the British Newspaper Archive, it's interesting to see just how embedded the cycling phenomenon was by 1891, a search on that year alone for "cyclist" produces some 727 pages of hits. A lot of the hits relate to cyclist clubs and their activities, such as meetings and tours. However, it doesn't take too much of a leap of faith to imagine that some saw the delivery / messenger opportunities associated with bicycles back then.
So, were your grandmother and her brother actually employed using their bicycles back then, say, as delivery messengers for a shop? Possibly, but I don't know. Or was it a humorous reference to a couple of cycling crazy children?
What is clear is that the penny dropped on the business benefits of the bicycle in the late 1890s, for there are newspaper articles announcing the introduction of cyclists into the GPO with predictions that this would pretty well revolutionise the telegraph.
-
What's unusual about a grandmother born in 1877??
No, I don't know if it was really their employment or just an enthusiasm.
the brother went on to be a motor mechanic but my grandmother became a nursery maid before marrying and then a cook.
I've been trying to find if any other youngsters called themselves cyclist on the 1891 census
-
According to wiki the bicycle had associations with "new women" and loose connections to suffragettes, rovers proper safety bicycle was released in 1875.
Mike
-
We must not forget the Army. The 26th Middlesex Rifle Volunteers, Cycling Corps, being raised in 1888. The Cycling Corps as a whole served until after the end of WWI.
-
"What's unusual about a grandmother born in 1877??"
Absolutely nothing unusual I would say.
My paternal grandfather was born in 1874 and my grandmother in 1876.
Between 1900 and 1920 they 8 children. My father was the second youngest and born in 1916. I was born in 1951, just after my Dad reached the ripe old age of 35 ;D So I am (only) 64 now.
This MIGHT be a bit unusual? I have a great aunt who was born in 1913. She celebrated her 103rd birthday last month. One set of her grandparents were born 1841/1843 and the other set 1844/1851.
Giggsy (now feeling old)
-
What's unusual about a grandmother born in 1877??
I agree, Kait :) :)
My mother's mum was born Christmas Day 1862 and my father's mum was born October 1867.
:P :P :P :P
Dawn M
-
My paternal grandfather was born in 1876 - so it's not at all unusual!
He was 51 when married by grandmother (who was 33) in 1927. She was his 3rd wife.
My father was born in 1928.
I followed on in 1953.
-
I agree - my paternal Grandfather was born in 1876 and my Grandmother in 1885. They had 12 children between 1902 and 1928 ( I was born in 1953 .)
-
Not that unusual and completely off topic but:
My mother was born in 1919 (still going strong at 96); her father was born in 1885, his mother in 1844 and her father in 1798, back to the 18th.C in very few generations. On the other hand my late partner was born in 1951, her mother in 1933 and her grandmother in 1911 making her only 4 years older than my father.
A little bit closer to topic 2 of my forebears (brothers) are described in 1901 and 1911 as manufacturers of cycle and motor components having been apprentices in relevant trades earlier. At least 2 of their cousins were commercial travellers/salesmen in the cycle and motor trade. I wonder whether there was a family business going on there? Must investigate that when I have time.
-
I'm another one who is confused about what's strange about having a grandmother born in 1877. My Great Grandmother (and therefore my mum's grandmother) was born in 1858. Now my Mum is a complete technophobe but her older brother has a computer which he uses regularly.
-
I'm guessing she meant a female cyclist back then was unusual maybe?
For me though a grandparent born that long ago is unusual - just checked my own tree, and 1870s births are great, great grandparents for me in the main and great grandparents on the other - none of my grandparents were born out of the 20th century (and half of the great grandparents were also born 20th century)
But if you yourself are also older stands to reason your grandparents, on average, also will be
-
It was the brother who was a cyclist.
-
the OP says they both were
-
I guess it all depends whether your descent is largely from the "left hand side" or the "right hand side" of the tree - and how large the families are.
I am largely "left hand side" for quite a few generations. I was born 1967 / parents 1941 & 1943 / grandparents 1908, 1910, 1911 & 1915 / great grandparents 1883 x 2, 1884 x 2, 1890 x 2, 1891 x 2. So for a largely "left-hand end" genealogist born in the early 50s and therefore recently retired (or about to retire), 1877 would be a more natural birth date for a great grandparent than a grandparent.
BUT ... my one surviving great aunt is the youngest of 11 (whereas my grandfather, her older brother, was the second). There is 25 years separating their births! She is only 6 years older than my father but she is a generation back up the tree. She didn't have any children, but had she done so some of them could have been no older than me (or even quite significantly younger) and their grandparents would be my great grandparents.
Replicate this for two or three generations of "right-hand descent" and it doesn't take very long to get you there. Suppose somebody born in 1960 whose father was 50 when he was born ... father born 1910. Suppose HIS father was 45 when he was born ... grandfather born 1875. These are not extraordinary ages at all.
I am, however, intrigued by the "left had side" / "right hand side" phenomenon ... it is really marked just how many "left hand ends" there are in my tree when you would have thought that there really ought to be a more or less even distribution.
Has anybody else found this?
Has anybody got even a working hypothesis for an explanation?
-
I am right hand side. My mum was 41 when I was born, her dad 44 mum.38 when she was born, my mum's paternal grandmother was 35 when her dad was born and her mum 35 when she was born.
I think the pattern you've noted may be a nurture thing. The older ones grow up helping to look after the younger ones, perhaps marrying younger to get out the house and more privacy therefore start families younger. The youngest ones habe more privacy in teenage years because the older ones have moves out, are encouraged to stay at home with the parents for longer to help, haven't had first hand experience of caring for children yet have seen the struggles of their siblings looking after their young children. Bringing this together I think it increases the chances of starting a family later (or not at all) which in turn increases the chances of having fewer children. I know my MIL's oldest sister admitted that she married so young (16) to get out the house. At this point only 11 of 17 siblings had been born. She had 8 children while the youngest married at 28 and only had 2.