Changed her name then she was a he

[JenB]

Here is Frances Melville being admitted to Greenwich Workhouse on 12th December 1870. This time she is single and a charwoman.
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS2L-K9ZL-W?i=106&cat=1223449

And a discharge on 7th December 1871
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS2L-K962-N?i=259&cat=1223449

[JenB]

Died in the Workhouse 6th February 1876 aged 49

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:3Q9M-CS15-193S-X?i=356&cat=1223449

[LizzieL]

This doesn't tally with the given ages of the two sons James (5) and George (4) with Joseph and Ellen in the 1861 census, but there aren't any other births registered that do.
I wonder whether James was actually born a little earlier than the birth register suggests.

In 1871, George and James are both recorded as 13.

If James John was registered in 1st Quarter 1857, he must have been conceived after 30 Jan 1856 when Joseph Bowdidge married Ellen (stating he was a bachelor).
Looks like Joseph and Frances split up and then Joseph bigamously married Ellen. Frances claims she was Joseph's widow, when he was alive. Often done by an abandoned wife to save face.
The gap between Jane and James John, after having Joseph jnr , Jane and Samuel so quickly might make me think he was not Joseph's child. But if so, I would not expect him to be living with Joseph and Ellen, but to be with Frances.

[LizzieL]

Looking at the 1861 census, which was mentioned in the first post
Head of household is Jane McBride widow, then Samuel Melville widower, no relationship given, followed by two McBride children - son and daughter of head (Jane), next is James Melville unmarried age 43 listed as Son. Obviously not Jane McBride's son, presumably Samuel's son and Jane's brother. Clearly another mistake, but was that on the householder's form or when the enumerator copied it?
I've found plenty of relatives described as boarder or visitor instead of their actual relationship on census forms, so that wouldn't worry me unduly. Perhaps a way of showing she was paying for her keep, rather being supported by the head of household.  A married woman with an occupation listed was rare, perhaps the enumerator though Jane had made a mistake with gender, given that the name Frances / Francis is easily confused and mispelt.

[Gallicrow]

I suspect that James John Bowdidge was the child of Frances Melville/Bowdidge, probably with a different father than her husband and that Joseph Bowdidge and his second wife adopted him.

In the 1881 census (the last time I can find him), James John is described as an imbecile.

As usual the people on the periphery are more interesting than those in my direct line!

Thanks for information about the death of Frances Melville/Bowdidge, Jen. I found the entry for death in Q1 1876 in freebmd earlier today but then thought I saw a record of a Frances Melville being admitted into Greenwich Workhouse later in 1876 and so wasn't sure it was her. However now I've tried to find it again I can't

[phenolphthalein]

Apologies
shaunJ rightly says "That's not how the census was taken. The head of the household had to fill in an enumeration form which was then transcribed into the census book by the enumerator. Only if the head of the household was illiterate or otherwise had difficulty filling in the form would the enumerator provide assistance in filling in the form. "

That is THE point -- the census records we see are an at that time transcription or even a transcription of a transcription.

The original transcriber may have misread an "e" as an "i"
-- may have assumed in filling in unfilled details such as gender, relationship and occupation. 
He may have written up his books weeks later.

The handwriting rarely varies meaning many households were "written up" at the same time.
He did not stand at doorstep and write up his books.
Trying to read pages of hand script with no clue as to the writer's hand, use of expression, understanding of the form etc and no memory even of which household they were -- well it was just plain open for errors wasn't it?

 If someone was not listened to in a household -- well an ignorant householder or uncaring husband could say anything.

I have an ancestor born Cornwall no place -- did hubby not ask -- could he not spell it -- did she not know -- did census takers in Deptford just not get the placename when they were transcribing and thought just Cornwall will do.

Also the records were not written for us and our descendants
nor our ancestors but merely for government statistics.

Otherwise, maybe, she did all that just to be employed and paid a semi-decent wage?
Brave lady if so.

Apologies and regards
pH

[Gallicrow]

James John Bowdidge might have lived much longer than I suspected - there's a record of a James Bowditch (very common mis-spelling of Bowdidge) being buried in Horton Asylum in Morden, Surrey, in April 1914. Horton Asylum was a psychiatric hospital and just the sort of place I'd imagine an imbecile would have ended up when his immediate family died or could no longer take care of him. I'll have to look into this one.

[JenB]

Thanks for information about the death of Frances Melville/Bowdidge, Jen. I found the entry for death in Q1 1876 in freebmd earlier today but then thought I saw a record of a Frances Melville being admitted into Greenwich Workhouse later in 1876 and so wasn't sure it was her. However now I've tried to find it again I can't

Ancestry have her death date as 6th September 1876, rather than 6th February 1876. perhaps that's what you saw?

I can't yet see an admission for her before her death.

[markheal]

Apologies
shaunJ rightly says "That's not how the census was taken. The head of the household had to fill in an enumeration form which was then transcribed into the census book by the enumerator. Only if the head of the household was illiterate or otherwise had difficulty filling in the form would the enumerator provide assistance in filling in the form. "

That is THE point -- the census records we see are an at that time transcription or even a transcription of a transcription.

The original transcriber may have misread an "e" as an "i"
-- may have assumed in filling in unfilled details such as gender, relationship and occupation. 
He may have written up his books weeks later.

The handwriting rarely varies meaning many households were "written up" at the same time.
He did not stand at doorstep and write up his books.
Trying to read pages of hand script with no clue as to the writer's hand, use of expression, understanding of the form etc and no memory even of which household they were -- well it was just plain open for errors wasn't it?

 If someone was not listened to in a household -- well an ignorant householder or uncaring husband could say anything.

I have an ancestor born Cornwall no place -- did hubby not ask -- could he not spell it -- did she not know -- did census takers in Deptford just not get the placename when they were transcribing and thought just Cornwall will do.

Also the records were not written for us and our descendants
nor our ancestors but merely for government statistics.

Otherwise, maybe, she did all that just to be employed and paid a semi-decent wage?
Brave lady if so.

Apologies and regards
pH

phenolphthalein,
Thankyou for your clear explanation of the process.