|
Pages: [1] 2
|
 |
|
Author
|
Topic: Economy & social standards for 1850...your opinion? (Read 758 times)
|
UncleLarry
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 58
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Researching James Foord, watchmaker (see my other thread) and reading some of Chris’ comments on early Hastings have really tickled my curiosity.
I wonder what it would be like to be in business in the mid 1800s in Hastings. And I solicit your thoughts, have you ever thought about these questions? This is meant to be very very informal….all posts are equal in strength of opinion, and there is no overall objective beyond modifying my opinion.
The average businessman, is he higher on the social/economical scale that a laborer? Is he lower than the “gentry” that he is selling to? If he had employees, would that elevate him beyond the mom and pop shops we have come to know today? Would it elevate him in society? Would he have made twice as much money as laborer?
He would have required capital to start the business; could he have borrowed from a bank? How long (in this case watchmaker/jeweler/goldsmith) would his apprenticeship last, and how young would he have started? How many hours would a typical storeowner put in for a week……six days at ten hours a day? At one point in time my James had three or four employees…..does that elevate him socially and/or economically? And what exactly does “living on his own means” mean when commenting in the census?
And feel free to introduce new sub topics into this thread.
We welcome your input, and we thank you in advance!
Larry Foord
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Chris in 1066Land
Global Moderator
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 6086
"Forever Searching, Forever Learning"
|
Hi Larry
I wrote a paper on Servant Keeping in the new Robertson Street compared with George Street in the Old Town and how having servants moved you up the social scale of the time.
“Servant Keepers of the period were not only the traditional farms and country mansions, but also the growing middle classes such as traders, craftsmen, professionals and businessmen”
A lot of the points that you raised/mentioned are covered in this paper (Open University Course for DA301 - Community and Family History)
You can read the paper by clicking on this link
http://www.rootschat.com/history/hastings/content/view/72/26/
Chris in 1066
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Shropshire Lass
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1189
|
The average businessman, is he higher on the social/economical scale that a laborer? Is he lower than the ?gentry? that he is selling to?
Definitely lower than the gentry. Being "in trade" was very much looked down. One should just have money, you know? 
The dirty work of earning/stealing/acquiring/marrying it should have been done by an ancestor sufficiently removed in time that he didn't need to be considered any more. The "older" your family was, the better.
Monica
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukDALBY - Suffolk and, after 1860, Birmingham. EBENEZER - Cardiganshire & Glamorgan. GARVEY and GRAHAM - Mayo. HUBBARD - Birmingham. MAUND and LEWIS - Shropshire and Birmingham. MORGAN(S) - Cardiganshire. SLADE - Somerset and Worcester. |
|
|
UncleLarry
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 58
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Sorry about that......I pushed the wrong key......Monica you raise a good point that I seem have recalled reading before. It is the "social" value of "old" money, and this too fascinates me. I guess the human race is perpetually in a race (pun intended) to keep climbing that social ladder. I am though a bit surprised that the "in trade" was looked down upon.
So I am getting this impression.......lowest on the scale would be servants, then farm laborers, then trades, then store keepers, then "those of means". Is that a fair assumption?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
mbiggar
RootsChat Extra
Posts: 23
|
Laborers were often lower status than servants. Servants in "upstairs" roles had more status than those who served as kitchen maids and so on. These servants would have had more status than the common labourer. Employment seemed to be more erratic or seasonal for some types of labourers as well - many of my labouring and fishing ancestors seemed to be in and out of the workhouse whereas the servant ancestors had long employment in some households. The master mariners and tradespeople seemed to do well except when there was a major change in industry that dramatically affected their employment.
Interesting discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Godden/Godding Gallop from Sussex to Australia; Gelston from Ireland to Australia; Biggar from Scotland to Canada; Green from Ireland to Canada; Hodgkinson from Sheffield to Canada; Others in Australia - Powell, Doran, Pike, Ferriday, Bourke, Rumble, Whisler; Others in Canada - Bigham, Orr, Fairlie, McKay, McPhail, Kauffman
|
|
|
|
|
Erato
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1184
J and J
|
This is an interesting topic not just for Sussex; maybe it should be moved to a more general location such as the Common Room?
Was there a hierarchy within the trades? Were makers and sellers of luxury goods higher up the social scale than those who produced or sold mundane items, even though the latter might have earned more money? Were dirty and physically rough trades lower class than cleaner ones [ e.g., stone masons vs. tailors]?
Did people earn social 'credit' by working their way up the scale? Example, g grandfather started life as an errand boy at age 12
and worked his way up in the grocery trade. He ended up as a fairly prosperous director of a wholesale grocery company. Would he have been respected for his efforts?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wiltshire: Banks, Taylor
Somerset: Duddridge, Richards, Barnard, Pillinger
Gloucestershire: Barnard, Marsh, Crossman
Bristol: Banks, Duddridge, Barnard
Down: Ennis, McGee
Wicklow: Chapman, Pepper
Wigtownshire: Logan, Conning
Wisconsin: Ennis, Chapman, Logan, Ware
Maine: Ware, Mitchell, Tarr
|
|
|
|
|
Erato
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1184
J and J
|
I would also be interested to hear how this compared to the situation in the US, Canada or Australia during the same time period. My US ancestors were all farmers, initially. But there semed to be an effort to get a higher education for at least some family members and move them from farming into a professional occupation [law, teaching, ministry]. Even many of the women got a college education betwen 1860 to 1900. This stress on education did not sem to happen until much later among my English ancestors.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Wiltshire: Banks, Taylor
Somerset: Duddridge, Richards, Barnard, Pillinger
Gloucestershire: Barnard, Marsh, Crossman
Bristol: Banks, Duddridge, Barnard
Down: Ennis, McGee
Wicklow: Chapman, Pepper
Wigtownshire: Logan, Conning
Wisconsin: Ennis, Chapman, Logan, Ware
Maine: Ware, Mitchell, Tarr
|
|
|
Shropshire Lass
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1189
|
Were dirty and physically rough trades lower class than cleaner ones [e.g., stone masons vs. tailors]?
Did people earn social 'credit' by working their way up the scale? Example, g grandfather started life as an errand boy at age 12 and worked his way up in the grocery trade. He ended up as a fairly prosperous director of a wholesale grocery company. Would he have been respected for his efforts?
These are very true. Anyone who got dirty doing their job was of very low standing. Even in the twentieth century a relative of mine who was a roadman was considered much lower in status than his relative who was the foreman. There was probably an overlap - I think that a master mason would be of higher status than many tailors.
The Victorians seemed to make a connection between poverty and poor character/immorality/slothfulness - as if it's not possible to work hard and still be poor - so someone who had "improved" his station in life would be given credit for it but probably still wouldn't be accepted socially.
The men like the factory owners who made considerable fortunes during the Industrial Revolution did want to mix socially with the "old money" families. Having a marriageable daughter with a big dowry was one way to break into society as many of the old families were asset-rich - great big houses and estates - but didn't have much cash.
Remember many people were quite happy with the people they had grown up with and didn't want to be socially mobile. Taking the micky out of the "toffs" was a much-appreciated sport in some communities!
Monica
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukDALBY - Suffolk and, after 1860, Birmingham. EBENEZER - Cardiganshire & Glamorgan. GARVEY and GRAHAM - Mayo. HUBBARD - Birmingham. MAUND and LEWIS - Shropshire and Birmingham. MORGAN(S) - Cardiganshire. SLADE - Somerset and Worcester. |
|
|
adee7
RootsChat Veteran
Posts: 858
Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
|
Fascinating topic.
My Scottish Grandfather was an ag lab as a youth. After years of hard work, he became a coachman, then an estate factor.
He and his wife and large family resided in a cottage on the estate and I wonder where they would stand in the hierarchy.
Several of the children became educators while others apprenticed in the grocery business and stayed in that field to become managers or owners.
Kathleen
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
England and Belfast - GOFF, GOUGH, MATHERS, MOXHAM/MOXAM, OSMOND, PHILLIPS, WINDER, WYKES
Scotland - JOHNSTON, DORWARD, KIDD, KYD, RAMSAY, RAE
Canada - DeWOLFE, HALLADAY, HASKINS, HICOCK, JOHNSTON, OLD/OLDS
|
|
|
millymcb
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1295
Three Brothers Knight out on the road...almost!
|
I like this website
http://privatewww.essex.ac.uk/~alan/family/N-Money.html
it has lots of different annual and weekly wages for various occupations in various years.... Really interesting to see the differences for labourers, skilled workmen, professionals etc...
Milly
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
McBride (Monaghan & Manchester), Derbyshire (Bollington,Cheshire), Knight (Newcastle,Staffs), Smith (Chorley, Lancashire & Ireland), Tipladay (Manchester & Yorkshire) ,Steadman (Madeley,Shropshire), Steele (Manchester & Glasgow), Parkinson (Wigan, Lancashire), Lovatt, Cornes & Turner (Staffordshire) Stott (Oldham, Lancs). All ended up in Ardwick, Manchester - in Cotton Mills, Iron Works, or running pubs and corner shops. Census informatio is Crown Copyright http://www.nationalarchives.g |
|
|
Shropshire Lass
RootsChat Aristocrat
Posts: 1189
|
Thanks, Milly, that's a very useful website.
Monica
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.ukDALBY - Suffolk and, after 1860, Birmingham. EBENEZER - Cardiganshire & Glamorgan. GARVEY and GRAHAM - Mayo. HUBBARD - Birmingham. MAUND and LEWIS - Shropshire and Birmingham. MORGAN(S) - Cardiganshire. SLADE - Somerset and Worcester. |
|
|
MarieC
RootsChat Marquessate
Posts: 3298
In Queensland, Oz
|
I would also be interested to hear how this compared to the situation in the US, Canada or Australia during the same time period.
Erato and others,
Australia in 1850 was a society only just over 60 years old, and just out of the convict era - in fact, convicts were still being sent to Western Australia - so social standards were very fluid. Money conferred a certain social status, no matter how new it was or how it was made, and everyone had a chance to succeed. Some ex-convicts were very enterprising people, and in fact did very well for themselves.
In the second half of the century, the big squatters attempted to establish themselves as the aristocracy. They were people who "squatted" on large tracts of Crown land, and with their cattle and/or sheep established mansions and opulent lifestyles, with servants. However, many people did not share their opinions of themselves, and they largely lost their wealth in agricultural crashes late in the century.
There was also the rise of a vigorous middle class, whose members clashed with the squatters on a number of issues, and who established moderate wealth and comfortable lifestyles for themselves in the towns.
MarieC
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Martins in London and Wales, Lockwoods in Yorkshire, Hartleys in London, Lichfield and Brighton, Hubands and Smiths in Ireland, Bentleys in London and Yorkshire, Denhams in Somerset, Scoles in London, Meyers in London, Cooks in Northumberland
|
|
|
Lynn H
RootsChat Member
Posts: 177
Save our Churches & Graves.
|
Hi Larry. off topic from yours, can you please direct me to your Foord thread.
Thankyou
Lynn.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2
|
|
|
|
|
