Married women occupations in the UK 1841 census

[sheeponahill]

Hello, I am struck by how few married women apparently had occupations in the 1841 census. Unmarried women and widows tend to be the only ones with occupations. Is that because all were full-time mothers and housewives or partly due to census-taking practice?
My suspicion is that occupation was only recorded for the 'head of the household'  . Is that correct?

[AllanUK]

You wouldn't expect a married woman to be employed, it 'wasn't the done thing' !! At this time the only women that would be employed would be unmarried or widowed.

[sheeponahill]

Hi Allan, yes I wondered that, and how much of a 'modern lens' I'm applying. I do wonder though whether it still happened but just wasn't recorded (for the reasons you've said). Many would have taken in some sewing or washing on the side, I assume, but maybe not enough to merit it being an 'occupation'.

Is there any evidence you know of that census takers only recorded the occupation of the head of the household? Or am I trying to engineer something here which isn't there?

[lydiaann]

Wasn't the 1841 census very restricted anyway? On some I have they don't even record the Head of Household's occupation, although I have to admit that is very rarely.  I know the age of under 20s is very confusing, trying to work out whether you have the right person when they could have been born up to 4+ years earlier!  And on Ancestry, when entering an 1841 census for one person, it doesn't give you the chance to enter all the rest in that family...in a time when some of my predecessors had rather large families, it can be very time-consuming!

[AllanUK]

Is there any evidence you know of that census takers only recorded the occupation of the head of the household? Or am I trying to engineer something here which isn't there?

In my FT research I have come across many entries in the 1841 Census where the occupations of not just the head of the household but other family members are shown.

[sheeponahill]

Certainly sons and daughters, yes, but I'm less sure about the wives. That said, I think I'll put this theory to one side, I don't think it really holds water.

[coombs]

Even on subsequent censuses a woman's occupation is not listed if she was usually married. On 1841 I see lots of single/widowed women down as dressmaker, "FS" (female servant) or "Laundress" "Washing" etc.

As we know the 1841 census was quite restricted. No relationship to head of household given, ages rounded down for anyone over 15, and a simple "no" for not born in county of residence.

[Jebber]

Except for the 1911 and 1921 census, all you are seeing is the entries in the Enumerators book. He simply copied what the householder had written in the schedule. More people were literate enough to fill in the schedule than you might think, if not, sometimes a child would be able to do it for the parents.

Also occupations were sometimes misleading, sometimes an exaggeration. If you come across a houseful of dressmakers it is often a euphemism for prostitute and there are other examples. Ages and marital status were often  false, so you have to take everything with an open mind and look for further proof.

[mazi]

I would have thought that given the lack of washing machines, nurseries, disposable this that and the other that looking after three or four kids and a husband was a full time job 

Or so I was told  

Mike