1841 Census Occupation Please

[farmeroman]

In 1851 William Raynes was clearly described as a gentleman's servant (groom), but here it looks more like Grocer (followed by &, esq, or etc?)* (see edit below)

Can anyone confirm if it's grocer, groom or something else? I find grocer very unlikely TBH.

*Edit: William "the grocer" is the father of the William below him in the census, who was the groom in 1851, so grocer is in fact possible. William Sr. died before the 1851 census and none of his three children's baptism records gave his occupation.

[Bookbox]

Looks to me like Grocer &c. [= etc.].

[farmeroman]

I'd also like to know what this footnote on his son William's burial record says. My best attempt is:

For over 20 years organ(?) Mower(?) and stoker at Upper Church, formerly a groom in the Woodgate family.

Of course "Organ Mower" dosn't make sense, but he was a coachman/groon in 1850-1 and a gardener 1861-71.

The vicar of St. Peter, Pembury was RSS Woodgate, so he clearly worked at Pembury Hall, which was owned by the Woodgate family, at some time. Upper Church was the Chapel of Ease at Pembury, also named St. Peter.

[farmeroman]

Looks to me like Grocer &c. [= etc.].

Yes I think you're probably right. Most of the family were poor labourers so I'm a bit surprised that he appeared to have a more respectable occupation.

[Bookbox]

Of course "Organ Mower" dosn't make sense, but he was a gardener 1861-71

It's organ blower. Blowing the air into the organ-pipes, with bellows, was a manual task in those days.

[farmeroman]

Of course "Organ Mower" dosn't make sense, but he was a gardener 1861-71

It's organ blower. Blowing the air into the organ-pipes, with bellows, was a manual task in those days.

Ah brilliant! That would explain why he was in the vicar's good books and that he and his wife could spend their last years in an almshouse opposite the Upper Church.

And stoker? Literally a fire/boiler stoker or some other arcane church task?

[arthurk]

I agree that it says Grocer &c, and as he was getting older, I wouldn't want to rule out a change from being a groom. On the other hand, it could be that he wrote Groom on the form, and the enumerator misread it when copying it into the book.

If you look at the summary pages for that district you should find the enumerator's signature. Can you work out if he is likely to have known William Raynes personally, and thus the likelihood of a mistake?

Also, if William's death, burial or probate records show that he was a groom when he died, that seems to increase the chances of this 1841 entry being a copying error.

[farmeroman]

I agree that it says Grocer &c, and as he was getting older, I wouldn't want to rule out a change from being a groom. On the other hand, it could be that he wrote Groom on the form, and the enumerator misread it when copying it into the book.

If you look at the summary pages for that district you should find the enumerator's signature. Can you work out if he is likely to have known William Raynes personally, and thus the likelihood of a mistake?

Also, if William's death, burial or probate records show that he was a groom when he died, that seems to increase the chances of this 1841 entry being a copying error.

Sorry, the groom thing was a red herring - that was his son. He died before 1851 and none of his records have his occupation apart from the 1841 census.

[arthurk]

OK - I thought you'd meant that the job of groom went from father to son, which is something I've seen in my own family.

Your stoker question is still outstanding: I've never heard of anything church-related role with that name, so I think it will be the chap who kept the fire or boiler going.