Forums before death by AOL, social media and spammers... "We can't have nice things"
|    soc.genealogy.britain    |    Genealogy in Great Britain and the islan    |    130,039 messages    |
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
|    Message 128,064 of 130,039    |
|    john to Richard Smith    |
|    Re: Censuses: does there have to _be_ a     |
|    20 Apr 18 16:15:47    |
   
   From: john1@s145802280.onlinehome.fr   
      
   On 20/04/2018 13:14, Richard Smith wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   As I pointed out earlier (which J. P. Gilliver snipped), the father most   
   probably died in 1899 so was unlikely to be temporarily absent for the    
   1901 census.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)   
|
[   << oldest   |   < older   |   list   |   newer >   |   newest >>   ]
(c) 1994, bbs@darkrealms.ca