This is the entry:
1891 Susan E Saville b1860 Great Dunmow, Essex. Single. Relation: Housekeeper.
Son: Arthur W Berry 8 Transcribed as Davis.
Dau: Ethel P Berry 5
2 St Helen’s Place. Civil par: Tottenham Ecc parish: Trinity Middx
Reg district: Edmonton Sub-reg district: Tottenham
ED, institution: 22
Household at No 1 St Helen’s Place:
William H Davis 69
Mary Davis 72
Mary A Davis 42
Edward Downing 26
The transcriber has assumed:
1. The children in No 2 belong to the family at No 1 and has called them Davis. I think their name reads as Berry or something similar. They look to be part of Susan's family and are her illigitimate or adopted children? Or the relationship has been written incorrectly?
2. Can you read what it says in the occupation part of Susan Saville's entry?
3. Her relationship is Housekeeper. How does the transcriber know it is to No 1 she is housekeeper to and not No 3? She is in a separate numbered house.
I have to be away from puter now for a good while so can I leave you with this? Many thanks
1891 Susan E Saville b1860 Great Dunmow, Essex. Single. Relation: Housekeeper.
Son: Arthur W Berry 8 Transcribed as Davis.
Dau: Ethel P Berry 5
2 St Helen’s Place. Civil par: Tottenham Ecc parish: Trinity Middx
Reg district: Edmonton Sub-reg district: Tottenham
ED, institution: 22
Household at No 1 St Helen’s Place:
William H Davis 69
Mary Davis 72
Mary A Davis 42
Edward Downing 26
The transcriber has assumed:
1. The children in No 2 belong to the family at No 1 and has called them Davis. I think their name reads as Berry or something similar. They look to be part of Susan's family and are her illigitimate or adopted children? Or the relationship has been written incorrectly?
2. Can you read what it says in the occupation part of Susan Saville's entry?
3. Her relationship is Housekeeper. How does the transcriber know it is to No 1 she is housekeeper to and not No 3? She is in a separate numbered house.
I have to be away from puter now for a good while so can I leave you with this? Many thanks
Comment