The family of George THOMAS and Rose Hannah HAYNES

We're now at the end of week 17 of the year and I am only just posting what should have been week 10 of my "52 ancestors and their descendants".  Stuff Happens! 🙂

I am glad I have attempted the "52 ancestors in 52 weeks" principle again, even if I wasn't sticking to the suggested topics.  But it is clear to me that I currently do not have the research documented well enough to try working to that schedule.  Hence I won't be including that as part of the title anymore and will remove the badge from the blog, as well.  From now on, I shall just be posting about my ancestors, and their descendants, as and when it suits the research carried out.

Anyway, on with my second set of paternal great grandparents, my Dad's maternal grandparents, George THOMAS and Rose Hannah HAYNES.

George and Rose were married on the 25th December 1895, in Bromyard parish Church.  Although Rose Hannah's names had been recorded as "Rose Hannah" at her birth, and "Rosannah" in the 1881 census, perhaps indicating that the family did make common use of her middle name, at her marriage only the name "Rose" is recorded:

The 1895 marriage certificate of George THOMAS & Rose HAYNES

Marriage dates like this always tend to stand out, when I come across them in the records.  Why marry on the 25th December - Christmas Day? It is probably not a date that many of us in the UK these days would consider getting married on.

But, in George and Rose Hannah's time, there weren't the 'holiday entitlements' that the majority of working folk enjoy now.  Most people worked six days a week and, if they didn't work, they didn't get paid.  So taking time off to get married was often not an option.  Weddings were therefore planned for the few public holidays that existed.

When George and Rose Hannah married, George was 24, working as a carter and living at Stoke Bliss, and Rose was 21, a domestic servant, resident in Bromyard.  The certified copy of the certificate that I have was hand written in 1980, so does not contain any of the genuine signatures, but it appears that both George and Rose, as well as their two witnesses, Henry JAMES and Lilly THOMAS (probably one of George's sisters) were able to sign for themselves.

George and Rose's first child, Edith, was born on the 30th October 1896.  At that time they were living at Brick Barns, Underley, Wolferlow, in Herefordshire.

In the 1891 census, there were three properties called "Underley" (Lower, Middle and Upper), as well as two cottages called "Underley Cottage"  The Brick Barns were enumerated in between Middle Underley and Upper Underley and two of George's sisters, Matilda and Annie, were working as servants at Upper Underley.  The two girls were living with the family of a Samuel JONES.  But a William BALDWIN lived at Lower Underley and I believe, from family stories, that various members of the THOMAS family have worked for the BALDWINs over the years.

Both Upper Underley and Lower Underley are listed buildings, the former a medieval hall house, the latter dating from the late eighteenth century.  A barn to the north west of Lower Underley, dating from the early nineteenth century, is also a listed building. Described as a "large red brick barn with twin gabled wing. Tile roof with gable ends," one wonders if this might have been where George and Rose were living when Edith was born.

However, based on the enumeration order, since "Middle Underley" was further north than the listed barn (which is within the same group of buildings as Lower Underley), it seems more likely that the relevant "Brick Barns" was closer to Upper Underley.

George and Rose's second child, Ernest, was born on the 2nd May 1899.  The address this time is just given as Underley, Wolferlow, so it is impossible to identify which of the Underley properties the family were living in.

But when their third child, Hilda Mary, is born on the 13th November 1900, their address is again listed as Brick Barns, Underley, so it seems plausible they had been living there all the time.

By the time of the 1901 census, the family had moved to Coombs Wood, Collington - still in Herefordshire.  I suspect this was somewhere in the region identified as "Cwm Wood" on contemporary maps.

It was here that my grandmother, Elsie May, was born on the 3rd April 1902.  George, who had been described as a "general laborer" for their first three children's births, was this time described as a "Farmer".

However, when their fifth child, Ada Annie, was born on the 20th April 1904, his occupation was once again "General Laborer".  George was the informant for each of these births so one wonders why the variation.  Perhaps, as I have found with other ancestors, George was engaged in some small scale farming for himself, whilst also labouring on behalf of an employer, so both occupations were correct.

Matilda Jane was the next child, born on the 17th May 1906, followed by Emily, on the 25th April 1908. Emily's is the first birth registered by their mother, Rose.  One suspects registration had initially been forgotten, as the birth isn't registered until the 11th June 1908, five days over the 42 day time limit.  They might have been fined for this late registration, but perhaps there was some leeway as to when fines were applied.  Since the Registrar was the same one who had registered all of their previous children, he would be in a position to identify that they were not generally a family who were 'non-compliant', so I hope he was able to waive the fine.  (I wonder if the Registrars kept records of fines?)

On the 30th April 1910, the eighth child and second son, George John, was born.

The 1911 census shows the family at "Coombs Wood in Whitbourne, Worcester" - I suspect this is yet another case where the family haven't moved but the county boundary (at least, administratively for the census) has!  Present are George, Rose, Ernest, Hilda, Elsie, Ada, Matilda, Emily and George.

The oldest daughter, Edith, aged 14, is working as a general domestic servant at Butterley Mill Bromyard.  Although it is often difficult to identify individuals working as servants away from their families, I think the fact that Edith's birth place is recorded as "Barn House Woffellow", I can be quite confident about this entry.🙂

In the years following the census, two further children were born, both girls, Olive, on the 5th December 1912, and finally, Dorothy Rose, on the 1st June 1915.

From my point of view, there is a benefit from this number of children being in the family - it has led to there being many descendants, which increases the chances of some of them deciding to take a DNA test.

George and Rose had twenty nine grandchildren (that I know of) and I am aware of at least fifty two other great grandchildren.  Since these great grandchildren are all within the range of 'siblings to second cousins' to me, any of them that take a DNA test should show up as matching me.

Already, I have a cluster of "shared matches" as a result, and any new matches that also match people in this cluster can therefore be identified as connected to my THOMAS/HAYNES ancestral lines in some way, even if I don't know the exact link.

It is wonderful to be able to confirm my genealogy through the use of DNA like this.


References
Christmas Day weddings - https://www.findmypast.co.uk/blog/discoveries/christmas-day-weddings

Historic England Listings for Underley, Herefordshire:
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/results/?searchType=NHLE+Simple&search=underley%2C+herefordshire

Census 
1891: (Matilda and Annie THOMAS) Class RG12; Piece: 2071; Folio: 12; Page: 2
1901: Class: RG13; Piece: 2491; Folio: 8; Page: 7
1911: Class: RG14; Piece: 15795; Schedule Number: 20
1911 (Edith): Class: RG14; Piece: 15787; Schedule Number: 50  

Ancestry DNA matches - passing 200 "4th cousins or closer"

I was planning to post an update to my Ancestry DNA match numbers when I reached 200 4th cousins or closer.

But clearly someone, somewhere, has a sense of humour!

Having been slowly creeping up towards 200 over the last few weeks....

....yesterday when I checked, the total had jumped from the previous day's 198, up by three to 201, thus missing out 200! 😀

An increase like this is what one might expect, when a group of family members all decide to test at the same time.  The closest match is a predicted third cousin to me and then the other two are both predicted 4th cousins.

I think it's the first time I've received such a batch of close matches, all on the same day.

Initially. all three matches showed with unlinked trees - but at least they were trees that featured, not just one of my surnames, ALLEN, but also the similar use of a particular middle name.   The trees have since been linked to the matches, so I can now identify the relationships between the three of them.

Another good thing was that, out of the nine other DNA matches shared between myself and the closest new match, I have already identified a common ALLEN ancestor with seven of them, and another one connects to the ALLEN surname, although we've not proved who the shared ancestor is yet.  The ninth match has two other shared matches, creating an isolated group that I hadn’t been able to link into an ancestral line, so perhaps these new matches might lead to the opportunity to do so.

One would think that, with all this information, the connection to the new matches should be obvious, but I didn't recognise the oldest ALLEN ancestor in their line. 

However, following some research today, I have now written to the match.  Potentially, if there is any doubt about the connection between their oldest two generations, then I might just have the answer. 🙂

2020 52anc. Wk 9: Rose Hannah HAYNES (1874-1958)

Rose Hannah HAYNES, one of my paternal great grandmothers, was born on the 20th December 1874, the daughter of George HAYNES and Caroline HARRIS.  At the time, the family were living at 16 Henry Street, St Mary, Cardiff, Glamorganshire.

By the time of the 1881 census, the family were living in Bromyard, Herefordshire - which is where both of Rose Hannah's parents had been born.  What they were doing in Cardiff at the time of her birth is currently unknown and mobility is always an interesting subject, so I'll try researching that when I consider her parents as a couple.

These are the 1881 census details:
[Class: RG11; Piece: 2601; Folio: 30; Page: 11;]
Bromyard, Herefordshire
Brick Clamp

Geo. Haynes, Head, Mar, 25, Ag Labourer, Herefordshire Bromyard

Caroline Haynes, Wife, Mar, 27, Herefordshire Bromyard

Rosannah Haynes, Daur, 6, Scholar, Cardiff

Albert Haynes, Son, 4, Herefordshire Bromyard

George Haynes, Son, 3, Herefordshire Bromyard

Emma Haynes, Daur, 1, Herefordshire Bromyard

So it is clear the family moved back to Bromyard relatively soon after Rose Hannah's birth and a baptism entry for "Rosanna Haynes", with the parents George and Caroline, took place in Bromyard on the 8 Nov 1875, so it is possibly safe to assume they had moved back by then.

Further siblings arrived in the years before the next census and I imagine Rose Hannah helped around the house and with her younger siblings. However, by 1891 she is out at work, as a domestic servant:

1891 census
[Class: RG12; Piece: 2070; Folio: 30; Page: 4; ]
Much Cowarne, Herefordshire, England
Leighton Court
(The DENT family, a farmer, with his wife and six children aged between 13 - 19)
Rose HAYNES, Serv, S, 19, General Servant Domestic, Wales Cardiff

I haven't just assumed that this is the correct entry, especially given the couple of years discrepancy on her age.  However, whilst searching on Ancestry for Ros* Haynes, +/-5 years of her birth year, and no birth place specified, does produce a number of results, none of them look likely to be an entry for "my" Rose Hannah in 1891, nor is there any person in the other years', or database, results, who could be this one in 1891.  So, at the moment, my conclusion is that either she had added a few years to her age, or there was just a mistake in recording it.  There are some other age variations across the various records for the family, which I shall look into in the future.

Her parents and siblings are still living at Brick Clamp in Bromyard in 1891:

[Class: RG12; Piece: 2069; Folio: 26; Page: 9;]
Brick Clamp, Bromyard
George Haynes, Head, M, 35, General Labourer, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Caroline Haynes, Wife, M, 38, Machinist, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Albert Haynes, Son, S, 16, Agricultural Labourer, Herefordshire, Bromyard
George Haynes, Son, 14, Agricultural Labourer, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Emily Haynes, Daur, 13, Scholar, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Henry Haynes, Son, 8,  Scholar, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Ann Haynes, Daur, 5, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Jane Haynes, Daur, 3, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Ernest Haynes, Son, 2, Herefordshire, Bromyard
Florence Haynes, Daur, 7mo, Herefordshire, Bromyard

Rose Hannah HAYNES married George THOMAS in the Bromyard parish church, on the 25th December 1895.  Their married life, and descendants, will be the topic for my next post.

2020 52anc. Wk 8: George THOMAS (1871-1955)

I'm now starting the entries for my second set of paternal great grandparents, George THOMAS and Rose Hannah HAYNES

George THOMAS was born on the 14th April 1871, at Little Kyre, Worcestershire,  the second child of at least seven born to John THOMAS and Priscilla, formerly ROBINSON.

The 1871 census was taken on the 2 April 1871 so, unfortunately, he doesn't appear in a census until he is almost 10 years old.

In the 1881 census, George is with his parents and three younger siblings in Little Kyre, Worcestershire:

[1881: Class: RG11; Piece: 2907; Folio: 20; Page: 3; ]
Bank Street
John Thomas, Head, Mar, 38, Mason Bricklayer, Herefordsh Linton
Priscilla Thomas, Wife, Mar, 35, Wife, Worcestershire, Knightwick
George Thomas, Son, Unm, 10, Scholar, Worcestershire, Little Kyre
Matilda Thomas, Daur, Unm, 5, Scholar, Worcestershire, Little Kyre
Anne Thomas,  Daur, Unm, 3, Scholar, Worcestershire, Little Kyre
Lilia Thomas,  Daur, Unm, 1, Worcestershire, Little Kyre

In 1891, George is working for a DORRELL family, in Stoke Bliss, as a general farm servant.  This time, his birthplace is given as Stoke Bliss, Herefordshire:

[1891: Class: RG12; Piece: 2319; Folio: 135; Page: 7]
Barrett's Bank
(DORRELL family of 3, and a Housekeeper)
George Thomas, Serv. S, 19, General Farm Servant, Herefordshire, Stoke Bliss

It's no wonder researchers become confused, when details vary like this - not just a different parish but also a different county!

"Is it the right person?" has to be a consideration and the evidence examined carefully, to try to ensure the conclusion, ie that this is him in 1891, is reliable.

In a case like this, my first act these days is usually to look up the places online, using a search engine - either for a map where I can check the distance between the locations, or for something like a topographical dictionary.  Here, I soon found the British History online entry which tells me that:

KYRE, LITTLE, a hamlet, in the parish of Stokebliss, union of Tenbury, Upper division of the hundred of Doddingtree, Tenbury and W. divisions of the county of Worcester, 5 miles (S. E. by S.) from Tenbury; containing 144 inhabitants. It is surrounded on three sides by the county of Hereford, and intersected from north to south by the road from Tenbury to Bromyard......

So clearly, Little Kyre, where the family lives, is actually a smaller area within the larger parish of Stoke Bliss.

But what of the different county?

Once again, British History online provides an answer:

Stoke Bliss was formerly chiefly in the Herefordshire Hundred of Broxash, the hamlet of Kyre Parva only being in Doddingtree Hundred. The whole parish was transferred to Worcestershire in 1897....

So, the larger unit, Stoke Bliss, was a parish which straddled the county boundaries and was predominently classed as Herefordshire at the time of the census.  So, when the parish was used for  George's birthplace. the county also changed.

Another way to find out more about the relevant areas is often to look at the first page of the census enumerator's book, which, in this case has a detailed description of the "remaining part of the parish of Stoke Bliss......In Hereford", as well as a description of the properties in Little Kyre.  (Unfortunately, not all enumerators completed this page in such detail.)

Having sorted out the geography, I'd still then search for other entries for the name "George THOMAS" and compare the possibilities in the census to other records - were there others born about the same time, in the same area, that might account for this census entry?  Or are there other census entries that could potentially be "my" George?

Without other family members present in the census entry to help to confirm relationships, it is important to consider these sorts of questions.

As it happens, there were three born in Worcestershire in the 1870 - 1871 range, but only "mine" in the Tenbury District.  Another three were born in Herefordshire (seven if I include those with a middle name).  There are also some birth entries where 'George' is the middle name, rather than the first name - but potentially their middle name could become the preferred name in later years.

So clearly there are likely to be others in the census, with the same name, living within the general county area. Some of these are easily identified but some census entries couldn't be easily discounted just from the index - for example, a George Thomas, of the right age, a servant living in Eardisley, with no birthplace shown in the index.

That would have been a possible contender if it wasn't for the fact that, on checking the original sheet, it is obvious that the transcribed index has failed to include any of the birthplaces from the page and I can happily ignore this one, as he was born in Radnorshire.

So, having looked carefully at the entries, I am happy to conclude that the 1891 entry in Stoke Bliss is the correct one.

Later censuses, which I shall consider when dealing with George's own family, give his birthplace as Little Kyre, Worcestershire - I suspect the 1891 details might have been given to the enumerator by the head of the family, rather than by George, although, if asked what parish he was born in, perhaps he would have answered "Stoke Bliss" anyway.

George married Rose Hannah HAYNES on 25 December 1895 in the parish church at Bromyard and I'll write about their later lives in a separate post.





British History Online
Little Kyre: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/topographical-dict/england/pp711-713
Stoke Bliss: https://www.british-history.ac.uk/vch/worcs/vol4/pp349-354

Ancestry close matches

I was beginning to think that my comment on the 12th January - that everyone was just waiting for Christmas to buy DNA tests - was clearly not justified, since there was then a lack of any new close matches for almost another fortnight, during which time 23andMe announced they were laying off staff.  When Ancestry also then reported lay offs, on the 5th February, it just emphasised how much of a downturn there has been in the DNA testing market.

However, it hasn't been all "doom and gloom" since - I've received seven new "4c and closer" matches since my comment ( 24/1, 1/2, 11/2, 13/2, 19/2, 21/2, and 23/2) bringing me up to a total of 190. 

Out of these new matches, one was someone who has also tested at 23andMe - which is useful, since I have identified the potential shared ancestor with this match, and that helps to confirm some of the shared lines at Ancestry, which were suggested through match clustering.

Another match was a predicted 3rd cousin - by the time I'd explained how our shared matches enabled me to identify approximately where in my pedigree they fitted, ie a shared match who is a first cousin of mine meant my paternal side, sharing with certain second cousins of mine narrowed it down to my paternal grandmother's ancestral lines, and a shared third cousin meant the connection was most probably through my great grandmother HAYNES' ancestry somewhere, they'd discovered just how closely they were related to that third cousin, and it was clear exactly where they fitted into the family! 

The other matches haven't been quite so easy to place, varying from no pedigree information and no shared matches, to both good pedigrees and at least one shared match, with a possible suggestion of which of my ancestral lines they will connect to, based on the shared clustering.  

So, still a bit of research to be done for most of the new matches, but with a possibility of success for at least some of those.  

Which makes for steady progress towards my goal of identifying all of my '4c and closer', as well as giving me some more examples to use in a presentation that I am currently working on, on how helpful shared match clustering can be.

23andMe Lay-offs: https://blog.eogn.com/2020/01/23/23andme-lays-off-100-employees/

Ancestry Lay-offs: https://blogs.ancestry.com/ancestry/2020/02/05/our-path-forward/

2020 Week 7: 52 Ancestors - and their descendants. John PARRY & Rosina PREECE

One of the lessons I learnt quite quickly, when I began using DNA as a tool for researching my family history, was that I couldn't limit my research in the way that my parents had.

For my father, his goal was to trace the direct lines back. Yes, he would use information about any siblings if it helped him to identify the 'right' line, but those siblings were never a focus in his research.

My mother was more interested in family life.  How many siblings did her ancestor have? What was life like for the family growing up?  And how did that mother cope with ten children?  (Answer, as supplied by the aunt with ten children - "It's all right, after the first couple, the oldest bring up the rest" )

Now that I am making use of DNA results in the research process, I realised that the people who make up our DNA match lists (if genuine, genealogical matches, which they might not always be) have to be descendants of our ancestors, ie in order to trace our connection, it is not enough to just know who the siblings of our ancestors were, sometimes we might have to follow them down through several generations in order to arrive at our DNA matches.

Which is why, as well as posting about my direct ancestors in this series, after each couple, I will include a post about their other children and any generations beyond that, that I know about - subject to any privacy considerations regarding living people, of course.

For close generations, as in the case of my great grandparents, John PARRY & Rosina Louisa PREECE, we hit the privacy limit quite quickly.

John and Rosina had two children, my grandfather, Donald, and his sister, Rosina Jane, who was always known as "Aunty Joan" by my Dad's generation. Sadly, their mother Rosina Louisa died after giving birth to Rosina Joan and so it is unlikely I will ever find any records showing the whole family together.  John also died quite young so the children, aged 13 and 14, were sent to live with separate relatives.

But, despite such beginnings, the known descendants of John and Rosina have numbered over eighty five people, spread across four generations. They aren't all living any more but, even so, I think that's an impressive legacy, from such a short marriage.

A few of the descendants of John and Rosina have taken DNA tests and show up as matches to me at the levels which would be expected for such close relatives.  It is very useful having such relatives in the DNA databases, as they make it possible to narrow down which lines of my ancestry any shared matches are likely to connect to:

 

How DNA tested close relatives can help in identifying connections to shared DNA matches

2020 52Anc. Wk 6: Rosina Louisa PREECE (1882 - 1905)

Bridge Cottage, Mordiford, Herefordshire. (1901 census location)

One of the reasons for taking up the "52 ancestors in 52 Weeks" challenge in the way that I am doing it - effectively "auditing" the information I have on each person - is to finally make some headway with the "Do-over" that I started in 2015.  I have a lot of documents and files relating to my family history, but many of them were produced, or obtained, by my parents, rather than by me.  So the Do-Over is a good opportunity for me to "start again" from myself, to ensure my research is on a proper footing, and that everything is recorded properly. It is also a way for me to get to 'know' my ancestors, as well for me to add any additional information now available since my parents did their research.

This process of going through everything is bringing to my attention information that I had missed when just looking at Dad's family tree file. 

Rosina Louisa PREECE, my Dad's paternal grandmother, was born 18 January 1882, in Park Street, Hereford.  Her parents were Charles PREECE, a draper, and Jane, formerly TAYLOR.

I had not realised that Rosina's birth was actually registered with the names "Rosa Louisa", although later documentation, (two census records, her marriage certificate, her two children's birth certificates, and her death certificate) all refer to her as Rosina.

Something else I had not noticed - the birth was registered on the 4th March 1882, over six weeks after the event.

The informant for the birth registration was a Susan NICHOLAS, who lived in Conningsby Street, and who is described as having been present at the birth.   When I first saw who registered the birth, I just wondered, was Susan a friend or a relative?  To be trusted to register the event, I suspected she was more than just a casual acquaintance - but then again, it did seem odd that she might have made a mistake about the name.

Once I noticed how long it had taken for the birth to be registered, I wondered if I had got this wrong. Perhaps it is more likely that Susan was a local woman who regularly attended women during childbirth - effectively an untrained midwife.  It was the responsibility of someone present to register the birth and, if Susan was acting as a midwife and she then passed on to the Registrar a list of babies she'd attended in this "semi official" capacity, that might make more sense regarding the late registration and the name discrepancy.

A Susan Nicholas does appear in Hereford in the 1871 - 1891 censuses, although not living in Coningsby Street.  She's the wife of a Joseph Nicholas, who was a sawyer.  There's no occupation shown for Susan, but that's probably not unsurprising, since midwifery wasn't legally recognised until 1902.

I wonder if it's possible to check whether there are many other children whose births were registered by Susan?

But back to Rosina....

Rosina was the second known child of Charles and Jane, the first being William Charles PREECE, who was born in Hereford in 1870.  Since there are almost twelve years between the births of the two children, one wonders at the family circumstances - the father, Charles, is present with Jane in the 1871 census but, in the 1881 census, Jane is the head of the household in Park St., working as a laundress but still shown as being married.

In the 1891 census, Rosina and her mother, Jane, now widowed, appear in Norton, Radnorshire.  The address is "The Laundry", but the enumeration schedule number is 26A, with number 26 being described as "Gardener's Cottage".  Based on the enumerator's marks, as well as this numbering, I suspect the cottage and laundry were the same property. The building appears to have been part of the Boultibrooke estate of the Jones-Brydges family and, since Jane's occupation is given as a domestic laundress, it seems likely she was working for that family.

By 1901, the family are living in Bridge Cottage, Mordiford, Herefordshire.  In the census for that year, as well as Rosina Louisa, aged 19, and her mother Jane Elizabeth, there is a child, Ethel Kate PREECE, aged four, who is described as a daughter to Jane.  However, since Ethel Kate was born in Abertillery, Monmouthshire, she is more likely to be one of the daughters of Jane and Charles' son, William Charles PREECE and would be the grandchild of Jane.

Rosina married John PARRY, at the parish church in Mordiford, on the 16th April 1903.  John was 37, Rosina was 21.  Her father, Charles PREECE, is not shown as deceased on the certificate but, from the 1891 and 1901 census entries, where her mother is shown as widowed, it appears he was (or certainly was nowhere to be seen!) The witnesses were her brother, William Charles PREECE, and John's brother-in-law, Thomas Daniel SMALLMAN.

John and Rosina had two children, one of which was my grandfather, Donald.  Sadly, Rosina died after giving birth to her second child, a daughter, her death caused by "flooding collapse" two hours after the delivery, followed by cardiac failure 16 days later.  She was just 23 years old. 

John PARRY was with her when she died.  One can only imagine the impact the death of his young wife would have had on him. 

I'm sure many of you have similar tragedies in your family history.  How lucky we are these days, to have our modern medical care, which reduces the numbers of such incidents.





Sources
1871 census: (Rosina's parents, Charles & Jane, with brother, William Charles, staying with Jane's parents, William and Mary TAYLOR) Class: RG10; Piece: 2699; Folio: 60; Page: 39;
1881 census : (Rosina's mother, Jane, and brother, plus visitor/boarders) RG11; Piece: 2594; Folio: 83; Page: 41;
1891 census: Class: RG12; Piece: 4581; Folio: 18; Page: 5;
1901 census: Class: RG13; Piece: 2478; Folio: 60; Page: 4;

Census entries for a possible Susan NICHOLAS:
1871 (Green St, St Owen, Hereford) Class: RG10; Piece: 2698; Folio: 66; Page: 39;
1881 (Gaol St, St Owen, Hereford) Class: RG11; Piece: 2595; Folio: 85; Page: 6; G
1891 (Hunts Cottage, All Saints, Hereford) Class: RG12; Piece: 2061; Folio: 94; Page: 7;


First Midwives Act 1902 - https://memoriesofnursing.uk/articles/midwifery-in-britain-in-the-twentieth-century
Enumerators marks:  A single diagonal line is used between households, or families, within the same building, and double diagonal lines are used between buildings.