Helped needed to understand 1871 census

[Keith Bateman]

Hi All,

Can anyone help with the following 1871 census record:
RG10/1351 Folio 9 Pages 9 & 10
My lot are at the bottom of page 9 - the Campkin family - there is then an empty line - as I couldn't see the folio number on this page I looked at the next page - this had another Campkin - then what looks like the start of a new household the Cass family - however they are listed as sons and grandsons!!

Do you think it is a mistake and they should be under/with the next family which is also the Cass lot - and what looks like a second marrage for Sarah.

Understand all that? - when you look at the census it will all become clear - I hope!!

Cheers

Keith

[Headbanger Veron]

It's an odd looking set-up but I think it looks as if first Cass family just don't have their head of household at home that night. Joseph Cass in the first lot can't possibly be the son of Thomas in the second lot because Thomas is only 14 years older than he is, and if he was Sarah's son he would have a different surname unless her first husband had been Mr Cass as well! I can't find a suitable head of household anywhere else in Ware though. I have seen that before though, when the head of household just isn't there, usually when he's away in the navy or something

No idea why the enumerator put little Florence Campkin on the next page rather than the empty line on page 9, maybe he just made a mistake. She must belong with your family. Maybe the Cass's will just have to remain a mystery!

Cheers Veron

[Dragonlore]

Keith,

Don't like to make it easy for us do they?   

I wondered whether giving Joseph a new schedule number, indicates a new household if not house. 

He could only be son to Sarah (I'd venture) since no one else seems old enough but earlier censuses ( ) show his mother as Mary.

I'm not helping, am I? 

[g a r]

Sarah Cass, at 56 is certainly of an age to have had Jospeh(30) before she married Thomas Cass. The son listed as Thomas could have been fathered by Thomas Cass sr. How George as grandson fits in isn't exactly clear. And niece Emma gets the last slot.

The 1851 entry reveals Thomas Cass (1871 HoF) living with a brother Joseph, 13 years his senior. Joseph has sons Joseph and Thomas who would be the right ages for the 1871 entry.

gar

[Keith Bateman]

Hi all,

Thanks for those comments - I think!! 

Will peruse the answers in the morning and see - it's just that I happen to have a couple of Cass family already and wondered if they could all be related - think I will have to go back a bit further.

Once again thanks

Cheers

Keith

[g a r]

Hi Keith,

Living in Ware at Bridge Foot 1851 are

Joseph Cass 35 barge builder his wife and children all born Ware
Mary 36
George 12
Joseph 10
John 9 and
Thomas 10 (ms - months?)
as well as cousin Sarah Pike 30 unmarried and
brother Thomas 22 unmarried - labourer

Mary(44) young Joseph(20) and Thomas(10) all together in 1861

Thomas(35) and Sarah(48) - (the pair from the 1871 entry) are together with 12 year old niece Mary Laurance in 1861 living at Bridge foot

No sign of Joseph senior or John.

hope this helps,
g a r