Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Question about "Relation to the head of family" en
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Kevin | Report | 14 Apr 2010 09:27 |
|
Fairly new to this, I believe I've found my great grandfather living as a boarder in 1891, and a visitor in 190. |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 14 Apr 2010 12:07 |
|
But be aware that people who were actually family members were sometimes recorded as 'visitor' or even 'boarder'. I've seen brothers, sisters and in laws recorded like that. |
|||
|
InspectorGreenPen | Report | 14 Apr 2010 12:24 |
|
Yes, I have come across that many times. Usual situation is that a relative is away from their normal place of abode, so sister staying overnight with her brother's family is recorded as visitor. |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 14 Apr 2010 13:02 |
|
On census returns the term "son-in-law" or "daughter-in-law" often meant what we would class as "step-son" or "step-daughter" these days. So if the term son-in-law is shown next to a child when it's obvious that the child is too young to be married then step-son is the most likely explanation. |
|||