Genealogy Chat

Take a look at the girl at the bottom............

henry powell head 36 born blidworth ,notts,liscensed victualler emma powell wife 36 born armitage bridge,york charles 8 born honeby,york william 7 born mansfield edwin 3 all sons born mansfield thomas wagstaff 22 serv,occupation ostler harriet wilson niece 11,born armitage bridge,occupationDOMESTIC SERVANT 1881 census

Alter Ego It is quite possible that their neice is earning her keep by being a domestic servant for uncle. But its also possible she was being a domestic servant somewhere locally and not living in. Is that what you were querying? nell

I don't understand!! Am I missing something? Kath. x

yes,i shuddered at the thought of a relative of mine was employing his niece at such a young age to be waiting on her cousins. Also,how is it that she comes from Emmas area not his?

She'd still be his niece, even if she was from her side of the family. Eleven isn't a particularly young age to be a servant. Even in 1901, I have a few ancestors who were working at 9 and 10 years old. She could have just been a housemaid, or helping with ironing etc. There was a lot of what we'd call child labour. Kath. x

the point is .....he is later an inn keeper,then a mineral watermanufacturer,his children ended up all having a full education,one went into dentistry.........the fact that hes letting his niece work at that age-is this an indication that her parents died,and theyve reluctantly taken her in,and so she can earn her keep?

I don't think so at all. I think you are looking at the situation through todays eyes, whereas in those days, the fact that you had a bit of money, didn't mean you were expected to keep your extended family. I think the neice would have had to work somewhere and it might as well be for people she knew rather than strangers. I don't find anything strange in the situation. Lots of people who started out as domestic servants went on to marry well. Most of my lot started out that way (not that any of them ended up rich mind you). Kath. x

Have you tried looking for Harriet on the 1871 census. You should be able to find out who her parents were then trace them in the 1881 census. Nicky

Thanks for the insight,other pair of eyes etc.-just wondered if it was giving me clues to other branches of the family.One of the children turned out as railway clerk,and they had 3 servants,when there were 5 kids in the house-thought that that was a bit over the top for an inn keeper !!

ihave just found out my ggrandad was a calico weaver at the age of 11 bur knowing the census its proba;y wrong they put grandad down as a girl eileen

If the three servants were when they were in the pub, they could just have been barmaids or barmen. Sometimes they were described as servants. Kath. x

harriet not with them in 1891..........theres a death for a harriet wilson ,aged 16,in 1885,which fits,in Yorkshire. Hope its not her,and that she got married,or left the house!!

Eileen Children as young as THREE years old were employed in the mills. They were used to crawl under the (moving) looms to collect dust and fibres. Admittedly, most of these children were the inmates of Workhouses. (Meaning that most parents wouldnt want their three year old employed in a Mill). But many children worked in the mills from the age of eight - part-time, which meant a 12 hour day instead of a 14 hour day! However, some of the mill owners were philanthropists and ran schools in the mills. A child would get two or three hours schooling during the working day and the rest of the time in the mill. The practice of employing children under the age of ten was abolished in the 1850s, but was widely abused of course, by both the employer and the parents - one needed their cheap labour and the other needed the pittance the child earned. When you look at it like that, being a domestic servant at the age of 11 was having it soft! Olde Crone

In 1871 my great grandmother, aged 16, is a servant in the household of her father's sister and her husband and family. She is not even described as a relation on the census, under 'relation to head of household' it just says 'servant'. Her mother was dead and her father had remarried and commenced producing an extensive second family with his new wife, although the younger brother of my great grandmother is with his father and step-mother. I wonder if great grandma did not get on with her new step-mama and aunty stepped in to retrieve the situation? We can only speculate. Tina

I have a poor great-great-great uncle who ended up in Broadmoor as he went insane and killed his pregnant fiancee. His parents gave evidence at the trial and were described by the paper as 'respectable people of the labouring classes'. His father said his son had not been right in the head since he received some brutal treatment from a farmer he was working for when he was EIGHT. This would have been in 1842. My relatives - boys and girls - tended to be all working from about 10-13 years of age. Remember compulsory primary education only became law in 1872. My own dad left school at 14 and became an errand boy for a greengrocer before WW2. nell

My mother left school just before her 14th birthday when her mother died, and took on the role of looking after her father and 6 brothers and sisters. She did everything from cooking, cleaning, washing, ironing and shopping without any of the mod cons we take for granted. It wouldn't have occurred to her to object. Families just got on with it in those days (this was 1931). Kath. x

Went on a school trip last term to the Chiltern Open Air Museum where the children had a go at brick-making. The information board told us that children worked as soon as they were able, picking up bits of clay off the floor before graduating to filling the brick moulds. Brick dust was rife and many children had respiratory problems which sometimes killed them. Nowadays the little darlings can call the police to rescue their fluffy toys off the motorway! nell