Author Topic: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694  (Read 1613 times)

Offline Westy11

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,770
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
John COGGAR was buried 21 Sep 1694 at Sandhurst, Kent.   Recorded against John's name is the term "householder".

Whilst this may not be unusual it is the first time I have seen this and would like to understand the significance/implications please. 

Westy

Also posted to The Lighter Side https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=815949.new#new

Offline mlrfn448

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 140
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 12 November 19 14:36 GMT (UK) »
I suspect it is to do whether they could vote, or not.
In some areas you had to be a householder to vote.
Unless someone has any other suggestions

Offline Westy11

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,770
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #2 on: Wednesday 13 November 19 02:00 GMT (UK) »
Many thanks. 

Westy

Offline ColC

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,589
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #3 on: Wednesday 13 November 19 10:42 GMT (UK) »
Pre-1832

Prior to the Great Reform Act, voting was dependent on three criteria – sex, age and property. Only men over the age of 21 were allowed to vote – and only if they owned property over a certain value. It was essentially a way of making voting a rich man’s privilege, reinforced by small boroughs having more MPs than larger counties, which were predominantly inhabited by poorer workers.

Colin
Clarke, Trickett, Orton, Lawless, Norton, Detheridge, Kirby, Goodfellow, Wagstaff, Lowe, etc.


Offline Westy11

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,770
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #4 on: Wednesday 13 November 19 13:57 GMT (UK) »
Thanks Colin.

Do you think the fact that the term "Householder" was recorded on a burial record had some relevance with voting? 

Westy

Offline bearkat

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 7,588
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #5 on: Wednesday 13 November 19 15:09 GMT (UK) »
Maybe just a sign of his social status.
Middx - VAUS, ROBERTS, EVERSFIELD, INMAN, STAR, HOLBECK, WYATT, BICKFORD, SMITH, REDWOOD
Hants - SMALL, HAMMERTON, GRIST, FRYER, TRODD, DAGWELL, PARKER, WOODFORD, CROUTEAR, BECK, BENDELL, KEEPING, HARDING, BULL
Kent - BAYLY, BORER, MITCHELL, PLANE, VERNON, FARRANCE, CHAPMAN, MEDHURST, LOMAX, WYATT, IDEN
Devon - TOPE, BICKFORD, FOSTER
YKS - QUIRK, McGUIRE, BENN
Nott/Derbs - SLACK
Herts - BARNES
L'pool- PLUMBE
 All UK census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline David Boulding

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #6 on: Wednesday 06 October 21 18:15 BST (UK) »
I'd suggest that being a "householder" elevated the person as a person having assets. Most had nothing.
Boulding Boulden Bollyng (all - mostly Kent)
Finch (Kent - Henry & Elizabeth (Fossett)  Finch m1687  London)
Foord (Kent - Aldington, Stanford area)
Philpot (Kent - Alexander Philpot died 1601 Ashford)
Waggon/Waghorn (Kent pre 1715)
Rose (Kent)

Offline ColC

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,589
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 06 October 21 18:31 BST (UK) »
Thanks Colin.

Do you think the fact that the term "Householder" was recorded on a burial record had some relevance with voting? 

Westy

I could only guess that the person was of some means.

Colin
Clarke, Trickett, Orton, Lawless, Norton, Detheridge, Kirby, Goodfellow, Wagstaff, Lowe, etc.

Offline Westy11

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,770
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What is the significance of stating someone was a 'householder' in 1694
« Reply #8 on: Wednesday 06 October 21 23:16 BST (UK) »
Thanks Colin  :)
Westy