In a message dated 23/10/2009 17:51:33 GMT Daylight Time, amdick@web.de writes: Does anyone know whether it can be assumed that a married woman who is described in the census as 'Head of household', and whose husband is known to have been still living, was living apart from him? My ancestor Janet Dick was described as such in the 1911 census, living in John Street, Newcastle, with sons John William and George. Her husband John William Dick and their daughter Beatrice are listed as son and grand-daughter of John Goldsmith (who was in fact John William's step-father), in Jefferson Street, Newcastle. They could, of course, been visiting – but could it be that he'd gone home to mummy? Similarly, Hannah Johnson is described as Head in the 1881 census for Westgate, and her husband Adam (who died in 1905) is nowhere to be found. In both cases there is circumstantial evidence that there may have been a separation. While in the case you mention a "de facto" separation could be the solution, I would always say that the census simply tells us the situation as it was on census night. The mother may have been "Head" because she was the "most senior" family member at home on that particular night. The reason for her husband's absence might be that he was away on a visit, either near or far, but he may have been away in connection with his work - not just "on night shift", in which case he should have been enumerated as if he were at home, but away for some time, such as a sailor, a travelling salesman or a main-line engine driver might be - or someone who as "on the stage" as an actor or as an entertainer of some sort. He might have been in hospital or in prison, or he might have been away in the army or navy. In any of those cases the mother would have been left to look after the children until he returned and would be "pro tem" the Head of the Household. Geoff Nicholson