Unusual census status

[andrewalston]

Just came across a newspaper report of one of my lot being acquitted of buying beer after hours, so looked up the 1891 census to see which pub it was.
There is licensee Rully Tunks, as mentioned in court, on RG10/3074 folio 146 page 31, as Head of Household.
Just underneath her, is the entry for:
Samuel A Tunks, Husband, M, Joiner.

It's the first time I've come across a family described this way. Has anyone else come across one?

[jaybelnz]

Don't have an answer for you, but as she held the licence she may well have been the head of house.
It was also the late 1800's at which time the suffragettes were certainly doing their thing!

Jeanne 

[stanmapstone]

RG10/3074 folio 146 page 31,

Just to say it is RG12/3074 folio 146 page 31,


Stan

[stanmapstone]

This is what it says on the 1891 Census Schedule, note that it says "Occupier or person in charge of the dwelling" As she was the license holder, perhaps she assumed that "in charge of the dwelling"  meant her.

Stan

[jaybelnz]

Stan I think you're right! But looking at those rules, I don't think it would an assumption on her part, or the census taker's part. Surely as the licence holder, she would indeed be considered to be the responsible person in charge!

Jeanne 

[stanmapstone]

The part of the schedule to be filled in has different wording, and "husband" is not allowed for.
Stan

[Galium]

Queen Victoria (Victoria R) lists herself as head of household in 1861. Albert is 'husband'.

[stanmapstone]

Relationships are not shown in 1841, but in 1851 Victoria is above Albert but she is shown as "Wife" and he is shown as "Head".
1841 The Queen HO107; Piece 740; Book: 9; Folio: 3; Page: 1; Enumeration District: Buckingham Palace.
1851 Her Majesty Alexandrina Victoria at Buckingham Palace HO107 piece 1478 folio 645 page 19 Albert is shown as the Head, Victoria as Wife.

Stan

[jaybelnz]

Husband "not allowed for" in my schedule" either!!  It would be a waste of space!