Goldie - leaving aside for a moment the fact that I have absolutely no relevant knowledge of this question .... I do have a conceivable story that makes sense of what you described (I think). How about Jemima is not "helping out" her sister, the child does not live there, but just happened to be there visiting aunt and grandparents for a few days and therefore was enumerated there. And the reason for using the common surname in that household was that no one thought it was important enough to make it clear to the census taker about the relationship of the child, or maybe they were illiterate and had no idea what he wrote down. No need to try to for some complicated explanation when simple reasons can work too! Regards - Glen C. Bodie Web http://Bodie.CA Home mailto:glen@glenbodie.com or mailto:Glen.Bodie@gmail.com Cell mailto:TyTN@Bodie.ca (no attachments) Snail Mail: 76 Strathcona Ave, Toronto, Ontario, Canada M4J 1G8 -----Original Message----- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 15:10:14 -0800 From: "goldie and Lido Doratti" <lidogold2@shaw.ca> Subject: [ABERDEEN] Picking some brains here... To: <aberdeen@rootsweb.com> What would be the chances, do you suppose, of a female on the 1901 census who was married being listed under her maiden name? I have a Duthie in Cruden with his sister-in-law Eliz Walker who is given as 'Domestic Housekeeping', and 2 of John's daughters. In Peterhead I have the parents to Eliz Walker, then a Walker, Jemima also a Domestic servant (I know she belongs to the family) and another Duthie child given as Granddaughter. I dislike the word assume.........but it looks like Jemima is at home with her parents and has taken a child with her, while her sister keeps house in Cruden with their other 2 children. I can understand the sisters helping out a sister so that makes sense to me. But, again, why is she showing up as WALKER, not Duthie? Was it still done in 1901? Bear with me, I'm coming down the home stretch here with the Walkers.....Then I'm going undercover for a month or more....I hope. Goldie