I've definitely had several instances of this - and in my case where it's a rare surname and the individual listed as lodger was not found with his own family in that census, I am quite sure they were actually relatives. It seems (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!) that unless the person was directly related i.e. son/grandson, daughter/granddaughter, or the phrase son/daughter-in-law which could also mean stepson/daughter, any other relative seems to qualify as 'lodger' (or even servant!). For the older generation I have also found the phrase 'guest' used rather than lodger, particularly in cases such as the elderly 'maiden aunt' who it seems was accorded greater respect. I found at least two instances of such a person who under 'relation to head of household' was described as a guest but under occupation was described as 'housekeeper' and I assumed (possibly wrongly) that the ladies so described were acting as housekeepers to their male relative with whom they lived. Julia -----Original Message----- From: angela hamilton [mailto:ag.hamilton22@skylinkmail.co.uk] Sent: 31 August 2005 20:36 To: SOG-UK-L@rootsweb.com Subject: [SoG] 'lodgers' I have two census records where someone in a house is described as 'lodger' when I suspect that they may be related to the head of of the household - possibly a brother in one case- as they have the same surname. In both cases it is the 1851 census - one in Hampshire and one in Essex. Does anyone know if 'lodger' used in this way instead of naming relationships?

"Julia Riley" <julia.riley1@btopenworld.com> wrote : >angela hamilton wrote : >>Does anyone know if 'lodger' used in this way instead of naming >>relationships? > I've definitely had several instances of this - and in my case where it's > a > rare surname and the individual listed as lodger was not found with his > own > family in that census, I am quite sure they were actually relatives. It > seems (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong!) that unless the > person was directly related i.e. son/grandson, daughter/granddaughter, or > the phrase son/daughter-in-law which could also mean stepson/daughter, any > other relative seems to qualify as 'lodger' (or even servant!). I think this is one of those areas where the accuracy of the detail recorded seems to be affected by the precise circumstances of the household, and probably the enthusiasm of the enumeraotor as well. I've certainly found one or two examples of relatives recorded as 'visitor' and 'lodger', but I've more often found brother, sister, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, cousin and even the dreaded 'mother-in-law' ! I've also found a very simple 'relative' and also 'relation', 'adopted daughter' and a few others. I don't actually think 'lodger' or 'servant' were usual terms for family members, unless there was an actual conflict in that the person concerned was both a relative and a lodger or servant and there was a need to choose which term to use. > For the older generation I have also found the phrase 'guest' used rather > than lodger, particularly in cases such as the elderly 'maiden aunt' who > it > seems was accorded greater respect. I found at least two instances of such > a > person who under 'relation to head of household' was described as a guest > but under occupation was described as 'housekeeper' and I assumed > (possibly > wrongly) that the ladies so described were acting as housekeepers to their > male relative with whom they lived. I'd tend to think of 'guest' as implying someone with greater rights than a lodger, and who was not paying cash for their keep. Occupation could, of course, be related to a different location altogether, but I would agree that an elderly lady described as 'guest' and 'housekeeper' and living with an elderly man, was most likely exactly that. John B Leic., Eng