Author Topic: surprise sister - Invalid ?  (Read 381 times)

Online josey

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,820
  • Looking to the past - or the future?
    • View Profile
Re: surprise sister - Invalid ?
« Reply #9 on: Wednesday 22 July 20 12:00 BST (UK) »
Invalid would probably have been noted in the right most column.
Seeking: baptism Philip Murray Feb ish 1814 said to be nr Chatham Kent.
IRE: Kik DRAY[EA], PURCELL, WHITE: Mea LYNCH: Tip MURRAY, SHEEDY: Wem ALLEN, ENGLISHBY; Dub PENROSE: Lim DUNN[E], FRAWLEY, WILLIAMS.
87th Regiment RIF: MURRAY
ENG; Marylebone HAYTER, TROU[W]SDALE, WILLIAMS Con HAMPTON, TREMELLING Wry CLEGG, HOLLAND, HORSEFIELD Coventry McGINTY
CAN; Nova Scotia [Halifax, Pictou]: HOLLAND, WHITE, WILLIAMSON

Offline JenB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,804
    • View Profile
Re: surprise sister - Invalid ?
« Reply #10 on: Wednesday 22 July 20 12:07 BST (UK) »
Invalid would probably have been noted in the right most column.

Yes, the column in which the word is entered is headed 'Condition', i.e.were they married, unmarried, or widowed.
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Girl Guide

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,881
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: surprise sister - Invalid ?
« Reply #11 on: Wednesday 22 July 20 12:39 BST (UK) »
Definitely unmarried.

What intrigues me is that if you go to the end column of whether blind or deaf and dumb, everyone on the page, apart from two of them, appears to have a tick in that column  :o

Not sure if that is truly the case, or whether the enumerator was using the column for some other purpose.
Ashford: Somerset, London
England: Devon, London, New Zealand
Holdway: Wiltshire
Hooper: Bristol, Somerset
Knowling: Devon, London
Southcott: Devon, China
Strong: Wiltshire
Watson: Cambridgeshire
White: Bristol
Windo - Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire


Offline JenB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 14,804
    • View Profile
Re: surprise sister - Invalid ?
« Reply #12 on: Wednesday 22 July 20 14:18 BST (UK) »
What intrigues me is that if you go to the end column of whether blind or deaf and dumb, everyone on the page, apart from two of them, appears to have a tick in that column  :o

Not sure if that is truly the case, or whether the enumerator was using the column for some other purpose.

I think the ticks have been added later by someone compiling statistical information from the entries.

The ink is a different intensity to that on the rest of the page.
The ticks only appear against people born in Ireland.
Exactly the same appears on earlier and subsequent pages.
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Girl Guide

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,881
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: surprise sister - Invalid ?
« Reply #13 on: Wednesday 22 July 20 14:40 BST (UK) »
Ah right, so being used for some other purpose.  I must admit I didn't look at any of the other pages to see if they were the same.

Makes sense if it was for statistical purposes.
Ashford: Somerset, London
England: Devon, London, New Zealand
Holdway: Wiltshire
Hooper: Bristol, Somerset
Knowling: Devon, London
Southcott: Devon, China
Strong: Wiltshire
Watson: Cambridgeshire
White: Bristol
Windo - Gloucestershire, Somerset, Wiltshire