Genealogy Chat

I always put notes about lodgers on to my family tree software, or likewise where known family members are lodgers elsewhere. I have had a couple of instances where that has happened, and then in the next census, the lodger has married one of the family members. Never discard any info - you never know when you might need it again. Pauline

I read somewhere that Boarders are often relatives and eat with the family whereas lodgers pay for a room and make their own eating arrangements. I found my Gerrard family as boarders in the 1861 census and the head of the household turned out to be a daughter/sister to the boarders. In 1881 her daughter turned up as a visitor in another household. The wife was another Gerrard sister. Also in the household was a neice who was down as a servant and who later married a son of one of the other Gerrard sisters. Very confusing it was but I eventually figured out the relationships. Mel

Julie I found an ancestor in Australia, who's 10 children all had different middle names of grandparents surnames, what a good idea. I love it when I get a birth certificate and it tells me the maiden name of the mother. The more names I gather,the more I feel part of that name, and when I meet someone else with that name I have to tell them it was my GGGG Grandmothers name or whoever. I have just found a Cavell in my tree, and I like that name a lot, haven't met anyone with that name yet. Lynda

Absolutely, Lynda. Well said. We just get precious about the continuity of a name - it helps provide identity, I suppose. I gave my daughter a doubled barelled name, not in the least for snobbish reasons but so the name would continue (as there is only one boy in our family of the next generation). I know it would soon get cumbersome but surely there must be a way of carrying both parents' names with you through life. There are some great names on the female side of my family - I vowed as a small child to include my Grandmother's pretty name in that of any daughter I had - and I did. One of her middle names is Rosina.

When I went to night school for genealogy, the lecturer said the only true line to follow was the womans. I follow all ladies in my tree and think of them as importaant as the male line. Lynda

Heck, I dare not mention the milkman. Now he would be a little more difficult to trace

On my great grandmother's marriage certificate she gives a father's name although there is no father named on her birth certificate and I am almost certain that the name given isn't a stepfather. However on the 1901 census, she wasn't born till 1906, a man of that name is living with her grandparents and her mother is away in service. Makes me think this is another case of a lodger being too friendly! I always try and find out a little more if possible about lodgers and have found cousins etc. that way. It can often help find the right family in other records.

Lodgers can be a help or a hinderance. On the Southampton side of my family, my gg grandmother was Florence Doutch Evans, born 1853. The thought of tracing an Evans (there are THOUSANDS of them!) was rather disheartening. I found out her mother came from Gloucestershire, looked up Evans on 1851 and came across a Harriet Evans, widow (32), two children with the surname Evans, an unmarried sister of the widow Evans and Samuel Doutch, lodger (22). Florence was the daughter of the lodger and the widow. They never married, but using the same surname as her mother and siblings obviously made life easier. They moved to Southampton, and Samuel was still the 'lodger' in 1861!!! I'm grateful to the lodger, as despite her surname, Florence is not an Evans!

Thanks Sue and Pamela, i was thinking that they were probaly nieces but i will explore the possibility that they are probaly step children. Steve

My great Aunt had 9 children. On the 1901 census her husband had disappeared and she was shown as head of the household. She had a baby of 4 months (tenth child) Christian name Harry. Low and behold there was also a lodger with the first name of Harry. You guessed it, lodger is baby Harry's father although his name is not shown on the birth certificate until 26 years later when the birth was re- registered. My advice. Always take note of lodgers. Jean.

My great grandmother had a lodger Thomas Green on the 1891 census. She had a daughter in 1890 who is down on the census as Barker- Green. ( Great grandma's name was Barker at the time) She married Thomas Green in June 1891. Her previous husband died in Feb 1888. Wonder why it took them so long to marry. Possibly because she had another child by him in 1891. By the way, Great grandad was her third husband. I wonder if he started out as the lodger too. Margaret

I decided to look more closly at the lodger in ggrandfather's home as his first name was repeated in the next two generations (Lachlan/Lauchlan). I have found the lodger's middle name to be McLean, which is the family line I am researching, and his grandfather to be John McLean, also a name I am seeking. There may be no connection at all.....but you never know! Patsy

Steven, It is probable that these in-laws are the children of a previous marrage of the male or female partner of the marriage recorded in the census you are looking at. What we would call step children were generally called in-laws in the 19th century (as well as he people we would call in-laws in the present day). It is always worth taking note of any `visitors' 'borders' logders, ag labs, domesic servants or other apparently unrelated occupants of the household you are interested in, they can often turn out to be future husbands of daughters of the house, and also may be nephews or neices, in laws (in the modern sense) or other family connections which will give valuable clues to disentangle some family link. It is worth taking note of neighbours as well they sometimes turn out to be related or act as marriage witnesses. Pam

Stephen - I think you'll find the term daughter in law was often used instead of step daughter. I have a family where mother was widowed and remarried - her children by her first husband are described as daughter and son in law!

A family i'm researching are down in the census and they have 3 young girls age 12 years and younger living with them and they are put down as daughter-in-laws ! Steve

In a family I recently had help finding on the 1881, the first entry for the family was obviously the father but it had lodger (head), what is that supposed to mean??

I have started to look at the lodgers and boarders. In the 1881 census there is a 23yr old living with my G.Grandfather. I wondered who she was, after a bit more delving into the family it turns out to be his neice. Just wonder why it didn't say that in the first place. Gem

A lodger on the 1901 census helped to confirm the correctness of the family as he later married one of my grandfather's sisters.

Hi Julie, I've never been too sure what to do with the lodgers and boarders. On one of my families in 1881 it has a boarder aged 4 months! There's no other boarders or lodgers at the residence so have been wondering who he was, who he belonged to and what he was doing with my family. Naomi

I have always had the nagging thought at the back of my mind that one careless moment of abandon by an ancestor could mean I was following the competely wrong family line! Does this mean it makes more sense to follow the female line? Can't get my head around that completely at the moment. However, I always take note of any 'lodger' hanging about on the night the census was done and try and have a general interest in family history, that is people in general, rather than genealogy. I am sure my lot were very moral and there was never any hanky-panky but, well you never know, do you?