>>No, it isn't. I really wish these enumerators had got their crystal balls out and realised that 120 years on, we'd be wanting to read these books <G><< Trouble was when they did this they didn't really expect anyone to read their annotations - it was just there to confirm that the entry had been enumerated under the appropriate heading and not just counted as a plain labourer for instance. And in fact as far as FHs go they aren't really of that much use, as in a lot of cases they are more general than the occupation actually given. The only person interested in them today would be the obsessive historian/statistician who wanted to check the figures in the census reports for a given area - and good luck to them, I say! Polly

Polly Rubery wrote: > Trouble was when they did this they didn't really expect anyone to read > their annotations - it was just there to confirm that the entry had been > enumerated under the appropriate heading and not just counted as a plain > labourer for instance. > > And in fact as far as FHs go they aren't really of that much use, as in a > lot of cases they are more general than the occupation actually given. The > only person interested in them today would be the obsessive > historian/statistician who wanted to check the figures in the census reports > for a given area - and good luck to them, I say! I agree they were purely for statistical purposes, nevertheless, it's good that we can see them although lumping various occupations under a group heading is not especially helpful. Whilst they have a limited use as far as occupations go, the info on family groups, esp in the 1911, is helpful. BTW, you aren't suggesting family historians are obsessive, are you? ;)) -- Charani (UK) OPC for Walton, Greinton and Clutton, SOM Asst OPC for Ashcott and Shapwick, SOM http://wsom-opc.org.uk

>>BTW, you aren't suggesting family historians are obsessive, are you? ;))<< No need to suggest it's a known fact isn't it?...:-) Polly