"Rules" of Census recording

[RoDe]

Can someone clarify a small point regarding census returns.  I have only recently started researching my family history so am on something of a learning curve. I have a copy of a page from the 1901 census showing my grandmother living at home as an 18 year old with a sister and a much older woman of the same family name who I assume is my great grandmother.  There are no males listed for this entry and my great grandmother is shown as 'Head' of the family with M (indicating married) in column 10 - Condition as to Marriage. So my question is, if great granddad were simply absent on the night the census was taken would my great grandmother be listed as head of the family?  The entry immediately below my great grandmothers shows females only, the oldest listed as 'Head' and 'Wid' in column 10.

I would be grateful for clarification regarding the "rules" of recording census information.
RoDe

[wrjones]

A very warm welcome to Rootschat RoDe.The simple answer is yes,if her husband was absent on the night the Census was taken,then she would be recorded as the Head of the family.

Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.

[wrjones]

Another point to make,is that whether or not there were males in the family,she would still be regarded as the Head of the family.

Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.

[RoDe]

Many thanks for your very prompt reply which is much appreciated.
Royston Harris

[wrjones]

No problem at all Royston.

Regards
William Russell Jones
Cefn Mawr
Wrexham.

[stanmapstone]

It should be noted that the headship of a household was a social position and did not necessarily reflect biological descent. Thus, in one household an aged widow may be described as head but in another case  a son or daughter who has taken over running the affairs of the group might be so desibnated. Occasionally two men or women sharing a set of rooms might both be put down as joint heads. Sometimes the usual head of the houshold was absent and this was denoted by the first person in the household being described as wife, son, servant or some other term."Making Sense of the Census" by Edward Higgs, the National Archives.

Stan

[Mean_genie]

The whole notion of 'Head of Household' in the census is one of those lovely examples of possible divergence between what the rules were, and what people actually wrote down. Some housholds have no apparent head at all, because the actual head was absent and his wife still listed herself as 'Wife' in the relationship column. In the case of married couples the man was usually the head, but there are plenty of cases where the wife was the head - just try putting 'husband' in as the keyword in Ancestry (they don't have it as an option in the drop-down menu in the relationship field) and you'll see what I mean.

Some people even changed their minds from one census year to another as to who was the head. You won't find a better example of this than Queen Victoria and Prince Albert; in 1851 she is 'wife' and he is 'head', but in 1861 she seems to have decided that she is head of the household as well as the Empire! 

I could spend ages browsing through the census for odd little features like this, and quite often I actually do.

Mean_genie