daft question about apprentice records

grannysrock · Post by **grannysrock** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 8:46 pm

Hi , I have a question about apprentice records.
If someone took their own son on as an apprentice, would this be shown in apprentice records ?
The records I have been looking a that prompted this question are the ones on www.scotsfind.org - where I found some wonderful records relating to distant rellies (I think !) with uncles taking on nephews (I think) , but I think they must have trained their own sons as well ?

Until now never had much reason to wonder about why these records were kept !

Sally

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:19 am

Hi Sally
That is an interesting question, and far from daft!, and I don't know the answer. I can only guess that perhaps some sons were maybe expected to carry on the family business, but whether that means they would be mentioned as apprentices, I really don't know....

My basic understanding is that the taking on of an apprentice included some kind of agreement that you would look after the youth and put a roof over his head and feed him, and of course teach him the trade. In that context, as you would most likely be doing this for your own kids anyway, it may not have counted as an apprenticeship and they may not have shown as apprentices as a result, but I'm just guessing here.

I hope someone can maybe shed some light on this one. Perhaps looking through the Apprentice rolls on that site you might see a pattern as to whether sons were mentioned or not?

Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **emanday** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 12:26 am

Hi Sally,

I'd imagine that sons would have needed to have apprentice records kept for them as well.

"Apprentice" trades were a far more moveable force even "way back when" than we often give credit for, so a boy would likely need to have them to show to a new employer, even if he WAS trained by his own father.

Izzie · Post by **Izzie** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 4:52 am

Just wanted to say thank you for the link you provided. It lead to confirmation of births in my Robertson Lines.
Isn't it wonderful how all these tips may not seem connected but they are.
Thanks again.

Post by **emanday** » Thu Mar 22, 2007 1:23 pm

Izzie wrote:Just wanted to say thank you for the link you provided. It lead to confirmation of births in my Robertson Lines.
Isn't it wonderful how all these tips may not seem connected but they are.
Thanks again.

I think that is one of the really great things about TS. Most of us learn as much from other peoples posts as we do from answers to our own.

grannysrock · Post by **grannysrock** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 11:51 am

Thanks for your thoughts Mary and Lesley . I hadn't seen any entries for a master taking on his own son in that register - I went back to the Scotsfind site to check again and noticed

in the introduction to one of the volumes, the compiler had remarked that the register contained very few cases of boys apprenticed to their father's trade - even though the apprenticeship would have been compulsory to become a burgess, it wasn't noted .

Why I was thinking about it is that among the Lambs who came from Carmichael to Edinburgh , there were more burgess litsters than there were apprentice litsters. And it seemed to me looking at the tree I was sketching that the trade passed from father to son as well as to the more distant relatives in the register.

Izzie - delighted you found something useful.

Sally

Post by **emanday** » Fri Mar 23, 2007 12:05 pm

grannysrock wrote:...snipped...the compiler had remarked that the register contained very few cases of boys apprenticed to their father's trade - even though the apprenticeship would have been compulsory to become a burgess, it wasn't noted...snipped...

Now I find that very interesting! Maybe it was taken on trust that the sons would have trained in their father's trade. Having said that, since most apprenticeship agreements at that time seem to have included the requirement for the "master" to feed and house the apprentice, that probably wouldn't have applied with a son. He was already getting that.

You learn something new every day!