From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >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.   
      
   Thanks, so it doesn't actually say there has to be a Head actually   
   recorded, though some might interpret it that way.   
   >   
   >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   
   []   
   >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.   
      
   Indeed. Presumably, in some cases at least, it depended on how the   
   (temporary) head filled in the form that they gave back to the   
   enumerator.   
   >   
   >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   
      
   That's the conclusion I came to - I just thought (as it has proved,   
   though I didn't mean for people to do extra research, sorry!) it would   
   be an interesting point for discussion.   
      
   In this case, it _was_ fairly clear, as the three were shown at a   
   different house number, and even with a blank line left between (though   
   the house numbers had clearly been added afterwards!). But sometimes it   
   _isn't_ clear, when more than one household is living in the same   
   address; sometimes the marks (= or -, but sloping and placed at bottom   
   left of the name column, more where commas would be) between the   
   household(s) give some indication that there is a separation.   
      
   >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.   
      
   Agreed.   
   >   
   >Richard   
   John   
   --   
   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)