'Unusual' Census Listing Order?

[Steve G]

 On the 1891, it has listed for 51, Station St, Portsea;

" Jassalend Gates ~ Wife ~ Boarding House Keeper.

Frederick do ~ Head ~ General Labourer.

Someone or other ~ Visitor ...

Another, presumed Lodger.

Blah ..... Servant girl "


  How come they've put the wife at the top and the Head below? I've never come across this before.

 Best of all; Search for our Freddy boy there on the '91, on Ancestry - where this comes from - and, on their transcription sheet, Jasser doesn't even get a mention. It simply kicks off with Fred the Head and gives the following impression that he's shacked up with three, unrelated females.

 Anyone care to take a stab at explaining this, please?

[stanmapstone]

The enumerator fills in his book by copying from the householder's schedule, he probably just made a mistake and entered the wife first.

Stan 

[carol8353]

Or the head considers his wife more important than himself 

Seeing as she's the 'boss' and he's a labourer,that's probably quite true!

[Shropshire Lass]

Or maybe the wife filled in the forms and she decided she was more important than her husband!

[geniecolgan]

Perhaps it was something to do with enfranchisement or who paid the rates and taxes 

[Steve G]

Well, cheers, all. At least no one feels there's anything intrinsically wrong with the listing. Though I'm still having a spot of bother tying him in with this Jassalend. No marriage for them. (She's Dutch, so who knows?) And I do have a certified, earlier marriage for him and can't seem to kill that wife off.

 Complicated case, this one. Then it goes and throws up an anomaly like that.
 

[LizzieW]

When we used to have to fill in the form for inclusion on the electoral role, I always put myself first.  Why not?  Whose rule is it that the husband always has to be listed first.

Lizzie