Further to this question, I should have added that both are listed as Dressmaker - so they could be partners in a business - but surely that wouldn't be recorded in the "Relation to Head of Family" column? Brian Binns From: Brian Binns [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: 07 February 2012 12:36 To: '[email protected]'; '[email protected]' Subject: Partner A question. I have found a female on the 1891 census living with another female of a similar age. One is listed as "head" the other as "partner." I cannot get away from treating the word partner in its 21st century meaning, but am I wrong in applying that to a 19th century relationship. Did this word have a standard meaning in Victorian times, or am I reading into this something that just isn't there. Brian Binns _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12 _____ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2112/4793 - Release Date: 02/06/12

Hi Brian I would look in other years but personally I doubt if two women (or men for that matter) would publicly state they were having a relationship other than a business or other connection If one was down as head the other may not have wanted to be enumerated as an underling or minor in the house Remembering that all the pages we see before 1911 are a transcript of the household schedule Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) PS Notts list address deleted > Further to this question, I should have added that both are listed as > Dressmaker - so they could be partners in a business - but surely that > wouldn't be recorded in the "Relation to Head of Family" column? > > > > Brian Binns