Hi Ken,
If someone was working solely for a private family, in whatever
capacity, he would have been referred to as a Servant, unless he had
a skilled trade or a position of authority within the household.?
Sometimes, wealthy families would just refer to their servants
rather than the footman, valet or ladies maid etc.
Not much help in your case.? But if you can determine whether this
person was in a large household or a small one, that will have some
bearing on the work he may have done.? If it was a small household,
then he was probably a 'jack of all trades' to the master of the
house.
Lesley
N Wales
On 13/04/2025 20:29, Ken Harrison via
groups.io wrote:
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
Thank
you, Jane; this is useful background.
My
man was admitted based on patrimony.
I
still wonder how to interpret “servant”.
Ken
?
?
Hi Ken
I have ancestors who were freemen in
the medieval period and it was either by trade or
patrimony...ie dad was a freeman so could pass it on.?
This link gives useful info about how,
in the 1700s freedom was bought and all kinds of workers
were included so that might explain it.?
Chasing
Wheldrake/Wheldrick/Weldrake/Weldrick...any likely
variation, any time, anywhere.?
?
On Sun, 13 Apr 2025, 12:33 Ken Harrison
via , <kenharrison43=[email protected]>
wrote:
I know this was explained earlier, but
I would appreciate a “refresher”: I have, on the
ticket admitting an ancestor as a Freeman of York in
1798, his status given as “servant”.?
Aside from the obvious definition, what
status or occupations would be included at that time
in that designation?
Ken Harrison
_
