1841 census - order in which family members were listed

[yelkcub]

I have a question about the 1841 census – concerning the order in which members of a household were listed. Am I correct in thinking that it was normal practice to record the head of household first, followed by his wife and then their children? Were enumerators instructed to record families in that way?

I have been working with a record in which the person I took to be my ancestor’s wife was listed after the children and a grandchild. Recently I have started to consider the possibility that she may not, in fact, have been his wife but some other relative, possibly a sister.

Should I read anything into the order of listing? Or was it not unusual for the wife not to be listed directly beneath the husband in the census?
I would welcome views on this
Best wishes
Ian

[avm228]

I must say, I do think that would be unusual.  In my lines I have typically seen the following patterns in 1841:

Husband
Wife
Children in descending order of age
Others (boarders, servants etc)

or, less commonly

Husband
Wife
Sons in descending order of age
Daughters in descending order of age
Others

or even (rarely)

Husband
Sons in descending order of age
Wife
Daughters in descending order of age
Others

...but to have all the children and then a woman as an apparent afterthought would suggest to me that further investigation was merited as to whether she was in fact his wife.

Anna

[suzard]

http://freepages.history.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~framland/census/1841directions.htm

will give some information.

It seems enmerators were insructed to put head of household first, then list all with same surname (dittoing) -no instructions on wife being next.

No relationships can be certain on 1841 census -although-as Anna pointed out it is unusual for the wife to be listed last

Of course, enumerators didn't always follow instructions to the letter

Suz

[yelkcub]

Thanks for replies received so far. For information, the record I am referring to runs like this:

Henry Page                 50       Ind
George Vempenny      25       MS
Thomas Page              15       grocer
Horace [do]                 12
William [do]                  9
Francis Downey            8                     [a grandson]
Jane Page                    50
Catherine Stokesbury  25       FS

There is probably a simple explanation, and wondering whether Jane might have been a sister rather than Henry's wife might be clutching at straws!
Best wishes
Ian

[avm228]

Yes, impossible to tell really.  Do you have them in 1851 (or evidence of the name of Thomas/Horace/William's mother)?

Because there weren't any daughters - or even granddaughters - listed, the household you cite would be consistent with the "all male family members listed before all females" approach which I have seen, albeit rarely (my 3rd example above).

Definitely more investigation called for!

Anna

[yelkcub]

In 1851 Henry was listed as a widower, living only with his granddaughter (another Downey). I think I find baptisms for Horace and William, in which the mother's name =  Jane. The trouble is, I have bombarded GRO for records of Jane Page's death between 1841 and 1851, giving them the 1841 address (20 Bury St, Westminster) and the husband's name, and I haven't yet found her. Brick wall or what?
Ian

[trish1120]

Just throwing this in but presume you have tried this one;


Death;

Jane PAGE, March 1843, St.James, Westminster,  1 88

Possible for Henry;

Henry PAGE, aged 79, born circa 1791,
Jul/Aug/Sept qtr.  September 1870, Hackney, Greater London, Middlesex,  1b 331

There is the possibility that Jane was not at address you quoted at time of her death.

Trish

[behindthefrogs]

There is of course an obvious answer.  The enumerator when copying out the return missed out the wife but discovered his error whilest checking and added her to the end.

David

[yelkcub]

You could be right, David - not the brightest of enumerators, judging from the small sample evident on the same page as my family ... and atrocious handwriting. 'Jane' appears as 'Lane' and 'Horace' is indescribable!
Ian