From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message <0aWdnVOyULTgJ0THnZ2dnUU78RvNnZ2d@brightview.co.uk>, Ian   
   Goddard  writes:   
   >On 20/04/18 10:45, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >> But (only if you're interested!) do have a look at the image: I think   
   >>you'll see what I mean that Miner, Miner, and Striker seem to have   
   >>been  added afterwards - though possibly by the same hand. They look a   
   >>little  blacker and offset a little.   
   >I don't have the necessary subs to look at the image from home but I've   
   >seen amendments before.  The oddity there wouldn't be correcting the   
   >specific to the generic (someone familiar with the industry would be   
   >aware that all those trades were part of mining) but correcting the   
   >status which surely meant knowledge of the individual.   
   >   
   >Ian   
      
   It does seem odd:   
      
   1901 census: Class: RG13; Piece: 4835; Folio: 112; Page: 36   
   (search for Jane Weightman in Ashington).   
   ...   
   Robert "                33              Coal Hewer Miner   
   George "                19              Rolleywayman Miner   
   William         "       26              Blacksmith Striker   
      
   I'd have assumed the addition of "Miner" was by (or for the benefit of)   
   someone processing the census who _wasn't_ perhaps as familiar with the   
   mining industry, and wanted to clarify that they were all part of   
   mining; but in the case of William where Striker has been added, it   
   seems to have gone from general to specific.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   "I hate the guys that criticize the enterprise of other guys whose enterprise   
   has made them rise above the guys who criticize!" (W9BRD, former editor of   
   "How's DX?" column in "QST")   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)