RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: neverendingstory on Friday 25 March 16 06:15 GMT (UK)
-
I'm aware from censuses that the terms used to indicate the work people did were simple descriptives and, sometimes, give a false picture. e.g. a warehouseman could be a labouring storeman employee or the owner of an import business.
My 4 X great grandfather's sister's second husband was described in one doc. as a 'servant'. In another he was described as a 'Gentleman' with his Will indicating a man with several properties and other wealth. I cannot find who he was 'servant' to, and that isn't my query. Is it likely a servant could also be a gentleman?
Thanks in advance.
N.
-
My 4 X great grandfather's sister's second husband was described in one doc. as a 'servant'.
What was the document?
Stan
-
Thanks Stan for asking - it was Thomas Bowditch's daughter Amelia Charlotte Bowditch's 's baptism [as an adult] on the 23 Jan 1839, at Walworth, Surrey. His Will and his 2nd wife Sarah's Will and other cross checking docs show that they are abt. the correct persons. It is the Wills [and other family info] that show the change of status.
N
-
Could he have been left some money or property by his master?
-
Things get a bit murky. His 2nd wife Sarah [my ancestor] was an elderly, apparently comfortably off widow. Thomas and Sarah married in 1845 with Sarah dying in 1849 at 79 years. Thomas died in 1855, age uncertain, but his daughter Amelia was born c. 1816, so one would assume Thomas was born c. 1796 at the latest?
Sarah's father was Sergeant of the Vestry at St James Palace, and maybe servants of the Palace were familiar to her. I am perplexed that she would marry an apparently 'lowly' servant given her circumstances and England's class system. His elevation to 'gentleman' status, after the few years they were married doesn't seem quite right to me. But I do not really know what was going on here.
N.
-
Have you located Thomas in the 1841 census? Being only two years after Amelia's baptism, it is likely he is still listed as a servant.
-
If his wife Sarah was comfortably off, when she died he would inherit all her wealth ( or maybe even before -- not sure when married women were allowed to keep their own money rather than it automatically becoming their husband's on marriage)
If the money was sufficient for him to live off, he could accurately describe himself as a "Gentleman" as he had no occupation.
I have an ancestor who was the illegitimate son of a pauper, born 1794.
He is listed in a trades directory in the mid 1840's as a second hand clothes dealer.
On his death certificate in 1849 he is listed as a "Gentleman"
-
One of my ancestors, who never married, was a lady's maid in 1881/91 censuses yet I have documents related to her purchase of two cottages for the sum of £420 in 1894. This was a year after the death of her stepmother, so it doesn't take much imagination to assume there was an inheritance. I doubt if a servant could save up enough from her wages to buy two houses.
There was an old saying about the three ways to become rich: Patrimony, Matrimony & Parsimony. I would guess Thomas took the second route ;)
Mike.
-
Hi, thank you to all the respondents - the only 1841 census, I can locate for a 'servant' is for a '40' yo. Thomas Bowditch, [read c. 45] in the Earl of Harwood's very large household.
My concern for the change in status is that it had so few years to become a legitimate claim and I find it hard to credit Sarah would be so readily taken in by a potentially much younger goldigger.
Thomas' Will speaks of numerous properties [and I do not know if they were all Sarah's prior to marriage]. There is an older 'Independent' Thomas Bowditch for the 1841 census.
Perhaps, this is going to remain a mystery, but my original query still stands - is it possible to be both a servant and a gentleman at the same time?
N.
-
He wasn't necessarily a gold-digger. There may have been a genuine relationship. Have you considered that they might have had an illicit relationship in earlier times? Sarah herself may have previously married into money. The permutations are endless, but there could be an interesting story there. I would definitely be exploring further if it was my ancestor.
Mike.
-
Thanks Mike, it has fascinated me for several years; I'll keep looking - so many interesting stories in all of our backgrounds :D
-
There was no official definition of "Gentleman" -- anyone could call themselves that
But it generally meant that one did not have to work for a living -- so if he amassed enough wealth either by inheritance, marriage or savings to not have to work, then he could easily call himself gentleman, no matter what his previous status in life -- as reference my second hand clothes dealer mentioned in my earlier post
-
There was no official definition of "Gentleman" -- anyone could call themselves that
In a case in 1862 Mr. Justice Willes stated that: A gentleman is described in law as a person who has no occupation
Stan
-
I guess what I'm really asking is does the term 'servant' apply to an occupation that is different to the way we think about the role today?
N.
-
You mean like a Civil Servant, perhaps?! ;D
-
It would be better to bear in mind who provided the information. In large estates the census entries would probably be given by the estate owner's wife or a senior servant (butler), so 'servant' is probably correct. For a death certificate any description could be given without challenge.
Colin
-
Well I would guess that anyone who worked for an estate would be a servant. Although it would be helpful to know what kind as there would be a big difference in status between the kitchen assistant and estate manager.
-
It would be better to bear in mind who provided the information. In large estates the census entries would probably be given by the estate owner's wife or a senior servant (butler), so 'servant' is probably correct. For a death certificate any description could be given without challenge.
Colin
I was looking up the roles males could have inside a household and apart from a butler which one would think would be identified, there was 'footman'. Their job description called for them to be tall, young and good looking and leads me to think that maybe Thomas, who was ageing, was looking for an easy target to marry. I don't want to unnecessarily malign him however, hence the question.
N.
-
On a line I'm researching at present there's a chap who was a warp dresser in a Lancashire Mill, but at about the same time his son, marrying a long long way away in London, describes him as a "gentleman" From wife-to-be's name and family, yes, he was marrying well above his station! Wonder what happened if the in-laws ever met?
A "Servant" could be very humble status, or at a bit higher level or rather prone to ape the gentry he / she served, in some cases - one woman I knew who had been lowly in service became in later years all fish-knives-and-napkins, and more obsessed with "correct" ways than Hyacinth Bucket! (Not implying your chap was at all like that, but if via marriage he'd come to a level where he didn't need to work, then he could describe himself rightly as being a gentleman [of leisure], then, couldn't he?).
-
I was looking up the roles males could have inside a household and apart from a butler which one would think would be identified, there was 'footman'. Their job description called for them to be tall, young and good looking and leads me to think that maybe Thomas, who was ageing, was looking for an easy target to marry. I don't want to unnecessarily malign him however, hence the question.
N.
A servant could also be:
groom, gardener, valet, steward, coachman etc.
And the definitions of footman I looked up made no mention of height or looks?
footman -
a man employed as a servant in a large establishment (as a palace) to run errands and do chores
a male servant, especially in the past, who wore a uniform and opened doors for people
See: http://www.literary-liaisons.com/article046.htm
-
There are a number of sites about the roles of servants, and if reasonably detailed, mention height, good legs and the livery the footmen wore.The better presented and matched they were, the higher the household status - hence the caricatured images of women fluttering their eyelashes at the footmen assisting them in some way, and, that's possibly why the young footmen portrayed in shows such as 'Downtown Abbey' are always shown as good looking.
As far as 'male' servants go, I was looking for an 'inside' servant. Valets certainly were but they had a crucial role for the master and usually travelled with them everywhere. I'm not sure they would be able to marry [twice], be able to support a family at the same time and acquire property. 'Outside' servants had even less status than the 'inner' ones. Steward is a high status role; he usually would be called that and not often be represented as 'servant', particularly by the person themselves, as has happened here.
Threlfallyorky, I think it's very likely Thomas was doing what he could to improve his circumstances and his Will certainly suggests enough to call himself a gentleman [although his actions may suggest something else]. ;) ;)
Thanks to all respondents.
N