From: richard@ex-parrot.com   
      
   On 20/04/18 15:15, john wrote:   
   > On 20/04/2018 13:14, Richard Smith wrote:   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   If the father had died, I would guess the head of the family was   
   probably a mother who was temporarily absent, but I see you also think   
   the mother had died (in 1885).   
      
   I think it's relatively unlikely that Joseph, Margret and John would   
   intentionally be described as children of the head of the family if both   
   their parents were dead.  Maybe such a description might arise if the   
   census enumerator had misunderstood the situation or if the parent in   
   question had only just died, but I think that's somewhat unlikely.   
      
   I would consider the 1901 census entry to be circumstantial evidence   
   that one of the parents was still alive.  Do you have any reason to   
   think the death registrations you have found are the right people beyond   
   the fact that their names (and presumably ages) match the census?  Purdy   
   seems to have been a common enough surname in the area that I can easily   
   believe one of those death registrations may be for someone else.   
      
   Richard   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)