SOG-UK-L Archives

Archiver > SOG-UK > 1998-10 > 0908923383


From: Geoffrey <>
Subject: [SOG-UK-L] Relationship query
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 1998 23:43:03 +0100


At 04:17 PM 8/10/1998 +0100, you wrote:
>I am puzzled by the following entry from the 1881 Census:
>
>Patrick Surname Head Mar 59 Ireland, Kildare
>Margaret Surname Boarder Mar 26 Lancashire, Bedford
>Margaret Surname Grand Dau 4 Lancashire, Bedford
>
>I had expected to find Patrick's wife but found someone with his surname
>listed as Boarder and a Grand daughter by the same name. The confusion
>is compounded by the fact that Margaret Newname age 20 (formerly
>Surname), who was Patrick's daughter, is living married to James Newname
>not a mile away. Why so many Maragarets? and why would an in-law (if
>that is who the elder Margaret living under Patrick's roof is) be listed
>as Boarder? Do I recall there is a legal nicety distinguishing between a
>Boarder and a Lodger - something about sharing a kitchen? Any
>enlightenment would be appreciated.
>
>David Prakel (researching Surname - only joking!)
>

You ask two questions here:-
One about the legal nicety re a Boarder and a Lodger, which I can't answer
and the other regarding the reason why somebody who could have been his
daughter was described as Boarder.

I believe that at that time the census returns were filled in by the
enumerator, possibly on the doorstep, as the head of the household answered
his questions. No multi-page forms left for the householder to complete in
those days.

This is the reason why so many names are spelled inconsistently and if he
mis-heard, then an error was made. I would suggest that the response might
have been daughter and then mistakenly written as boarder. This now raises
the question regarding whether he had two daughters called Margaret.

So may be it wasn't his daughter but his absent or dead son's daughter,
i.e. his daughter-in-law. Well she wasn't his own daughter and not quite
related and only temporary, so boarder is good enough. I could speculate
further on this but you may already know whether he had a son, possibly
with a wife called Margaret. Otherwise go back to possibility one, that
daughter-in-law was misheard.

Somebody else more knowledgeable than me might comment, but I am not
convinced that they went too far into the legal nicety between lodgers and
boarders, but some enumerators were more careful and diligent than others.

Regards
Geoff

Geoffrey Stone, SoG Mailing List Administrator.

This thread: