On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 17:49:53 +0100, eve@varneys.org.uk wrote: > It just concerns me that so few actors and show biz people seem ever to > have learnt any history. How very true. > Common sense would show that people generally didn't go into the > workhouse unless their home conditions were really desperate, Also true. > generaqlly they were better fed, better housed, better cared for medically, > and probably less exposed to physical and moral dangers than they would > have been, or actually had been, outside. Sorry Eve, this is complete nonsense. Did you ever meet, speak to or know any of those peeople who actually 'enjoyed the hospitality' of a workhouse? I did, and their dread of ever having to return there has stayed in my memory for many years. The utter fear of those institutions terrjfied those who had not been interred in what were effectively prisons for the poor, but who had relative who had suffered. Do you think it was fun for mothers to be forcibly separated from their children, maybe never to see them again? Likewise brothers and sisters, long time husbands and wives, all forced into institutional uniforms, effectively prison clothes. All this was just a bit of light rekief I suppose. >True, they lacked television, mod > cons, designer clothes, and the liberty to misbehave, start a boy band and > (save the mark) be a Selebritty - but most would have lacked these > opportunites outside the workhouse too. What a ridiculous strawman argument! Quite inappropriate coming from someone I've long regarded as a professional. To use the vernacular, a load of old cobblers! [more nonsense snipped] . > EVE > > > Author of The McLaughlin Guides for Family Historians > Secretary, Bucks Genealogical Society Oh dear! :-(

Charlie <plink.2RoyTubb@spamgourmet.com> wrote: > Sorry Eve, this is complete nonsense. Did you ever meet, speak to or > know any of those peeople who actually 'enjoyed the hospitality' of a > workhouse? I did, and their dread of ever having to return there has > stayed in my memory for many years. The utter fear of those > institutions terrjfied those who had not been interred in what were > effectively prisons for the poor, but who had relative who had > suffered. Do you think it was fun for mothers to be forcibly > separated from their children, maybe never to see them again? > Likewise brothers and sisters, long time husbands and wives, all > forced into institutional uniforms, effectively prison clothes. All > this was just a bit of light rekief I suppose. On the contrary, Eve is correct, your comments are tripe. Nobody was imprisoned in the workhouse - they applied to be admitted, and were free to leave whenever they chose. For the old, the infirm, the destitute and the ill, they were a lifeline, a refuge when times were hard. My own gt gt grandfather, Francis Pears (1840-1904), was in and out of Lanchester Workhouse frequently during the last several years of his life. He suffered chest troubles and when he was feeling poorly he added to his problems by consuming an excess of alcohol. When he wasn't able to work he went to the workhouse to rest, recuperate and dry out. After a stay of a few weeks he discharged himself and went back to work until his health and/or alcohol level dictated a return to his refuge. This only stopped when, during one stay, he developed pneumonia and died. A gt gt gt grandmother, Elizabeth Speakman nee Cawthorn (1819-1893), was not in good health, but she lived quite comfortably at Seaham Harbour with her husband, Charles (1811-1888) a sail weaver and costermonger. But when her husband died she was destitute - neither of her daughters was in a position to help her, so she applied to Easington Workhouse and lived there until her death in 1893. Another relation - who will be nameless because her daughter is still living - found herself pregnant and rejected by her parents. She had the child in Gateshead Workhouse (Teams Institution) as it was the only option open to her. She subsequently married and they all lived happily ever after - well, until death did they part, at least. Yes, the workhouse was made deliberately unpleasant for those who were fit enough to work - otherwise, as with benefits today, folks would regard it as an acceptable career choice. But it was always a choice - nobody was dragged screaming to the workhouse, and nobody was forcibly held there. Yes the fit ones had to work, yes men women and children were separated, but inmates were fed, clothed and given a roof over their heads, and children were educated. And, above all, they could walk out when they wanted. -- Brian Pears (Gateshead)

On 08/07/2013 17:31, Charlie wrote: > On Sat, 06 Jul 2013 17:49:53 +0100, eve@varneys.org.uk wrote: >> generaqlly they were better fed, better housed, better cared for medically, >> and probably less exposed to physical and moral dangers than they would >> have been, or actually had been, outside. > > Sorry Eve, this is complete nonsense. Did you ever meet, speak to or know > any of those peeople who actually 'enjoyed the hospitality' of a workhouse? > I did, and their dread of ever having to return there has stayed in my > memory for many years. No Charlie, Eve's quite correct. The inmates had access to far better medical treatment (remember, this is relative, not absolute!) than they could have received outside. They were certainly better fed than someone who can't afford to legally obtain food. And the housing, admittedly Spartan in the extreme, was dry and not as harsh as the plight of the homeless. Eve was quite careful with her words. What she did _not_ assert was that inmates' mental and emotional wellbeings were treated well. They were not. Your workhouse inmate's reaction was the *exact* response the Governments of the time were seeking to create. Being admitted to the workhouse was *supposed* to be something emphatically to be avoided until all other resorts were exhausted. Yes, it was a safety net, but it was set pretty close to the floor, and it still hurt when you used it. I had distant relatives admitted, according to records from the London Metropolitan Archive. In almost all cases, they were mothers about to give birth, who were availing themselves of the workhouse hospitals - the only decent perinatal healthcare open to them - and their existing children, for whom they could not care whilst in labour and post-partum recovery. The stays were never more than a couple of months, and I can well appreciate why. The others were elderly folk in the last days of their lives. Jon -- WATCH OUT FOR THE SPAM BLOCK! Replace 'deadspam' with 'green-lines' to reply in email!