GENBRIT-L Archives

Archiver > GENBRIT > 2005-03 > 1109730214


From: (Charles Ellson)
Subject: Re: Jock Hospital?
Date: Wed, 02 Mar 05 02:23:34 GMT
References: <38ivfpF5o4e4pU1@individual.net> <1109707935snz@ellson.demon.co.uk> <38ka7eF5pjhriU1@individual.net> <0kt92154p3dn3ktql5v01notvcnfoi2i60@4ax.com>


In article <>
"Don Aitken" writes:

> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005 22:55:49 -0000, "Saffy" <>
> wrote:
<snip>
> >I find it very odd that she would be living at a hospital but not have
> >an occupation stated.
> >
> The hospital also, apart from providing medical facilities for the
> adjoining workhouse, and the therefore also being a "Poor Law
> Infirmary", includeed an "Asylum", described as "for the reception of
> penitent females recovered in the Hospital".
>
With the size of the site, there might also have been resident staff of
various types (ISTR at least one "gatehouse"); if the bride's father
worked on site and also qualified for family accommodation (not unusual
for caretakers and associated occupations) then that could match with
her apparently having no occupation. IME it was not unusual for brides
who lived at home to have no occupation shown on the marriage record
while census records list them as having various jobs which were possibly
done at home such as seamstress, dressmaker, etc. Has the marriage record
got a relevant occupation shown for the father ?
--
_______
+---------------------------------------------------+ |\\ //|
| Charles Ellson: | | \\ // |
+---------------------------------------------------+ | > < |
| // \\ |
Alba gu brath |//___\\|

This thread: