From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 20/04/18 10:18, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
      
   > So _do_ the "notes" say there _does_ have to be a head? I don't have a   
   > copy of the notes, except for the 1841 one ("with the pencil provided").   
      
   The 1901 instructions don't say there has to be a head.  All they say is:   
      
      In the column "RELATION TO HEAD OF FAMILY" write "Head" for Head of   
      family; "Daur." for Daughter; "F.-in-law" and "M.-in-law" for Father-   
      in-law and Mother-in-law respectively; "Serv." for Servant.   
      
   I imagine most enumerators would interpret this to mean each household   
   needs a head, but the head may be some who is absent and is therefore   
   not recorded on the census.  My family comes from a coastal area and has   
   many sailors who were often away for extended periods.  As a result I've   
   quite frequently found families where the enumerator has listed a wife   
   and children but without a head of the household listed.  But that's not   
   universally the case.  Sometimes the wife (or if she was no longer   
   living, the eldest son) was listed as head, presumably on the basis that   
   she was temporarily head of the household.   
      
   I don't recall ever seeing people in one house being listed by reference   
   to the preceding house, even when they were definitely related closely.   
      
   So in this case, I think it's pretty clear that Joseph, Margret and John   
   were children of head of family who was alive but temporarily absent.   
   It is also possible that the head was present but was accidentally   
   omitted from the census, but I don't think this is very likely.   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)