The instructions to census enumerators in 1861 were that lodgers, with or without a family, were to be treated as a separate occupier and their household was to be shown with a short single line (just to the left of the name column) to divide them from any other occupier - as opposed to the two short lines used to separate people living in different houses. (The 1851 instructions required lines of different lengths across the page rather than the short single or double lines.) See www.histpop.org and click on the Browse tab, then select "TNA Enumerators' Books" from the left-hand menu - then you can choose a census year and see examples of documents for different types of return pages, including the instructions to the enumerator. If you select "TNA Census - Other" there are examples of the household schedules which were destroyed after the enumerator had copied them all and further instructions to various people. If you follow "Browse > Essays > Great Britain > Census > Relationship to head of household" there is a good short essay on the subject. In my experience enumerators certainly did not always follow the instructions properly - particularly the one to "COPY VERY LEGIBLY ..."! Presumably the 80 year old boarder was considered part of the family after living with them ten years or so, even if she was not actually related to them. Best wishes, Celia OPC for Charlton Adam and Charlton Mackrell, Somerset www.charltons-mackrell-adam.org.uk >I'm wondering if anyone can comment on a household of James Vickery aged 45 >who I've just found in Buckland St Mary in the 1861 census returns. There >were two non-family members, one described as a *boarder* (an 80-y-o >spinster, who by-the-way was with the family 10 years earlier, but was then >described as a lodger); and a 76-y-o widower, described as a *lodger*. > >I had previously assumed *boarder* and *lodger* were synonymous! > >Thanks, >Jenny