RootsChat.Com
Some Special Interests => Occupation Interests => Topic started by: Beppy on Thursday 03 April 08 04:20 BST (UK)
-
On a marriage certificate dated 1880 I have an ancestor's occupation listed as 'Gentleman'. His daughter to be married lived at a 'Manor House, Norbiton' which is in London. She had no occupation, so this looks very interesting. However in previous censuses he was a Toll Gate keeper in Norfolk. No sign of wealth in that family up till the marriage.
Two questions: Could the occupation 'Gentleman' be just a person living on their own means? Or does it mean he is of note?
Also I have his death 14 years before the marriage [not confirmed], but this was not indicated on the certificate. Is it possible he could have died but they didn't record it? The groom was 60 years old and his father had no 'dec' either!!
Thanks for your ideas.
Beppy in sunny Sydney
-
Originally a Gentleman was a well born man above the rank of Yeoman, usually entitled to bear a coat of arms. It was assumed that a Gentleman did not do manual work and the term gradually encompassed all those in the professions.
Generally speaking a Gentleman, needed to do no paid work to support himself and did not rely on handouts of any sort from others he would live off his investments.
However there was nothing to stop anyone putting "Gentleman" on a marriage certificate.
Stan
-
By the 1880s, "gentleman" meant whatever he wanted it to mean and could get away with.
I don't know about you but few of my marriage certificates from that period show a bride's occupation.
-
Hi,
I have a marriage cerificate where the father's occupation (he was an agricultural labourer) is down as farmer. Can only thnk that this is a sympton of the class structure of the times (eg. girl marries into family of slightly higher social standing, and wants to be accepted into new cirlce). This particular young lady's father sadly died in the workhouse - thankfully her life changed, and she took the opportunites it gave her.
Also see some are given the title Mr. - Stan, do you know what the situation is with this? Is that the address given to a gentleman? Bit confused.
Thank you.
Kind regards,
Paulene :)
-
Mr. is an abbreviation of the word Master and was originally a style of address for a Gentleman, but since the 17th cent., is the customary courteous prefix to the name of any man below the rank of knight. It is customary not to use the prefix when Esquire is appended to the name.
Stan
-
Hmmmm, I don't know about that, Stan. I wouldn't say it was general in the 17th century. Starting to emerge in the late 17th century perhaps.
-
Since the 17th cent. it has been the customary courteous prefix to the name of any man below the rank of knight.
Source The Oxford English Dictionary :)
Stan
-
You can find several discussions about Gentleman in the
RootsChat Reference Library (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/index.php) => Lexicon (click here) (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/reflib-lexicon.php?letter=G)
Bob
-
In the area I'm researching the title Mr only appears to given to some (17th century and 18th century Nottingham). There were several Joseph Richards living there, and the term Mr was only given to one.
It doesn't seem to be a term used generally, which is why I wondered if it denoted a certain status.
Paulene :)
-
Regardless of what the dictionary may say (and I wouldn't treat a dictionary as being authoritative on historical matters), I can produce several examples from the 17th century where "Mr" is most certainly reserved for the gentry only.
-
Regardless of what the dictionary may say (and I wouldn't treat a dictionary as being authoritative on historical matters), I can produce several examples from the 17th century where "Mr" is most certainly reserved for the gentry only.
Since the 17th cent. it has been the customary courteous prefix to the name of any man below the rank of knight.
In my opinion the wording in the OED is not clear :) The operative word is Rank :) In this case meaning a High station in society, but below the rank of knight.
(and I wouldn't treat a dictionary as being authoritative on historical matters), If you don't agree with what they say to contribute new evidence for a word already in the OED, please contact them as follows:
Oxford English Dictionary
Oxford University Press
Great Clarendon Street
Oxford, OX2 6DP
Tel: +44 (0)1865 353660
Fax: +44 (0)1865 353811
E-mail: oed3@oup.com
Stan
-
The people who were given the title of Mr in the town I am researching, Nottingham, were certainly not landed-gentry in the strict sense of the term. I believe they were certainly respected individuals of a certain standing, some holding burgess parts, but not large amounts of land.
So, as I was still confused, I looked at a book I own, 'The Diary of Abigail Gawthern of Nottingham 1751 - 1810'. Please see attached piece:
I can only think that areas varied in their use of the term Mr - perhaps an area like Nottingham would be more flexible in its application of the term, whereas a more rural, land-owner led area might stick to the older rules more (you can still see it in the village I live in today!!)
Hope this helps, rather than confuses the issue - just an example.
Kind regards,
Paulene :)
-
I am not disputing that the modern usage started to emerge in the 17th century, I am saying that it was not universal in that century.
-
yes, I would agree with that :)
-
Here's what the Oxford Dictionary of Local and Family History has to say:
mister, mistress, miss, ms. In parish registers and other records of the early modern period most people were recorded only by their Christian name and surname. A ‘Mr’ was someone of at least minor gentry status (though many did not possess a coat of arms). Mistress or ‘Mrs’ was used for a woman of similar status, whether or not she was married. The use of ‘Miss’ for an unmarried woman came into use during the early 18th century. In the later 20th century ‘Ms’ has become increasingly popular as the female equivalent of ‘Mr’, which has been the style for any untitled adult male since the later 18th or early 19th century.
Those dates sound much more reasonable to me and much more helpful to family historians.
Of course we should also bear in mind that we may find examples as early as the 17th century ;D ;D ;D
-
Yes, I think Nottingham was a bit radical in many ways!
Thanks for that, looked in there, but obviously missed it :-[
Hope we're not confusing the poor poster of the thread too much!
Thankyou,
Kind regards,
Paulene :)
-
There have been some interesting points raised here.
I'm adding it to the other topics on Gentleman in the
RootsChat Reference Library (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/index.php) => Lexicon (click here) (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/reflib-lexicon.php?letter=G)
:)
Bob