COMPLETED 1911 lookups please Whitehead

[SRD]

Would someone please lookup
Dartford, Kent
WHITEHEAD WILLIAM THOMAS. M. 1859. 52.
WHITEHEAD ETTY FLORA. F. 1864. 47.
WHITEHEAD FREDERICK. M. 1895. 16.

for me.

Thanks.

[snoopysue]

1911
6 Alexandra Terrace Swanley Junction
WHITEHEAD, William Thomas Head Married M 52 1859 Farm Labourer Charlton Kent
WHITEHEAD, Etty Flora Wife Married 27 years F 47 1864 Field Worker On Farm Aldershot Surrey
WHITEHEAD, Frederick Son Single M 16 1895 Farm Labourer Charlton Kent

[SRD]

Thanks Sue, are there any other children or anyone else at the address? I've got a WHITEHEAD MAY. F. 1890. 21. as another possible daughter at least.

[snoopysue]

It does say 6 children born, 5 living on the census!

[snoopysue]

The only May Whiteheads I can find in are down as the daughter of the head of household. It's possible that she's either married, not in Kent, or is the child that died.

[SRD]

I've got a few more from the 1901 census:
1901. Cherry Orchard Farm, Crockenhill, Kent.
Thomas Whitehead 42. Farm Lab.
Etty Whitehead 37. Aldershot, Hampshire.
Reuben Whitehead 9. Son. Woolwich, Kent.
Fred Whitehead 6. Son. Woolwich, Kent. (presumably Frederick in 1911)
John Whitehead 14. Son. Woolwich, Kent.
Thomas Whitehead 16. Son. Woolwich, Kent.

So it looks like there were two others.

If May had been a daughter she'd have been 10ish in 1901 and presumably still living at home, although there are a lot of boys for what seem to be a fairly itinerant family, it might have been tricky looking after a girl in what might have been cramped conditions.

[snoopysue]

I've got a few more from the 1901 census:
1901. Cherry Orchard Farm, Crockenhill, Kent.
Thomas Whitehead 42. Farm Lab.
Etty Whitehead 37. Aldershot, Hampshire.
Reuben Whitehead 9. Son. Woolwich, Kent.
Fred Whitehead 6. Son. Woolwich, Kent. (presumably Frederick in 1911)
John Whitehead 14. Son. Woolwich, Kent.
Thomas Whitehead 16. Son. Woolwich, Kent.

So it looks like there were two others.

If May had been a daughter she'd have been 10ish in 1901 and presumably still living at home, although there are a lot of boys for what seem to be a fairly itinerant family, it might have been tricky looking after a girl in what might have been cramped conditions.

Strange, on FMP the family are listed as living in Huts near National School, Eynsford, Crocken Hill! Looking at the image Cherry Orchard Farm is the household before on that page. There is also a note saying: Total number in Huts near National School - Males 18, Females 8. On FMP these people are down with ages and occupations, but no names! There isn't a female entry that matches.

There is also a note beside the Whitehouse entry that I can't quite decipher - but says something to do with the Schedule (possibly "Schedule filled in...."). The next entry has the Schoolmaster and his family.

[SRD]

They would have been semi-itinerant farm labourers working at Cherry Hill Farm and living in the Huts. What ages are the females?

[snoopysue]

Married M 50 1851 Ag L
Married F 45 1856 Ag L
Single M 21 1880 Ag L
Single M 29 1872 Ag L
Married M 48 1853 Ag L
Married F 45 1856 Ag L
Single M 23 1878 Ag L
Single F 21 1880 Ag L
Single M 19 1882 Ag L
Single F 17 1884 Ag L
Single M 14 1887
Single F 12 1889
Single M 10 1891
Single F 8 1893
Single F 6 1895
Married M 25 1876 Ag L
Married F 24 1877 Ag L
Single M 28 1873 Ag L
Single M 27 1874 Ag L
Single M 30 1871 Ag L
Single M Ag L
Single M 22 1879 Ag L
Single M 14 1887
Single M 13 1888
Single M 13 1888
Single M 14 1887


What I don't get is where this info comes from, it's not on the image, just the totals of males and females! I also find it strange that the ages, marital status is recorded but not their names! I've double checked the images, there isn't a page missing - so don't know where FMP got this from!!! It comes up as the same household as the Whiteheads.

[SRD]

Possibly Gypsies who wouldn't usually come under the auspices of the census. They may have been unwilling to give their names, or even spoke only Romany but the census taker thought it was important to include them.
Alternatively they may have been squatting and didn't want to give their names for fear of legal reprisals.

[SRD]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the question. Could it have been a loose sheet simply added to give info without being included in the actual census?

[snoopysue]

Sorry, I think I misunderstood the question. Could it have been a loose sheet simply added to give info without being included in the actual census?

But why no image on FMP?

[SRD]

Dunno, can anyone else cross reference this with another site?

[SRD]

I have another Etty Flora Whitehead:
FreeBMD
Births Sep 1884 (>99%)
Whitehead Etty Flora Woolwich 1d 1182

Who may be this:
Flora Whitehead
England and Wales Census, 1901
birth: 1884 "”Woolwich, London
residence: 31 Mar 1901 "”Woolwich, London, Middlesex, England
census: 31 Mar 1901 "”Woolwich, London, Middlesex, England
record title: England and Wales Census, 1901
name: Flora Whitehead
event: Census
event date: 31 Mar 1901
gender: Female
age: 17
relationship to head of household: Visitor
birthplace: Woolwich, London
record type: Household
registration district: Woolwich
sub-district: Woolwich
ecclesiastical parish: St Thomas Charlton
civil parish: Woolwich
county: Woolwich, Woolwich, Woolwich, London, Middlesex

Who might be this one:

Marriages Jun 1909 (>99%)
ARMITAGE Annie Maud Woolwich 1d 2035
COOPER Edward Woolwich 1d 2035
HEMMINGS Henry Woolwich 1d 2035
WHITEHEAD Letty Flora Woolwich 1d 2035

Do they appear on the 1911 census anywhere? Because if they do then she may be the fifth living child so I'm just looking for the dead one. Sorry if that sounds rather callous

[snoopysue]

I can't find her!
No it doesn't sound callous, I know what you mean!