How to explain his “gentleman” status?

[Davedrave]

In the case of the few people I’ve come across in documents who are called “gentleman” it seems to be that they usually own some land and possibly don’t work. However, I’m perplexed by one record I’ve come across. Richard Lea was the son of a farmer and he left Leicestershire some time between 1851 and 1861 to become a tea planter in India. When he married in Leamington in 1865 he was a tea planter, abode India. The marriage was conducted by his wife’s brother, Henry Fisher (later father of the archbishop).

Richard and Elizabeth Lea had children baptised in India. In 1867 Richard is still a tea planter in the baptism record, but in 1869 he is now in the Indian Civil Service.

In 1872 back in England, son Harry was baptised in Kenilworth. Richard was still in the Indian Civil Service.

In 1878, again in England, daughter Edith Marion was baptised in Rugby, and Richard is described as “gentleman”. There can be little doubt that she is a child of the same Richard and Elizabeth, because both Harry in 1872 and Edith in 1878 were baptised by Henry Fisher, who was clearly not the regular parish priest for either baptism.

I can’t understand the “gentleman” status. As far as I can see, Richard does not seem to have been in England for any of the censuses in between 1851 and 1911, so presumably he was in India apart from a few trips home.

Any suggestions?

[Andrew Tarr]

I think it means simply that he has no occupation - i.e. he no longer occupies himself.  It probably corresponds to the ladies who 'live on own means'.  Presumably he has planted tea profitably.

On my wife's tree is a very ordinary lad who married in Gateshead in the 1850s, describing his father as a 'gentleman', which had fascinated his family.  I unearthed what I could, and my presumption is that his teenage mother, who apparently did not marry until her thirties, had possibly been taken advantage of by the local squire.  So to that extent the description may have been accurate.

[heywood]

Perhaps he was retired by 1878, or simply wanted to establish his status compared to others.
He was quite a wealthy man so maybe he thought he deserved to be ranked as a gentleman.
I don’t think it was fixed in terms of nobility ranking.

[Kiltpin]

"Gentleman" is one of those terms which vary depending on where in the world you are and when you are talking about. 

But as a general rule I would say that anybody who was an employer, rather than an employee, was a gentleman. As a tea planter, I would have thought that he would have definitely have been a gentleman. 

Regards 

Chas

[Davedrave]

I suppose that he could have retired into a “gentleman” by 1878 but the documents would suggest that he was probably still employed by the Indian Civil Service after then. A list of alumni of Balliol College, Oxford, says that son James Herbert Lea, who was there 1886-88, was the son of Richard Lea of the Assam Commission, suggesting that this was Richard’s occupation at the time that James was at the college. Also, Richard gives his occupation in the 1911 Census as “Retired Indian Civil Service”, rather than “gentleman”, so it seems unlikely that he ceased to be employed by the Indian Civil Service by 1878, by which time in any case he’d only have been working for it for about a dozen years.

Dave

[Sandblown]

I came across the 'Gentleman' description, on the 1881 Census, for My Maternal Great Grandfather.

A couple of years before, He had inherited an amount of money from the death of His Wife, and retired from farming. Hence, He became financially of 'independant means', and had changed His social status from Farmer to Gentleman.

[Brie]

I agree with Andrew that it can often simply be someone who is living on their own means. I have a few ancestors who were described as "gentlemen" on marriage certificates and in several cases they were shopkeepers who had done well and had retired comfortably.

Brie

[Jebber]

I also agree with Andrew.

Just as a matter of interest, not that I am inferring that  is the case in this instance, quite often you will find a father described as ‘Gentleman’ on marriage certificates where it is a case of exaggeration. In the same way some people exaggerate their status or importance today. We all know we cannot take all information on certificates at face value.

[Maiden Stone]

I don’t think it was fixed in terms of nobility ranking.

It seems to have become a flexible and self-styled term by the 19th century.

I agree with Andrew reply #1. I've found examples of men who became gentlemen as in Sandblown's and Bries' replies, all in the same extended family.
My 4xGGF became a gentleman when he retired from a successful business in 1825. His widow and unmarried daughters were "independent" on 1841 census. One daughter married a doctor. Another daughter never married. Her will mentions income from properties and individual bequests of Ł100 each to named relatives.
His youngest son, my 3xGGF put gentleman as his occupation when he married. His gentleman status was short-lived. He was a shopkeeper on 1841 census and had a variety of occupations afterwards.
Niece of 4xGGF & his wife was sole heir of her yeoman father who died 1822. Her gamekeeper husband was gentleman in later records.

Not my family, but I know of a man who became a gentleman after he won large bets on horse-races in 19th century and no longer needed to work.