Genealogy Chat

I have an ancestor who was listed as having independant means for his occupation on the 1841 census. What exactly does this mean? He was retired? Or he no longer relied on working for money? Any help would be appreciated. Kirsten

It could mean that he had his own money and didn't need to work, or that he was retired and had a pension. Do you know if the family had money? Was he an ordinary worker who would be more likely to have a pension? How old was he on the census when he was described as of 'independant means'? Kath. x

Hello Kath, He was 70, living on his own in Rutland. He had only one son that I know of, who was a school master in 1841, but I'm not sure if that's reliable because later on he became an agricultural labourer.

Sounds like he was rich enough not to work. The independent means could be family money, an annuity (an annual sum, received after paying in during one's working life time, or granted by a grateful employer), maybe he owned property and collected the rent from it, or had stocks and shares? People who couldn't afford to save money for their retirement generally worked until they dropped dead. nell

Thank you Nell. I have no idea about what kind of work he did. All I know is that he was living in Rutland, on his own. Which I don't suppose was common, back in 1841. I shall try and find his death certificate and see if that has anything more to say. Thankyou. Kirsten

I think they often said they had independent means as they were afraid of being sent to the workhouse if they were not working. So long as someone in the household was working they were OK! Wendy Sorry, you said he was alone. Perhaps his son was helping him?

Does anyone know what the definition of a 'fund holder' would be. It sounds dead posh like they are playing the stock exchange but this is the widow of a post man in 1861.

A fund holder is someone who has their investment in public funds.....so something like investing in Treasury Stock or National Savings Bonds (those are modern day ones....but the meaning in Victorian times would be that sort of thing) rather than stocks and shares in Ltd Companies (though they might easily have those too!!) Merry

Cant see she would have that sort of dosh Merry. I dont even know if he got a pension as the postal employees only started getting them in 1859 and this ******* twit seems to have died a few months prior.

When I worked in a bank (1980's) the people who had only a National Savings Bond - worth a modest amount - were nearly always working class (sorry - not PC - but truth!). You did have to buy the stock at the beginning of the term......then an annuity every year and your money back at the end of the term. Guaranteed. So safer than stocks and shares. Suppose you might be near the poverty line, but if you could show the poor law union that you had a Bond (or whatever) they were less likely to drag you to the workhouse. If the income happened to be 1s6d per annum, so be it!! Merry

I suppose its possible that if he had been a long term employee of the Post Office - he was an upholsterer (as were the rest of the family) in 1841. But a 'letter carrier' by 1851 and a 'letter sorter' by 1853 (daughters marriage). I suppose the Post Office may have been benevolent and the fact he died a few months short of the Pension rights coming into force, they may have given her some sort of money.

Pity he didn't steal any penny-blacks! Merry

I thought that Merry!