We welcome any query on Who When Where. If you have previously posted it on another forum (including the old WDYTYA forum), please state this in your opening post - this will save people redoing the research which has been done before: they can look at it and possibly go further with it.
I mentioned this some time ago but have some extra ideas and would be grateful for any thoughts...
The 1911 census sheet for my 2xgreat grandfather and his family includes another family of four (2 parents, 2 young children). The second family are not obviously related, and the husband is shown as 'head' as he would in previous census. In theory they should have their own census sheet but the enumerator has scribbled 'family boards together' across the bottom so he must have queried and been satisfied with the explanation. I wish I knew what it was!
Despite my very extensive efforts to find a connection between these individual, I can't prove they are family. However, I read that a boarder shares the table with the landlord while lodgers have a private space and fend for themselves. So, I'm wondering if it's possible that this other family aren't really related but are unofficially sub-letting space. Has anyone seen this phrase before and does this sound a possible explanation? Or am I destined to roam the past looking for the true explanation
Never seen 'family boards together' but I'm sure that's what a boarder is - they sit down at the same table (the board?) whereas a lodger is responsible for finding their own food (think about "board and lodging", which implies "board" is something extra to "lodging".) Certainly, it's typical in Crewe to find unrelated boarders in houses - often young railwaymen (naturally, in Crewe!)
Of course, without a TARDIS, you'll never satisfy yourself that X was boarding while Y was only lodging....
I’d go along with Adrian. The difference betweeb Boarding and Lodging, is that a Boarder is provided with accommodation AND Food, whereas a lodger is just provided with accommodation. i.e. Boarding house versus a hotel.
Thanks chaps. I may never know for sure but in the absence of a clear family linkage (and I’ve worked through all the usual connections) I admit defeat.
8. Persons who are to receive schedules printed in black
a) Every head of a family occupying whole or part of a house or flat
b) Every separate lodger occupying a room or rooms in a house or flat and not boarding with a family in the house (when two or more lodgers share a room or rooms they must be treated for Census purposes as a "family").
c)...
d)...
e)...
The items in bold above are in bold on the Instruction, so the distinction is made that boarders were not to receive a separate census schedule to fill out, but lodgers were.
The schedule itself instructs the householder to include the name and surname of "every person, whether Member of Family, Visitor, Boarder or Servant", and on the back of the form (but cropped off on the FmP/Ancestry images) under the part where the enumerator fills out the address etc is the word NOTICE, and within that notice it says "If a house be let or sub-let to two or more occupiers, each occupier of a part of the house must fill up a schedule for his part of the house. Boarders are not to be considered separate occupiers"
Therefore because the two families board together, they would be classed as one household and given only one form.
Thanks, Avaline. That’s a nice and clear explanation. I can’t find a family connection, and I’ve tried, so I still don’t know of the Morgans are family or friends of the Lees.
