RootsChat.Com
England (Counties as in 1851-1901) => England => Topic started by: lostnconfused on Thursday 18 January 07 23:31 GMT (UK)
-
This may seem like a silly question, but we have a record of a relative, widowed (mother of main breadwinner ) who is living with her family, therefore we would not consider her a pauper.
The census record of 1851 has her son as a stonemason, presumably a good job?? And the family unit is togther under one roof, so why is she recorded as a pauper.
Strictly speaking arent you a pauper if you rely on public money for survival, or indeed if you are a criminal not required to pay your legal costs??
Am i being too much of a pedant here?
Andy
-
A pauper is a recipient of relief under the provisions of the Poor Law or of public charity, or a person having no property or means of livelihood; a person dependent on the charity of others.
Stan
-
Thats clear.
As long as she had no means of support andrelied on others (whether the public purse or family) she is registered as a pauper.
Damn, im a pauper!
Lol
Andy
-
I posted a similar question not so long ago - got some really interesting information
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,204350.msg1038900.html#msg1038900
Kind regards
Sallysmum
-
Thanks for the reply.
It's amazing how many of these common words dont have a clear meaning in the modern mind.
My preconceptions gave the word pauper a dark and desperate hue.
In fact it is simply being in receipt of 'Income Support/Housing Benefit'
I wonder how many people would baulk at such a name in todays PC society. Maybe it would shame a few into work!
Andy
-
In fact it is simply being in receipt of 'Income Support/Housing Benefit'
I wonder how many people would baulk at such a name in todays PC society.
Andy
Andy -
Excellent point and question ......
yn9man
-
Thanks for your feedback.
It struck me that our welfare state is perhaps a bit too PC?
I dont expect any politician to say the same.
Andy
-
Andy -
Well said. :)
yn9man