Clearly (see the table below), the poor households had more paying living-in non-kin than the other households, in particular in the city of Leiden where nearly all living-in non-kin were paying instead of being paid. The reason for a more balanced situation in the Ambachten is no doubt that servants there were also working in local trade or agriculture, which was less an option in the city. The picture for the non-poor households is – in particular in the Ambachten – entirely the reverse of the poor. There, the non-poor were actually attracting servants in particular, rather than attracting lodgers. In the city as well the non-poor households were trying to get as much out of the lodgers as possible, but a substantial number (11 percent) had both an inmate and a servant (see table 10). One could say these are the ultimate 'commercial households' which were on both the demand and the supply side. Overall, looking at city and countryside together, servants and inmates are more or less in balance, with less than 10 percent of all households having more servants than inmates. This result demonstrates that both types of commercialization of the household space were almost equally important, but that to some extent it depended on the economic situation and the location whether one paid someone to live-in or whether a household received payment for having a lodger in the household. In a next analysis we will find out more about who those households were that had servants and inmates in the house. [TABLE 10 ABOUT HERE] The underneath demonstrates that households that include non-kin are not randomly extended. Households with couples tend to be extended with non-kin if they have no children. At a first child this number drops slightly, only to rise again at the addition of a second child. After the second child, the number of kin taken into the household drops with every successive child. Although single and widowed household heads are very likely to live with non-kin, we see that households with one or two children tend to be slightly more inclined to take in non-kin. Again the number of living-in non-kin tends to drop slightly when more children are living in, but we
Table 5: Households with non-kin extensions (Double Extended HH excluded here) % 6a. Servants 6b. Inmates 6c. S. & I. Total extended with Non-Kin Ambachten N 958 256 46 1,260 % 12.0 3.2 0.6 15.8 Leiden N 396 819 142 1,357 % 9.3 19.2 3.3 31.8 Total N 1,354 1,075 188 2,617 % 11.0 8.8 1.5 21.3 Table 6: Overview of upward and downward family extensions, presenting the different generations, per household Nuclear core without Nuclear core with upward and downward kin-extensions 1 G. 2G.* 2G.** 3G.* 3G.** 4G. not extended Ext. with P Ext. with C Ext. with GP Ext. with GC Ext. with P and C Ext. with C and GC H. Ext. with GC and GGC I. Ext. with P and GC J. Ext. with GP and C K. Ext. with P , C and GC Ambachten N 18 1 16 47 44 2 0 10 2 Ambachten % 27 0 72 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Leiden N 12 0 16 41 23 0 1 8 0 Leiden % 30 0 67 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 Totaal N 30 1 32 88 67 2 1 18 2 Totaal % 28 0 70 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 P= Parent(s), C= Child(ren), GP= Grandparent(s), GC= Grandchild(ren), GGC= G.=Generation; *Consecutive generations **Non consecutive generations. a Only upward and downward (kin-)extensions are included here. Since we only included upward/downward related kin in this analysis, the percentages in this table differ from the