Genealogy Chat

Hi everyone,could anyone guide me please am making the most of my day off in this bitterly cold weather,and to be kind am researching more on hubbies family.Well it means he won't moan so much because I'm on the computer (as usual).Here's the dilema,as usual me being a total thickie can't unravel it.Hubbies G.Grandfather George Rosier is totally controllable in 1881 with his family in Commonside E.,Mitcham,Surrey.In 1901 Grandfather William Rosier is now married to Rose and lodging in Vine Cottage,but now G.Grandfather and family are out of control and have me totally fogged!!.GEORGE ROSIER SENIOR with wife Jemima and 2 grown up sons Frederick and George have moved from one place in Commonside E. up the road to the Three Kings Tavern,where he is listed as head of household not lodger,but the licencee is a totally different person.As the Rosiers were all carmen but quite affluent for the time could anyone shed any light on this as I am puzzled.Many thanks,Elaine

Elaine Does it give the licencee's position in the household? Jeanette

Hi Jeanette,sorry didn't reply sooner had the grandchildren round so have just got back onto the computer.In the 1901 census I have William H. Sharp liscenced victualler born London aged 34,also as head of household with his wife Caroline,son Albert (a baby),sister Elizabeth and then Jeffrey listed as domestic worker. We just find it odd that the Rosiers are living there and not the liscencees and definitly not lodgers,and can't quite fathom it. I thought it was only my rellies that played about in the census'!!. Regards, Elaine

Hi Elaine, Don't know if this is any help, but on the 1891 census the Rosiers lived at Commonside E, next door to the Three Kings Inn. By the way what is a carman??

A carman was another term for a carter.

Thanks Geoff!!

Could it be that they were not lodgers but renting part of the living accommodation? There would then be two heads if both families were living there. Or maybe the licensee lived out and rented the accommodation to them. He would then be head (of his own family) but not the licensee. Ann Glos

Hi everyone,sorry to reply so late what with weather and work i've only just switched on computer!!!.Thank you all very much for all your help,very interesting replies.Hubbys sitting in room with me and says that as far as he can remember from childhood the Rosiers in question were landowners,so maybe I'll have to do a bit more digging and delving and see what I can find out,before I go do any of you brilliant people know if there is an office that holds registrations of pub licensees etc?.Sorry spelling is naff tonight must be snowblindness,well that's my excuse!!!.Once again thanks everyone for your help it's much appreciated. Elaine

Elaine, The owner off the pub does not need to hold the licence (or didn't in those days) and could employ someone to run the pub and thefore hold the licence. The pub may have had larger accomodation to house his family. Just a thought Pat

Thanks Patricia, good thought that one ,it makes sense too.Have decided to ring the pub in question tomorrow and see if either they or the current brewery may hold any records.A long shot I know but I'll give it a go,will let you know how I got on.Many thanks to you all for your help. Happy hunting to you all, Regards, Elaine