Yes, I had this problem re cathedral marriages and agree with Adrian . Some of my ancestors were married in Manchester Cathedral for the reasons he states. Exeter may be the same Jackie Henderson Devon FHS Sent from my iPhone

I have no idea what the answer is for Exeter but it might be useful to consider parallels with other places. Manchester (before it became the Cathedral) was an infamous marriage factory. I understand that there were 2 reasons for this. Firstly, the church was a Collegiate Church with powers over surrounding churches. The Cathedral-to-be demanded a levy from its daughter churches for each marriage that they conducted so that anyone marrying in a daughter church had to pay almost a double fee - one to the daughter church and the other to go to the Collegiate Church. It was therefore cheaper to marry in the Cathedral-to-be. Secondly, anyone wishing to marry quietly could hide in plain sight by disappearing into the queues at the Cathedral-to-be. Whether either of those ideas apply here, I have no idea, but they may be worth pondering. Adrian B

In May 1719, William TAVERNER and Elizabeth ELLIS, both of Moretonhampstead, married in Exeter Cathedral. Can anyone suggest why they may have chosen this venue? Fay Sampson Priestley www.faysampson.co.uk

I just found your email in my spam folder. Maybe devon list is not getting it either. On Aug 10, 2017 5:17 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: No mail for ages, am I still subscribed? ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb. ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It would be worth looking at the, say, 1851 census and following to see what was his actual job. Joining to become engine crew or station staff had a career path from what was effectively apprentice status and it was possible to be moved although not until a senior level. 1848 was during the railway building boom. This was mainly undertaken by navvies and their families living in what were shanty towns. Families would be expected to take in lodgers with mum acting as a boarding house keeper. There were no real records unless the camp was operating at the time of a census. There was a an excellent Time Team edition about the subject. Navvies could come from anywhere. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of elizabeth Sent: 05 September 2017 17:38 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] STOODLEIGH Thanks Graham , that was the very point this enquirer made , why did he move , and I thought it was probably because the excitement of the railways was still very much Bristol and around ......IKB and all of those . will pass this on to the enquirer. -----Original Message----- From: Graham Parnell Sent: Tuesday, September 5, 2017 4:37 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] STOODLEIGH The line from Tiverton to Bampton, although passing very close to Stoodleigh (a couple of miles from the village centre, but far closer to the parish boundary) but didn't open until 1884. In fact you say that he married in Frocester in 1848, but the railway had then only just reached Devon (1843/4). Far more likely that he moved away from Devon to find work. -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 05 September 2017 15:26 To: DEVON Subject: [DEV] STOODLEIGH Hi, an enquirer on the Glos list has a Mogford ancestor from Stoodleigh , who in 1848 married and was working for a railway in Frocester , Glos . I don`t know Stoodleigh but see from genuki that it is between Bampton and Tiverton , did it ever have its own railway station ? or would a young man have to have got a job at either Bampton or Tiverton ? --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

It's worth remembering that the head of the household had to understand the census requirements and communicate the information to the enumerator. In an age of low literacy (and Devon accents) it was often up to the enumerator to make the decision. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 04 September 2017 16:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT These are the instructions to which Paul refers - they cover the 1851 for England & Wales (previous and next page links are at the bottom in all cases). (You may need to cut and paste these links into Notepad or similar if / when they get broken so that they end up as one. Or use the shortened GOO.GL link that goes to the same place). http://histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/PageBrowser?path=Browse/TNA%20Enumerators%27 %20Books%20(by%20date)/1851/Great%20Britain&active=yes&mno=3003&tocstate=exp andnew&display=sections&display=tables&display=pagetitles&pageseq=7 Shortened link https://goo.gl/gZaXPD So far as I can see, the instructions re lodger etc apply to the householder not the enumerator, who is just to copy the householder's stuff. The blank householder's schedule is on: http://histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/PageBrowser2?ResourceType=Census&ResourceTyp e=Legislation&ResourceType=Essays&ResourceType=Registrar%20General&ResourceT ype=TNA&SearchTerms=householder&simple=yes&path=Results&active=yes&treestate =expandnew&titlepos=0&mno=25&tocstate=expandnew&display=sections&display=tab les&display=pagetitles&pageseq=5 Shortened link https://goo.gl/r7sd6R (Yes it is at 90 degrees) And the reverse, with the householder's instructions on the next page: http://histpop.org/ohpr/servlet/PageBrowser2?ResourceType=Census&ResourceTyp e=Legislation&ResourceType=Essays&ResourceType=Registrar%20General&ResourceT ype=TNA&SearchTerms=householder&simple=yes&path=Results&active=yes&treestate =expandnew&titlepos=0&mno=25&tocstate=expandnew&display=sections&display=tab les&display=pagetitles&pageseq=6 Shortened link https://goo.gl/vdPuht But so far as I can see, there are *no* instructions to *anyone* about when to use lodger etc. So it's entirely up to the householder it appears what term is used. NB the HistPop site is invaluable but a b*****r to navigate or find things on. Adrian B On 3 September 2017 at 23:58, Paul Hockie <[email protected]> wrote: > Somewhere on the web are the Enumerators Instructions for every census. > These define how the enumerator was supposed to complete the form as > each entry had to be classified to fit into the statistical tables. > These instructions were generally followed but if the enumerator was > not certain they should put down something from the list.... ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Clive. I feared that might be the case <sigh> Best wishes Mike -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Clive Boyce Sent: 04 September 2017 16:59 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] RICHARDS, FOWLER Littleham/Exmouth The baptism is 15 Apr 1806 at St Andrew, Plymouth. The original record reads Frans (the s is superscript) son of Jno (‘no' as superscript) and Maria Fowler ( it doesn’t read as Fawler in the original). So unfortunately it is not the one wanted. Clive Boyce > On 4 Sep 2017, at 16:19, Mike Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Kelvin, > > Find My Past has a baptism for a "Frans Fawler" in 1806 in Plymouth. > I don't have a subscription, so can't provide any further details > (perhaps someone else can). > ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

The baptism is 15 Apr 1806 at St Andrew, Plymouth. The original record reads Frans (the s is superscript) son of Jno (‘no' as superscript) and Maria Fowler ( it doesn’t read as Fawler in the original). So unfortunately it is not the one wanted. Clive Boyce > On 4 Sep 2017, at 16:19, Mike Gould <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Kelvin, > > Find My Past has a baptism for a "Frans Fawler" in 1806 in Plymouth. I > don't have a subscription, so can't provide any further details (perhaps > someone else can). >

Hi Kelvin, Find My Past has a baptism for a "Frans Fawler" in 1806 in Plymouth. I don't have a subscription, so can't provide any further details (perhaps someone else can). The name is near enough, the date is fine, it's just the location which makes it questionable whether this is the right person (and possibly the gender, if it turns out to be a male!). If the full details still make it possible, then the question becomes whether she was born in Plymouth but moved to Honiton at an early age, and hence thought she came from Honiton. The only thing I can add is that since her occupation in 1851 is given as lace manufacturer, it would make sense to move to Honiton, which is well-known for its lace. Plymouth is not. It is possible that she became apprenticed to a lace maker in Honiton, so it would be worth checking the "parish chest" records for both Honiton and Plymouth, in case there is a record of a parish apprenticeship. Unfortunately, most apprenticeships were private affairs between the parents of the apprentice and the master/mistress, and so these records seldom survive. If the parish in Plymouth paid for her to be apprenticed in Honiton, that record may have survived. It is not uncommon for apprenticeships to be arranged for a distant location - the arranging parish would not want the child to find it easy to return and be a burden on their poor rate ! Best wishes Mike Gould Leicestershire -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of KelvinR Sent: 04 September 2017 11:53 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] RICHARDS, FOWLER Littleham/Exmouth Hi, I've lurked this list for some years but am finally making my first append. Fanny(Frances) Fowler(b. 1806 'Honiton') married Ebenezer Richards(b. 22 July 1808 Littleham, Exmouth) on 5 May 1828 in Littleham. Ebenezer was recorded as a Shoe Maker(27 July 1828 and as a Cordwainer(14 January 1831). He subsequently joined the coast guard in Exmouth and the family moved to Kent(28 Nov 1831). Fortunately his coast guard moves are well documented on ADM175. His parents were Henry Richards and Jane Redman, both from Littleham and they were still there in the 1841 census in Exmouth. However, I've failed to find any trace of Fanny Fowler's background. In 1841, her first name was recorded as Frances; in 1851, she was recorded as Frances, Lace Manufacturer, Devon Honiton; in 1861, she was recorded as Fanny, Devon Honiton; she died 6 February 1871 in Thanet, Kent. I will be visiting the Exmouth are later this month to do some research. Any advance information that might help me find out more about the Fowler family, or Ebenezer Richards' family too, would be most welcome; as well as any thoughts on records at Tree House, the DRO, or West Country Library that might be worth searching. Kelvin Richards --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi, I've lurked this list for some years but am finally making my first append. Fanny(Frances) Fowler(b. 1806 'Honiton') married Ebenezer Richards(b. 22 July 1808 Littleham, Exmouth) on 5 May 1828 in Littleham. Ebenezer was recorded as a Shoe Maker(27 July 1828 and as a Cordwainer(14 January 1831). He subsequently joined the coast guard in Exmouth and the family moved to Kent(28 Nov 1831). Fortunately his coast guard moves are well documented on ADM175. His parents were Henry Richards and Jane Redman, both from Littleham and they were still there in the 1841 census in Exmouth. However, I've failed to find any trace of Fanny Fowler's background. In 1841, her first name was recorded as Frances; in 1851, she was recorded as Frances, Lace Manufacturer, Devon Honiton; in 1861, she was recorded as Fanny, Devon Honiton; she died 6 February 1871 in Thanet, Kent. I will be visiting the Exmouth are later this month to do some research. Any advance information that might help me find out more about the Fowler family, or Ebenezer Richards' family too, would be most welcome; as well as any thoughts on records at Tree House, the DRO, or West Country Library that might be worth searching. Kelvin Richards --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

Thanks for this Paul - and thanks all others not aforementioned: Mike and Diana. Finally, it pays to double check all elderly visitors, lodgers and boarders on censuses They are more likely to be relatives. cheers, pamela -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Hockie Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 7:59 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT Somewhere on the web are the Enumerators Instructions for every census. These define how the enumerator was supposed to complete the form (snip)... --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus

I have a family in Exmouth that has two of the wife's sisters and their children living with them. The widowed sister is called 'sister' on the census - and the other sister with her husband at sea is called 'lodger'. I presumed that the lodger paid rent, while the other widowed sister was being supported as part of the householder's family. Would that be right? Diana Smith Australia > On 4 Sep 2017, at 7:32 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send DEVON mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists9.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/devon > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of DEVON digest..." > > > Please ensure that you change the subject line to the message subject when replying, and PLEASE DELETE ALL THE OTHER DIGEST MESSAGES EXCEPT THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TO. Please do not leave it as a DIGEST heading. > Thank you > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT (Pamela Willcocks) > 2. Re: 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT (Mary.armitage) > 3. Re: 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela (Sher Leetooze) > 4. Re: 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela (Pamela Willcocks) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:22:50 -0300 > From: Pamela Willcocks <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such. That > is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of course. > I see just as many documented as "lodger". Some have "of independent means" > or "annuitant" in the occupation column. > > The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth PAWLEY of > Ugborough). That's a bit cold. What was the purpose of not being > straightforward with mother or father? > > > > cheers, > > pamela > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:54:45 +0100 > From: "Mary.armitage" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I guess it indicates that, as the older resident, they were not the > householder? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pamela Willcocks > Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 8:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT > > > > Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such. That > is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of course. > I see just as many documented as "lodger". Some have "of independent means" > or "annuitant" in the occupation column. > > The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth PAWLEY of > Ugborough). That's a bit cold. What was the purpose of not being > straightforward with mother or father? > > > > cheers, > > pamela > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 17:19:36 -0500 > From: Sher Leetooze <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed > > Pamela: > > It is usually because the male, who is usually the lodger, and is > usually the father of the children, is not the spouse of the head of > household.? Everyone knew, at that time, that he was "just the lodger", > and everyone knew at that time, that he likely fathered her kids, but it > was much easier to call him a lodger than a common-law husband for fear > he would be taxed with a bastardy bond. > > Sher > > >> On 9/3/2017 2:54 PM, Mary.armitage wrote: >> I guess it indicates that, as the older resident, they were not the >> householder? >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Pamela Willcocks >> Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 8:22 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT >> >> >> >> Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such.? >> That >> is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of >> course. >> I see just as many documented as "lodger".? Some have "of independent >> means" >> or "annuitant" in the occupation column. >> >> The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth >> PAWLEY of >> Ugborough). That's a? bit cold.? What was the purpose of not being >> straightforward with mother or father? >> >> >> >> cheers, >> >> pamela >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> ------------------------------------------ >> The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon >> http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ >> and >> the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) >> List archive for Devon can be found at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> ------------------------------------------ >> The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon >> http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ >> and >> the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) >> List archive for Devon can be found at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 18:32:37 -0300 > From: Pamela Willcocks <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hey Sher - and thanks for your reply too Mary. > > Thing is, the lodger in Q, as I named her, is Elizabeth Pawley who is def the mum of Joseph Pawley, head of household. So why not say that instead of the census person writing "Lodger"? > Makes no sense to me. Was it that a widowed mother might become a burden on the parish? Perhaps there's no answer.,,but this was not an uncommon practice! > > pamela > > -----Original Message----- > From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sher Leetooze > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 7:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela > > Pamela: > > It is usually because the male, who is usually the lodger, and is usually the father of the children, is not the spouse of the head of household. Everyone knew, at that time (snip)... it was much easier to call him a lodger than a common-law husband for fear he would be taxed with a bastardy bond. > > Sher > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the DEVON list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the DEVON mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------ > > End of DEVON Digest, Vol 12, Issue 376 > **************************************

Somewhere on the web are the Enumerators Instructions for every census. These define how the enumerator was supposed to complete the form as each entry had to be classified to fit into the statistical tables. These instructions were generally followed but if the enumerator was not certain they should put down something from the list. Occasionally they made something up but as it took 10 years to evaluate the census nobody ever found out, The head of the household was the one who paid the rent, usually the husband and the "breadwinner". The book "Making Sense of the Census" is a good place to start. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Diana Smith Sent: 03 September 2017 23:38 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT I have a family in Exmouth that has two of the wife's sisters and their children living with them. The widowed sister is called 'sister' on the census - and the other sister with her husband at sea is called 'lodger'. I presumed that the lodger paid rent, while the other widowed sister was being supported as part of the householder's family. Would that be right? Diana Smith Australia > On 4 Sep 2017, at 7:32 AM, [email protected] wrote: > > Send DEVON mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists9.rootsweb.ancestry.com/mailman/listinfo/devon > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of DEVON digest..." > > > Please ensure that you change the subject line to the message subject when replying, and PLEASE DELETE ALL THE OTHER DIGEST MESSAGES EXCEPT THE ONE YOU ARE REPLYING TO. Please do not leave it as a DIGEST heading. > Thank you > > Today's Topics: > > 1. 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT (Pamela Willcocks) > 2. Re: 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT (Mary.armitage) > 3. Re: 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela (Sher Leetooze) > 4. Re: 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela (Pamela Willcocks) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 16:22:50 -0300 > From: Pamela Willcocks <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such. That > is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of course. > I see just as many documented as "lodger". Some have "of independent means" > or "annuitant" in the occupation column. > > The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth PAWLEY of > Ugborough). That's a bit cold. What was the purpose of not being > straightforward with mother or father? > > > > cheers, > > pamela > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 20:54:45 +0100 > From: "Mary.armitage" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT > Message-ID: <0B587558CD55412B92500C549C937F[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=original > > I guess it indicates that, as the older resident, they were not the > householder? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Pamela Willcocks > Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 8:22 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT > > > > Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such. That > is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of course. > I see just as many documented as "lodger". Some have "of independent means" > or "annuitant" in the occupation column. > > The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth PAWLEY of > Ugborough). That's a bit cold. What was the purpose of not being > straightforward with mother or father? > > > > cheers, > > pamela > > > > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in > the subject and the body of the message > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 17:19:36 -0500 > From: Sher Leetooze <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format=flowed > > Pamela: > > It is usually because the male, who is usually the lodger, and is > usually the father of the children, is not the spouse of the head of > household.? Everyone knew, at that time, that he was "just the lodger", > and everyone knew at that time, that he likely fathered her kids, but it > was much easier to call him a lodger than a common-law husband for fear > he would be taxed with a bastardy bond. > > Sher > > >> On 9/3/2017 2:54 PM, Mary.armitage wrote: >> I guess it indicates that, as the older resident, they were not the >> householder? >> >> -----Original Message----- From: Pamela Willcocks >> Sent: Sunday, September 3, 2017 8:22 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT >> >> >> >> Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such.? >> That >> is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of >> course. >> I see just as many documented as "lodger".? Some have "of independent >> means" >> or "annuitant" in the occupation column. >> >> The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth >> PAWLEY of >> Ugborough). That's a? bit cold.? What was the purpose of not being >> straightforward with mother or father? >> >> >> >> cheers, >> >> pamela >> >> >> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. >> https://www.avast.com/antivirus >> ------------------------------------------ >> The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon >> http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ >> and >> the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) >> List archive for Devon can be found at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected]b.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message >> ------------------------------------------ >> The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon >> http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ >> and >> the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) >> List archive for Devon can be found at >> http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > http://www.avg.com > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Sun, 3 Sep 2017 18:32:37 -0300 > From: Pamela Willcocks <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Hey Sher - and thanks for your reply too Mary. > > Thing is, the lodger in Q, as I named her, is Elizabeth Pawley who is def the mum of Joseph Pawley, head of household. So why not say that instead of the census person writing "Lodger"? > Makes no sense to me. Was it that a widowed mother might become a burden on the parish? Perhaps there's no answer.,,but this was not an uncommon practice! > > pamela > > -----Original Message----- > From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sher Leetooze > Sent: Sunday, September 03, 2017 7:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT for Pamela > > Pamela: > > It is usually because the male, who is usually the lodger, and is usually the father of the children, is not the spouse of the head of household. Everyone knew, at that time (snip)... it was much easier to call him a lodger than a common-law husband for fear he would be taxed with a bastardy bond. > > Sher > > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. > https://www.avast.com/antivirus > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > To contact the DEVON list administrator, send an email to > [email protected] > > To post a message to the DEVON mailing list, send an email to [email protected] > > __________________________________________________________ > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] > with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the > email with no additional text. > > > ------------------------------ > > End of DEVON Digest, Vol 12, Issue 376 > ************************************** ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Pamela, I think it was often confusion on the part of whoever filled in the form, whether that was the householder or the Enumerator. The answer could be either mother/father or lodger, so if the person was both, which took precedence? The rules were unclear (or at least perceived to be). 1851 was the first year in which relationships were shown on the census, so people were still getting used to it. So I don't think it was a case of being "cold", but more just not knowing how they were supposed to fill out the form. Best wishes Mike Gould Leicestershire -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pamela Willcocks Sent: 03 September 2017 20:23 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such. That is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of course. I see just as many documented as "lodger". Some have "of independent means" or "annuitant" in the occupation column. The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth PAWLEY of Ugborough). That's a bit cold. What was the purpose of not being straightforward with mother or father? cheers, pamela --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Pamela, I have just had a look at the entry. I have, in the past, noticed that enumerators were not consistent with entries, particularly if the relationship was not straight forward i.e. wife/son/daughter or a commercial relationship servant, paying lodger. Visitor and lodger also are misused. I also suspect people were not often clear about who the old lady in the corner was. Remember the relationship is to the head and I don't think "mother of head" is a recognised relationship so lodger will do and, unless you have other evidence, from the census alone, we cannot assume Elizabeth the widow is Josephs mother. She may be an aunt or cousin or some other random Pawley The census has no feelings it is merely a statistical exercise. Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Pamela Willcocks Sent: 03 September 2017 20:23 To: [email protected] Subject: [DEV] 1851 CENSUS: LODGER VS PARENT Re the census: a parent living with family is usually shown as such. That is, a mother or mother-in-law of the head of household. Or father of course. I see just as many documented as "lodger". Some have "of independent means" or "annuitant" in the occupation column. The one mum I've found simply states lodger and widow. (Elizabeth PAWLEY of Ugborough). That's a bit cold. What was the purpose of not being straightforward with mother or father? cheers, pamela --- This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software. https://www.avast.com/antivirus ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Morning Was this name MADDIFORD mentioned recently?? Not my family but in my Stray Index Stephen MADDIFORD of Tavistock married Mary COLE otp, 26 Nov 1695 at Aveton Gifford Bev

Hi Anne Thanks for your contribution. The Elizabeth COLES that I mentioned was born Elizabeth HURLY and married William COLES of Churchstanton. I hadn't been able to find William's baptism at Churchstanton and now believe that he was the son of Samuel COLES of Culmstock who was baptised in Churchstanton in 1699. I am still trying to check all the options. I will let you know if I come across your Elizabeth COLES of Tiverton. Cheers Colin >Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:59:08 +1000 >From: Anne <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [DEV] William COLES (c. 1744-1829) of Washfield, Devon >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > >Hi Colin > >I have an Elizabeth COLES who married Thomas TURNER in Tiverton i1739 n my >husband's family. So far I have found two of their sons - Robert bapt 1749 >and James in 1747 in Churchstanton. She is prossibly related to your William >born 1723 as they lived in Churchstanton at the same time. although I have >Elizabeth as the daughter of John COLES and Elizabeth LANGBRIDGE of Tiverton >born 1723. Just to confuse matters > >Anne

I have been watching this one go by. I have a Mary Coles who married Edward Coles in Halberton in 1770. Both the Register and the banns describe her a sojourner. I have not yet found where she was sojourning from although there are a number of possibilities in Devon. Halberton is also near one of the main routes from Plymouth/Exeter to almost anywhere. The only other (adult) Cole event around this time is the marriage of Joseph Coles to Mary Drew in 1768. Joseph Coles is described as a sojourner in the banns but a Cooper of Bishops Nympton in the register. Bishops Nympton registers show a Joseph born 1747, son of John and Margaret. They have children between 1737 and 1749 but no Mary. The nearest Mary daughter of a John born 1741 in West Worlington. This date fits in a gap between 1739 and 1742 in the Bishops Nympton family. West Worlington is about 8 miles from Bishops Nympton and I have not found any siblings for Mary. Washfield is close to West Worlington. Any Thoughts Cheers Paul -----Original Message----- From: DEVON [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Colin Rosewell Sent: 01 September 2017 11:02 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DEV] William COLES (c. 1744-1829) of Washfield, Devon Hi Anne Thanks for your contribution. The Elizabeth COLES that I mentioned was born Elizabeth HURLY and married William COLES of Churchstanton. I hadn't been able to find William's baptism at Churchstanton and now believe that he was the son of Samuel COLES of Culmstock who was baptised in Churchstanton in 1699. I am still trying to check all the options. I will let you know if I come across your Elizabeth COLES of Tiverton. Cheers Colin >Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2017 13:59:08 +1000 >From: Anne <[email protected]> >To: <[email protected]> >Subject: Re: [DEV] William COLES (c. 1744-1829) of Washfield, Devon >Message-ID: <[email protected]> >Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; > reply-type=response > >Hi Colin > >I have an Elizabeth COLES who married Thomas TURNER in Tiverton i1739 n >my husband's family. So far I have found two of their sons - Robert >bapt 1749 and James in 1747 in Churchstanton. She is prossibly related >to your William born 1723 as they lived in Churchstanton at the same >time. although I have Elizabeth as the daughter of John COLES and >Elizabeth LANGBRIDGE of Tiverton born 1723. Just to confuse matters > >Anne ------------------------------------------ The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ and the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) List archive for Devon can be found at http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Colin I have an Elizabeth COLES who married Thomas TURNER in Tiverton i1739 n my husband's family. So far I have found two of their sons - Robert bapt 1749 and James in 1747 in Churchstanton. She is prossibly related to your William born 1723 as they lived in Churchstanton at the same time. although I have Elizabeth as the daughter of John COLES and Elizabeth LANGBRIDGE of Tiverton born 1723. Just to confuse matters Anne ----- Original Message ----- From: "Colin Rosewell" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2017 4:54 PM Subject: [DEV] William COLES (c. 1744-1829) of Washfield, Devon > Dear List > > I am still working through all the information and assistance that you so > kindly provided. > > I would like to thank Martin Beavis, Dianne Ellis, Keith Jeffrey, Bev > Edmonds, Terry Leaman, Ros Haywood, Margaret Lewis and Chris Whitehead. > > At this stage it would appear probable that the parents of William COLES > (1744-1829) was William COLES (1723-1763) of Culmstock and Elizabeth > HURLY; son of Samuel COLES (1699-?) of Churchstanton and unknown wife; son > of William COLES (c. 1650-1709) and Edith BISHOP of Churchstanton; son of > Humphry COLES (d. 1687) in Churchstanton. My ROSEWELL ancestors also lived > in Churchstanton from about 1641 to 1711. > > Thanks > Colin > > > ------------------------------------------ > The DEVON-L mailing list is co-sponsored by GENUKI/Devon > http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/DEV/ > and > the Devon FHS (http://www.devonfhs.org.uk/ ) > List archive for Devon can be found at > http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/index?list=devon > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes > in the subject and the body of the message >

Good morning Chris, Thank you so much for this additional article,it’s deeply appreciated! Would you happen to have a scan of the original page please? If not, could you kindly tell me where you found the article? Sincerest thanks and best wishes, Jon --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com