home bbs files messages ]

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 128,070 of 130,039   
   J. P. Gilliver (John) to nemonews@hotmail.co.uk   
   Re: Censuses: does there have to _be_ a    
   20 Apr 18 17:45:14   
   
   From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Jenny M Benson   
    writes:   
   >On 20-Apr-18 12:14 PM, 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.   
   >   
   >I have FREQUENTLY found that Ancestry's transcripts have included a   
   >household with the previous one when there was no Head recorded, thus   
   >producing a transcription such as:   
   >   
   >Jones, John - Head   
   >Jones, Ann - Wife   
   >Jones, Mary - Daughter   
   >Jones, Edward - Son   
   >Smith, Elizabeth - Wife   
   >Smith, - Lizzie - Daughter   
   >   
   >or even more confusingly   
   >Jones, John - Head   
   >Jones, Ann - Wife   
   >Jones, Mary - Daughter   
   >Smith, - Lizzie - Daughter   
   >etc   
   >   
   >where the second household has no parents present, just children listed   
   >as Son and Daughter.   
   >   
   Yes; and there's no way (as an ordinary user) to correct it. The best   
   you can do (to warn other users, if you've spotted such) is pretend to   
   add alternative information (such as add an alternative name but   
   actually put in the same one), which at least allows you to leave a   
   comment.   
      
   Of course, there are cases where a daughter _will_ have a different   
   surname - stepdaughters etc., or the most common case, that she's   
   married, but for some reason with her parent(s) on census night;   
   however, that's usually visible by an M in the "marital status" column.   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Who were your favourite TV stars or shows when you were a child? Sadly they've   
   all been arrested ... Ian Hislop, in Radio Times 28 September-4 October 2013   
      
   --- 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