Occupation = Dource?
Moderator: Global Moderators
Hi Andrew,
I have followed your instructions and applied again, think I must have clicked on the wrong box.
Hi Alan,
Thank you for the information that you found, I have also found an article about my 4th great grandfather Rev Ebenezer, that states he was called 'That Revererend Democrat' and he was also brought before the Sheriff of the country several times for examination.
Sounds as if he was something of a character.
Thank you to everyone who has repiled to my queries.
Regards
Mary
I have followed your instructions and applied again, think I must have clicked on the wrong box.
Hi Alan,
Thank you for the information that you found, I have also found an article about my 4th great grandfather Rev Ebenezer, that states he was called 'That Revererend Democrat' and he was also brought before the Sheriff of the country several times for examination.
Sounds as if he was something of a character.
Thank you to everyone who has repiled to my queries.
Regards
Mary
I e mailed SP last night, and this reply was sent to me at 6.91 this morning, wonderful service.
Charlottes occupation had been a puzzle for me for so long, but at least it prompted me to post on this wonderful site.
Thank you all for your interest
What can I say about Ancestry!Hi Mary, Thank you for your e-mail. It looks to me as if the enumerator has started to write the word 'servant' and then crossed it out. I would guess that when taking down the details of the individual below he actually started to write the information in the wife's column by accident and then crossed it out realising the error (given that the occupation of Catherine McLean beneath is 'servant'). I hope this helps. Regards, Roslyn RobertsonScotlandsPeopleNew Register House
Charlottes occupation had been a puzzle for me for so long, but at least it prompted me to post on this wonderful site.
Thank you all for your interest
Actually Mary, it doesn’t look the slightest bit like servant to me. The Ancestry transcription of Dource, no matter how much they are derided, obviously came from somewhere. It didn’t come from an SP image. I suppose it came from the microfilm which would have been of far superior quality than the SP image. The Ancestry transcription of Dourse is just too close to a perfect match to Doune to be anything but a continuation of the husband’s occupation as suggested by Andrew. SP have not sent you a colour image and I doubt whether they have even consulted the original register and quite apart from that the interpretation of handwriting isn’t their job.
The first letter is nothing like an S, looks more like a D to me and the word is much shorter than servant. There’s the long tail of what could probably only be an E extending out of the right side of the cross-out which would place the body of the E almost above the A in servant below. I don’t buy the “half way through” or the “wrong line” argument. To buy that you would probably have to assume that the fellow involved had a normal pen and a coloured pencil and that he is writing down the information and at the same time putting marks all over the page with his coloured pencil and that each time he writes half a word by mistake he doesn’t correct it with his normal pen but uses his other hand holding the coloured pencil to cross it out. I can’t see a trace of any fine horizontal cross out lines that would have been made by someone using the pen he had in his hand at the time. It looks fairly obvious to me that the cross-out has been made by the person doing the counting rather that the one doing the writing.
It probably doesn’t really matter. Generally speaking, married women in the 19th century and well into the 20th only “worked” if the husband, for whatever reason was unable to support them adequately. Middle class women very rarely “worked”. Because of the impact on his self esteem and the social comment it would have caused it would have been a rare husband who allowed his wife such an indulgence.
Clergymen, the upholders of the conventions and traditions and morals and family values of Victorian society did not have wives who “worked”. What kept them completely busy was all the activity involved in being a “Minister’s Wife” and anything remotely resembling “work” would have been done by the servants. Maybe they had some additional pastimes and interests and duties but certainly not “work”.
Or so I’ve heard,
All the best,
Alan
The first letter is nothing like an S, looks more like a D to me and the word is much shorter than servant. There’s the long tail of what could probably only be an E extending out of the right side of the cross-out which would place the body of the E almost above the A in servant below. I don’t buy the “half way through” or the “wrong line” argument. To buy that you would probably have to assume that the fellow involved had a normal pen and a coloured pencil and that he is writing down the information and at the same time putting marks all over the page with his coloured pencil and that each time he writes half a word by mistake he doesn’t correct it with his normal pen but uses his other hand holding the coloured pencil to cross it out. I can’t see a trace of any fine horizontal cross out lines that would have been made by someone using the pen he had in his hand at the time. It looks fairly obvious to me that the cross-out has been made by the person doing the counting rather that the one doing the writing.
It probably doesn’t really matter. Generally speaking, married women in the 19th century and well into the 20th only “worked” if the husband, for whatever reason was unable to support them adequately. Middle class women very rarely “worked”. Because of the impact on his self esteem and the social comment it would have caused it would have been a rare husband who allowed his wife such an indulgence.
Clergymen, the upholders of the conventions and traditions and morals and family values of Victorian society did not have wives who “worked”. What kept them completely busy was all the activity involved in being a “Minister’s Wife” and anything remotely resembling “work” would have been done by the servants. Maybe they had some additional pastimes and interests and duties but certainly not “work”.
Or so I’ve heard,
All the best,
Alan
-
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 4:24 am
- Location: Western Hills, Maine
I pretty much agree with Alan, for the reasons he gave. The first letter is definitely not an S, as the recorder's S is fairly distinctive - tall and narrow at the top. The Ds are less so, but look at the line two from the bottom in the relationship column - that D on the abbreviated Ditto is much closer to what starts the 'mystery' word.Currie wrote:Actually Mary, it doesn’t look the slightest bit like servant to me.......
The first letter is nothing like an S, looks more like a D to me and the word is much shorter than servant. There’s the long tail of what could probably only be an E extending out of the right side of the cross-out which would place the body of the E almost above the A in servant below.
Furthermore, (as I said previously) Thomas was clearly described as Minister Free Church Doune ten years later. So (to me) that's a good clue that that's how he thought of himself [/i]
McGee (Donegal to Edinburgh), Jamieson/Guthrie (Leith), Keddie (Peebles, Galashiels), Little (Cavers, Traquair), Arthur (Galashiels) , Paterson (Edinburgh, with occ. spells in Stirling, Greenock, Leith), Ralston (Glasgow to Stirling), Greig (Elgin)
It very possibly is Doune, and what Alan says, makes sense but to me it still looks like more than the five letters in Doune. It doesn't look like Servant, but if you look at it hard enough, you might think it could be 'Domestic'. I think I'd want to look at the original. Why not go to the nearest family history centre and get the film in for the 1851 census and see if it's any clearer?
Regards,
Anne H
Regards,
Anne H
Sorry it has taken me a while to answer.
My eyesight is not too good at the moment due to an eye operation, so thank you all for your interpretations of the handwriting.
Alan
I have a copy of Thomas’s will and they would not have needed an extra income.
Anne
The family history centre you mention would that be my local library?
Killearnan
I have sent you a PM
If I ever find an answer I will let you all know.
Mary
My eyesight is not too good at the moment due to an eye operation, so thank you all for your interpretations of the handwriting.
Alan
I agree with this, that is why I was so interested to find out what her ‘occupation’ was.Clergymen, the upholders of the conventions and traditions and morals and family values of Victorian society did not have wives who “worked”. What kept them completely busy was all the activity involved in being a “Minister’s Wife” and anything remotely resembling “work” would have been done by the servants. Maybe they had some additional pastimes and interests and duties but certainly not “work”.
I have a copy of Thomas’s will and they would not have needed an extra income.
Anne
The family history centre you mention would that be my local library?
Killearnan
I have sent you a PM
If I ever find an answer I will let you all know.
Mary
Hi Mary,
I meant the Church of the Latter-Day Saints Family History Centre. If you look here http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library ... et_fhc.asp you'll find there are two listed for Cheshire (don't know how close they are to you, though). Give them a call and see if they can order the film in for you. I've never ordered them myself, but I believe it only costs about £2-3.
Hope your eyes are OK now.
Regards,
Anne H
I meant the Church of the Latter-Day Saints Family History Centre. If you look here http://www.familysearch.org/eng/library ... et_fhc.asp you'll find there are two listed for Cheshire (don't know how close they are to you, though). Give them a call and see if they can order the film in for you. I've never ordered them myself, but I believe it only costs about £2-3.
Hope your eyes are OK now.
Regards,
Anne H
Family History Centre
Hi Anne,
Moreton is only 22 miles from me, I will give them a ring tomorrow.
Thanks
Mary
Moreton is only 22 miles from me, I will give them a ring tomorrow.
Thanks
Mary
Hi Mary,
I just had a look at Family Search and viewed the details of their films for census records. I was wrong...it looks like the original records are in Edinburgh and not with them, so it looks like you would have to make a trip to Scotland to view them.
So sorry about that...I should have known better.
Regards,
Anne H
I just had a look at Family Search and viewed the details of their films for census records. I was wrong...it looks like the original records are in Edinburgh and not with them, so it looks like you would have to make a trip to Scotland to view them.
So sorry about that...I should have known better.
Regards,
Anne H