I am glad somebody here is scholarly. I think I was responding emotionally and as so often happens in such circumstances, not correctly, so thank you for looking up Webster for us, the census person was being totally correct in his description of this lady's occupation. well done ! Brenda MacCulloch ajmac@internet.co.nz Auckland New Zealand > From: "EDZELDA" <EDZELDA@dewittec.net> > Reply-To: LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com > Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 16:25:02 -0700 > To: LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [LAMBERT] F W Lamberts concubine?? > Resent-From: LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com > Resent-Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 14:17:22 -0700 > > Hello, > I to was asking what kind of occupation? Looked it up: a womam who is not > legally a wife but lives with a man and has a recognized position in his > household.( Mr.Webster) > edzelda@dewittec.net > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Brenda &Tony MacCulloch <ajmac@internet.co.nz> > To: <LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 1:28 PM > Subject: Re: [LAMBERT] F W Lamberts concubine?? > > >> I too was intrigued by this occupation for : >> Hager, Caroline 29 F W "Lamberts concubine" >> It sounds so 'oriental' ! >> Was it a flash name for an unmarried partner, or was sexual slavery alive >> and well in 1870 when the Smyth County Census Rich Valley District > Broadford >> was polled ? >> >> Brenda MacCulloch >> ajmac@internet.co.nz >> Auckland >> New Zealand >> >> >>> From: "HAMID, LINDA" <linda_hamid@tpp-ex01.rose.hp.com> >>> Reply-To: LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com >>> Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:27:14 -0700 >>> To: LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com >>> Subject: [LAMBERT] F W Lamberts concubine?? >>> Resent-From: LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com >>> Resent-Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 11:32:00 -0700 >>> >>> I found this posting interesting: >>> >>> "Hager, Caroline 29 F W Lamberts concubine" >>> >>> CONCUBINE? A concubine to a farmer? Wow. I see that Caroline was 29 and >>> Stephen was 62. Do you suppose she was like a second wife without > benefit of >>> marriage? I don't see a spouse listed for Stephen, probably she died > (maybe >>> in childbirth)? Has anyone ever seen concubine listed on a census? as an >>> occupation? >>> >>> Linda (Lambert)Hamid >>> researching LAMBERT in San Francisco, California; New Zealand; > Yorkshire, >>> England >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: SandraG627@aol.com [mailto:SandraG627@aol.com] >>> Sent: Sunday, April 01, 2001 6:08 AM >>> To: LAMBERT-L@rootsweb.com >>> Subject: Re: [LAMBERT] George Lambert - Tazewell Co Va >>> >>> >>> In a message dated 4/1/01 1:12:21 AM Eastern Daylight Time, >>> fourkidsland@yahoo.com writes: >>> >>> >>> >>> On the 1870 Smyth County Census Rich Valley District >>> Broadford you can find the following listed on page >>> 73B HN#335, lines 35-33: >>> >>> Lambert, Stephen 62 M W Farmer >>> Mary 12 F W at home >>> Barbara 7 F W " >>> George 3 M W " >>> Hager, Caroline 29 F W Lamberts concubine >>> John L. 9 M W at home >>> Lavalet 9 F W " >>> Serilda 7 F W " >>> Charles 4 M W " >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi, good to hear from you. >>> which Stephen is this? can you forward to the list, they no longer > accept >>> mail from aol >>> Thanks for writing. >>> Sandy in Florida >>> >>> I have been out of town and now have a broken leg, moving slowly. >>> Maybe I'll catch up with my mail when I retire, in 2010! >>> >>> >>> ==== LAMBERT Mailing List ==== >>> If you'd like to be a Rootsweb sponsor--or donor (I am!)--there are >>> instructions for joining by mail or on-line at >>> http://www.rootsweb.com/rootsweb/how-to-subscribe.html >>> >>> >> >> >> ==== LAMBERT Mailing List ==== >> Do NOT send virus warnings, non-genealogical causes to advocate, sick > child e-mail/donation hoaxes, etc. Respect your fellow listmembers. They, > like you, subscribed to work on Lambert genealogy--so help them do that! >> > > > ==== LAMBERT Mailing List ==== > Do NOT send virus warnings, non-genealogical causes to advocate, sick child > e-mail/donation hoaxes, etc. Respect your fellow listmembers. They, like > you, subscribed to work on Lambert genealogy--so help them do that! > >