Genealogy Chat

While I agree that at a first glance it says "Stonekeeper" comparison with the rest of George Kendall's writing makes me sure it is Housekeeper.

As I mentioned before all his t's are crossed with long strokes with only two exceptions, the t in daughter and the t in Doncaster, in the former, the start and end of a long stroke are there but it looks like the pen left the paper in the middle of the stroke, in the latter it seems the pen was late meeting the paper.

All four instamces of capital S on the form are completely different to the S of the supposed stonekeeper.

When writing capital H, as in Hugh and Head, he starts with a wavy line at the top left, continues down the first vertical stroke and does a little curl to the left, he then raises the pen and moves to the top of the second vertical stroke, goes down for the stroke and keeps his pen on the paper going up slightly to the left and then goes right for the vertical part of the H.

All that movement is consistent with the first character in Housekeeper except that he hasn't raised the pen sufficiently before starting the second down stroke.

As to whether it is 'e' or 'se', he normally writes his e's quite clearly and it does look uncharacteristically untidy if it is just e.

Libby says collated in 1910, so my surmisation is wrong.

Sorry if I have misled.

Margaret

I doesn't help David, but my point was that the 1910 directory could have its data taken from any year, and wasn't necessarily compiled or published in 1910.

No matter, ignore now.

I still think it says Housekeeper, but am prepared to be persuaded.

David,

"Just got an e-mail from a friend who found Florence in a 1910 Lincolnshire directory. She's listed as a "stonekeeper."

Did your friend give a source for this?

I'd love stonekeeper as well,but gee-even the http://www.historicaldirectories.org/
(which seems to be having a problem at the moment)
doesn't list a stonekeeper,etc.

Maureen

A 1910 Directory contains information collected in 1910; the collation and publication date may have been later but the content most certainly was gathered in 1910.

Hi Meg, I may be wrong but I don't think that would have been the case. The 1910 directory presumably would have been compiled & published before the 1911 census was even taken?

Further to the idea of the 1911 census, was it not kept confidential until this year? How could it have been the source of data in a 1910 directory?

Looking at the image I notice that all the small t's on the page have very long horizontal strokes whereas the t of stonekeeper/storekeeper has only a tiny one. (PS have since noticed that the t of daughter is an exception).

Another point is why aren't there more stonekeepers in the censuses if it is an actual occupation rather than one of the functions of a labourer? The majority of the ones that there are seem to be in Scotland.

I hold my hands up and say I have no idea where the 1910 directory could have got its info from, but it could have been from the 1911 census if it were not published till after that, being the latest source of info.

Or maybe I'm talking rubbish.

Whether it's Stonekeeper, Housekeeper or Storekeeper; to criticise the transcriber re Sanderson is IMO unfair.

I've been involved in transcribing the 1841 census and believe me it isn't easy, but at least each book was written by the same hand therefore possible to compare letter formation, the 1911 returns were filled out by the householders', some of whom would have been semi - literate.

I am a retired Librarian, and you'd be surprised at some of the tosh I heard from colleagues being spouted to customers. Librarians are the same as any other professionals, they know somethings, but not everything.

My opinion for what it may be worth! I do not think the job title is 'Housekeeper'; if you compare the 'H' in Hugh to the start letter of her occupation it doesn't resemble it at all, my belief is her occupation was either 'Stonekeeper' or 'Storekeeper' and considering the family were Farmers I'd opt for 'Stonekeeper, but I do not think it's conclusive.

"I didn't say it was transcribed from the 1911 census, but it might have been."

Hi Madmeg :) I think David's point was that the 1910 directory was a year before the 1911 census was taken so the 1910 directory couldn't have been transcribed from that - not unless they had a timemachine ; ) (sorry i've been watching Doctor Who on iplayer ;) )

I didn't say it was transcribed from the 1911 census, but it might have been. Only saying what my interpretation of the 1911 was, which is housekeeper. But I can also see the arguments for Stonekeeper.

Good luck in deciding which it was.

not doubting any of your deductions, but no one seems to have mentioned the possibility of flour milling,( highly unlikely, of course, but) they use large-ish flat round stones in a flour mill......when grinding the wheat.......

Bob

Doesn't seem likely that an entry in a 1910 directory could have been transcribed from the 1911 census.

Well, you could be right, so my apologies too. But the 1910 directory could have been transcribed from the census.

Anyway, she was a worker, that's all we can say.

Well done David and my apologies

Wendy x

Just got an e-mail from a friend who found Florence in a 1910 Lincolnshire directory. She's listed as a "stonekeeper." A reference librarian I consulted says a stonekeeper's job was to maintain stone fences on farms. And two independent transcriptions translate the entry as "stonekeeper." If it walks like a duck....
Dave

Not having access to the 1911 census I can't comment, but I thought I'd check Ancestry 1901 for stonekeeper's. There are dozens of them. The one I liked best was "Retired stonekeeper (wood)". :)

Problem is ladies, some people just don't want to be helped, which is a shame. For what it's worth, I agree entirely too, definately housekeeper.

I have found that an image becomes more readable if you manipulate it a bit, turn it into negative and enlarge.