Author Topic: Housekeeper? Or.....  (Read 1236 times)

Offline DonnaLou84

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 27
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Housekeeper? Or.....
« on: Thursday 28 August 25 20:23 BST (UK) »
I know a lot of women were down as housekeepers, living with single men..

but was it code for people in an unmarried relationship?

For example my 2xgt grandfather had a 'housekeeper' living with him, with her 1 year old son, he was a fairly young man, and his wife had passed in 1918...by 1921 he has this woman living with him..by 1939 she wasn't living with him...


What does everyone think?

Offline Annie65115

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,281
  • HOLYLAND regd with guild of one name studies
    • View Profile
Re: Housekeeper? Or.....
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 28 August 25 20:46 BST (UK) »
I don't know if it was an acknowledged "code" but I think it was quite common.

My gt gt grannie was "housekeeper" to a publican in 1911, having split up from her husband. You can see that an inn might need some sort of housekeeper. But actually her employer, said innkeeper, then funded her divorce case; and my grannie, born BEFORE her parents split up, actually turned out to be the innkeepers daughter (which i discovered thanks to DNA)!

So yep, gt-grannie may have been keeping house, but she was also definitely in a relationship with her single employer. And I think there were many like her.
Bradbury (Sedgeley, Bilston, Warrington)
Cooper (Sedgeley, Bilston)
Kilner/Kilmer (Leic, Notts)
Greenfield (Liverpool)
Holyland (Anywhere and everywhere, also Holiland Holliland Hollyland)
Pryce/Price (Welshpool, Liverpool)
Rawson (Leicester)
Upton (Desford, Leics)
Partrick (Vera and George, Leicester)
Marshall (Westmorland, Cheshire/Leicester)

Offline Tickettyboo

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 6,325
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Housekeeper? Or.....
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 28 August 25 21:08 BST (UK) »
I know a lot of women were down as housekeepers, living with single men..

but was it code for people in an unmarried relationship?

For example my 2xgt grandfather had a 'housekeeper' living with him, with her 1 year old son, he was a fairly young man, and his wife had passed in 1918...by 1921 he has this woman living with him..by 1939 she wasn't living with him...


What does everyone think?

Difficult and not recommended to generalise.
'Some' housekeepers may have been what I would term as Bidey-Ins (live in partners) many others would have been housekeepers who kept house :-). I'd be looking for some sort of evidence one way or another which quite likely wont be available.

Boo

Online AntonyMMM

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,432
  • Researcher (retired) and former Deputy Registrar
    • View Profile
Re: Housekeeper? Or.....
« Reply #3 on: Friday 29 August 25 09:29 BST (UK) »
Always a description open to modern interpretation I suppose ....

My wife's great grandfather married for the second time in 1920 - both had been previously widowed.

In 1921 they are listed together as married.

But in the 1939 Register, although they are still living together in the same house, both are listed as widowed again, she has reverted to her previous married name and is shown as "housekeeper". 

His grandchildren, including my wife's mother, remembered the lady as his housekeeper - but had no idea they were, or had been, married.



Online coombs

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,961
  • Research the dead....forget the living.
    • View Profile
Re: Housekeeper? Or.....
« Reply #4 on: Friday 29 August 25 13:06 BST (UK) »
My 3xgreat grandmother Sarah Brain was 18 in the 1861 census, living in Oxford high street with her unmarried employer Henry Ladd, a Kent born stationer. Henry soon moved away to Spalding in Lincolnshire then was in Camberwell, London, by October 1863 when he married. Sarah Brain herself was in London by 1865, as she wed in Lambeth in early 1866 to an Essex waterman and he took her back to Foulness, Essex. Whether Sarah Brain and Henry Ladd were more than just employer and servant will always remain a mystery but it is food for thought.

Although in the 1851 census, Henry Ladd was in Oxford, and had a previous female servant.
Researching:

LONDON, Coombs, Roberts, Auber, Helsdon, Fradine, Morin, Goodacre
DORSET Coombs, Munday
NORFOLK Helsdon, Riches, Harbord, Budery
KENT Roberts, Goodacre
SUSSEX Walder, Boniface, Dinnage, Standen, Lee, Botten, Wickham, Jupp
SUFFOLK Titshall, Frost, Fairweather, Mayhew, Archer, Eade, Scarfe
DURHAM Stewart, Musgrave, Wilson, Forster
SCOTLAND Stewart in Selkirk
USA Musgrave, Saix
ESSEX Cornwell, Stock, Quilter, Lawrence, Whale, Clift
OXON Edgington, Smith, Inkpen, Snell, Batten, Brain

Offline Zaphod99

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Housekeeper? Or.....
« Reply #5 on: Friday 29 August 25 13:27 BST (UK) »
AI gave this fascinating article:

The term "bidey-in" (also spelled bidie-in, bide in, or bidie-ins) is a Scots word used to describe a person who lives with their partner in a non-marital relationship.
 It refers to someone with whom one shares a home without being legally married, often implying a committed, long-term cohabiting partnership.
 The word originates from the Scots verb "bide," meaning to remain, stay, or reside, and the term "bidey-in" literally means "one who stays in" with another person.

Historically, the term carried connotations of scandal or immorality, particularly in the past when cohabitation outside of marriage was less socially accepted.
 It was sometimes used to describe a live-in lover or a common-law spouse, and could be associated with a mistress or someone involved in a relationship outside of marriage.
 However, its meaning has evolved, and in contemporary usage, it is often seen as a neutral or even affectionate term to describe a committed cohabiting partner.

The term is considered non-gender-specific and is sometimes preferred over modern terms like "partner" or "significant other," which some find ambiguous or overly formal.
 Advocates of "bidey-in" appreciate its specificity and homely connotation, feeling it better captures the essence of a shared household and intimate relationship.
 Despite its Scottish roots, the term is recognized in broader English dictionaries, including the Oxford English Dictionary, which first recorded it in 1916.

The term has also been noted in various media and personal blogs, where it is used to describe relationships in Scotland, often with a sense of cultural pride or nostalgia.
 Some individuals find the term offensive due to its historical associations with immorality, while others embrace it as a meaningful and intimate descriptor of their relationship.

Zaph