1841 census problem

[Pauline]

I have just entered a family into Lost Cousins from the 1841 census, and then realised that there is an issue with the entry in the enumerator's book which may mean I have entered them incorrectly.

The family is called WOOD and they lived in Merstham, Surrey - HO 107 1076/13 Fo: 12 p 16. The father and mother and the oldest child appear at the bottom of the right hand page.

I had zoomed in to read this RH page, and when I moved to the next image to find the rest of the family (which included a married daughter with her husband & child), I hadn't realised I was again viewing a RH page - Fo: 13 p 18, and so entered the whole family under the same reference as usual.

But it seems that somehow the family has been split across two RH pages, with people from other households listed on the intervening LH page - possibly continuing from the previous LH page.

So I should I change the reference for those on the second RH page, and list the two halves of this family as two separate households?

As well as this, I wasn't sure if I should have entered a different reference anyway for the married daughter and her family. A single diagonal line separates them from her parents and siblings, indicating that they are a different family living in the same house. So as far as Lost Cousins is concerned, does that mean they are in the same household or a different one?

 

[peter]

Yes, you should keep the Wood and Payne households separate. In 1841 the enumerator issued a single schedule per house, but different households were still entered separately on the form. On the enumeration schedule there should be a double dash between houses, and a single dash between households, but (as in this case) not every enumerator followed the instructions.

As far as the parents and their children are concerned, they should all be entered as one household using the references for the first page - the fact that there is a page in between doesn't affect this (only someone who knows the Wood family well will be able to identify the three children on page 18 as no surname is given).

I haven't looked into this in detail, but my guess is that the enumerator turned over two or more pages by mistake, then went back and filled in the blank pages - however someone might be able to come up with a better explanation.

 

[Pauline]

Yes, you should keep the Wood and Payne households separate

OK, I've now got that sorted. There weren't any new matches on either family but there may be in the future.

Many thanks.