|
#1
01-02-14, 22:14
|
||||
|
||||
Interesting 1911 census...
This is a distant relative of mine. Looks like her husband wasn't very impressed with the census form...
http://interactive.ancestry.co.uk/23...nSearchResults On filling in the "Marital condition" column: "Most absurd to have to state married when husband and wife are stated." They also had a sick nurse staying with them and it doesn't look as though he wanted to ask how long she had been married and the number of children she'd had. "How can I tell and I decline to ask her." Apologies to any of her ancestors who were hoping the 1911 census would give them some clues. 
|
|
#2
02-02-14, 07:58
|
||||
|
||||
|
Your relative may not have asked Louise Reece about her children etc but it doesn't look as if he was adverse to asking her age (34 doesn't sound like a guess), which I would have thought might have been almost as intrusive! I think he may have the wrong spelling for her surname though as she doesn't seem to exist anywhere else spelled Reece.
I'm afraid to say he sounds a rather too pedantic person - I'm glad I wasn't there when he moaned and groaned about the form!! Very interesting though 
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#3
02-02-14, 08:32
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
"Something has been filled in that I didn't know was blank" Matthew Broderick WDYTYA? March 2010
|
|
#4
02-02-14, 10:33
|
||||
|
||||
|
He does seem rather pedantic! His wife died in April 1911 so perhaps it wasn't a very happy time for them when the census was done. It was obviously wife's last few days as she was buried on the 13th April.
He was also quite clear that one of the servants was only there on a temporary basis. Quite glad it is the wife that is my relative and he is just a "married-in". 
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
