Genealogy Chat

My family in 1881 had a domestic servant living with them, was this normal? She was born in the same place my gt gt grandma was who was the wife of the head of the house so maybe they knew each other?

Bev I've found quite a few with Servants among my lot, even though they themselves were doing menial jobs. Don't be surprised if you find that the Servant and your GG-Grandmother were related in some way. Joy

It was considered essential to have at least one female skivvy if you could afford it. Most of my lot couldn't! They were the skivvies!! BUT make sure that the person is a servant and not a relative who is a servant for a living (ie works in someone else's household). nell

My relatives seem to have servants. I think a lot of middle class families did. My greatgrandfather was a grocer. Beware though servant is an occupation and it does not necessarily mean that they worked for that household. I have also found relatives listed as outdoor servants on early census only to find them turn up as gardeners or grooms later on.

In theory (LOL), if it says Servant in the Relationship column, then the person should be in the employment of the head of household. If they are working as a servant elsewhere then it should say servant ONLY in the occupation box and boarder, lodger, son, daughter etc etc in the relationship box. However, that's only the theory! Merry

I found a some rellies with a domestic servent (relation to head box) on one census but on the earlier census the head is a son and the servent is a daughter in the family.

Based on our own research, we have a few examples where the term 'servant' has been used, where a better description would have simply been employee, such as farm labourers who lodged on the premises. Many people took in lodgers, some of these may have been occupied as servant, but elsewhere. Somtimes a family who would not have normally afforded one, had taken in a relative who had fallen on hard times, providing food and board in return for extra help. Shopkeepers, clerks and even some colliery workers were often able to afford a live in servant. Like everything else, look at the evidence and weigh up the facts, and don't just jump to conclusions

I have found out she was the younger sister of my gt gt grandmother. It says servant in the Relation box and domestic servant in Occupation box so I take it that her sister maybe employed her to give her some cash?

I have a 'servant' to my unmarried Ag Lab in the mid 1800s. She was promoted to Housekeeper in the next census after the birth of her first few children. And was Housekeeper to the same Ag Lab for the birth of her subsequent children. What an understanding employer ;) I can find no reason why they didn't make it 'official'. Chris

It was much more common in the 19th century when a huge proportion of young girls would hire themselves out as servants because they had very little other choices available. When you think of the amount of work to be done in a household you can understand why people wanted them - huge numbers of children to look after, no mod cons or convenience foods, etc. I have no doubt that a lot of the servants were paid very little apart from their board and lodgings. My gg grandmother was working as a servant in an inn in the north-east at the age of 8, poor little mite. I suppose it was the only way that she could get fed. My great grandmother was listed in 1881 as a domestic servant to a butcher and his wife. When I looked more carefully, the butcher's wife was her own older sister!!!