Census of England and Wales, 1901 - IPUMS Subset
United Kingdom [England and Wales], 1901
Get Microdata
Reference ID
GBR_1901_PHC-EAW_v01_M_v7.5_A_IPUMS
Producer(s)
Registrar General, IPUMS
Created on
Sep 03, 2025
Last modified
Sep 03, 2025
Page views
75
- Data files
- GBR1901_PHC-EAW-H-H
- GBR1901_PHC-EAW-P-H
Relationship inferred (QRELUK)
Data file: GBR1901_PHC-EAW-P-H
Overview
Type:
Discrete
Start:
175
End:
175
Width:
1
Range:
-
Format:
Numeric
Questions and instructions
Categories
| Value | Category |
|---|---|
| Relationship status not altered | |
| 1 | Relationship status altered |
| 9 | Unknown |
Warning: these figures indicate the number of cases found in the data file. They cannot be interpreted as summary statistics of the population of interest.
Description
Definition
QRELUK denotes whether the creators of the database altered the relationship to household head as originally transcribed.
The following outline of relationship classification in the British census details why altering the transcribed relationships was sometimes necessary.
During the transcription process the LDS made a number of revisions to the relationship to head of household field. These alterations impinge on the manner in which the relationship to head of household has been coded.
For the purposes of the LDS' data entry program every household had to have a head of household. If the original census enumerator's book (CEB) contained a household (usually defined as being between a pair of double slashes) whose head was not defined as such that word should be added after the relationship as enumerated. e.g., a family which contained a woman and two children, where the woman was enumerated as being a 'wife' would become the head, i.e. WIFE (HEAD). A problem concerning consistency is compounded by the diligence of some enumerators. Consider a family containing a husband (temporarily absent) who lives with his wife and 20-year old son. One enumerator may have considered the son the head of household and enumerated him as such; another might consider the mother the head and enumerate her as such.
Exactly how the transcribers would approach this problem is unclear. If it was necessary to establish a head they were told to use five pieces of information within the CEBs to assist them in their choices:
schedule number
change of address
inhabited strokes
household strokes
family relationships
Note, however, it is impossible to check this process internally because schedule numbers as they appeared in the CEB were not included in the machine-readable version. Transcribers were instructed not to resolve unusual relationships, rather to give them as enumerated with clarifications written in single brackets. They were categorically instructed to leave the original as enumerated if there was any problem. There is evidence to suggest that this was not carried out consistently.
If any member of a household was enumerated before the head of household transcribers were instructed to leave it as the enumerator recorded it but adding a note saying that this had occurred.
If a household consisted of co-resident family groups and the CEBs gave correct relationships to the head of household (not head of family) the original was not to be altered, for example:
// WILSONGEORGEHEAD
WILSONMARYWIFE
WILSONJOHNSON
/JONESROBERTSON IN LAW
JONESALICEDAUGHTER
JONESJAMESGRANDSON
However, it is unclear precisely what would have happened if this family was enumerated as:
//WILSONGEORGEHEAD
WILSONMARYWIFE
WILSONJOHNSON
/JONESROBERTSON IN LAW
JONESALICEWIFE
JONESJAMESSON
What would happen? One of two possibilities could be expected. The first would have been to alter the relationships to those as stated in the first example; the second would be to make Robert Jones's relationship HEAD (SON IN LAW) and leave the other relationships as they are.
These problems are compounded when considering household 'inmates', i.e., lodgers and boarders.
Where distinct households contained only lodgers the first one listed, regardless of age or sex would have the relationship head added as the relationship to the head of household in brackets. If a lodger or boarder was identified as such in the relationship column, and it was clear to the transcriber that s/he resided within that household, the additional head should not have been added, even if there was a single stroke in the CEB. It is unclear on what grounds this rule was applied, though surname and occupation are likely to give clues.
When lodgers or boarders were living with their own families and were given relationships to suggest this by the enumerator, the transcribers were instructed to ensure that one of the group should be identified as the head, for example:
//WILLIAMSROBERTHEAD
WILLIAMSELIZ.WIFE
WILLIAMSMARYDAUR
/SMITHHENRYLODGER (HEAD)
SMITHFANNYWIFE
SMITHDAVIDSON
When lodgers or boarders were living with their own families and were not given relationships to suggest this by the enumerator, the transcribers were instructed not to make one of them the head of household. Note that transcribers were told to ignore the occupations or names of people only to use the information given in the relationship to head of household column.
//WILLIAMSROBERTHEADSHOPKEEPER
WILLIAMSELIZ.WIFESHOPKEEPER'S WIFE
WILLIAMSMARYDAURSCHOLAR
/SMITHHENRYLODGER LABOURER
SMITHFANNYLODGERLABOURER'S WIFE
SMITHDAVIDLODGERSCHOLAR
When relationships within families were given incorrectly to the head of household, transcribers were instructed to add the correct relationship within brackets:
//JONESMARYDAUR (HEAD)18
JONESJOHNSON (BROTHER)17
JONESALICEDAUR (SISTER)13
JONESGEORGESON (BROTHER)11
It is perhaps interesting to note that the LDS generally choose the eldest person, regardless of gender as head, rather than the eldest male, the latter probably being the chosen practice of most enumerators. Also, for example:
//GREENEDWARDHEAD55
GREENPHOEBEWIFE51
JAMESROBERTSON IN LAW25
JAMESSUSANWIFE (DAUR)25
GREENRICHARDSON20
The transcribers were instructed to transcribe the relationships as enumerated, however the evaluators were instructed not to alter obvious abbreviations. For example, if the CEB says 'Daughter' and it was transcribed as Daur, it will be found in the machine-readable version as DAUR. A single exception to this was the head of household: whatever was found in the CEBs the machine-readable version will contain HEAD. (It is on this basis that we believe that the contents of the HOUSESTD field were allocated to Self or otherwise.)
What these rules boil down to is the possibility that there are two possible relationships which can be used in the coding and reformatting program. Depending on the circumstances the different relationships will be used.
There are three basic principles behind this coding scheme:
1) that the trailing digit of the code denotes the gender of the individual, as follows:
oddmale
evenfemale
zerogender unknown
Thus a male head is 11, a female head 12 and a head of indeterminate gender 10. (The exception to this rule is those people whose relationship code ends in 199 which is a form used for an undetermined relation.)
2) The codes fall into a number of distinct ranges:
0-1999residential kin
2000-2199visitors
3000-3199lodgers and their familial inmates
4000-4199boarders and their familial inmates
5000-5199institutional inmates and their familial inmates
6000-6199servants and their familial inmates
9999others
The residential kin codes are grouped reflecting the vertical and lateral relationships to the head of the household.
The codes for familial inmates and servants are applied on the same basis as the head's residential kin. For example:
Head10
Wife [of head]22
Son31
Daughter32
Lodger's Son3032
There are two problems with the data as produced by the LDS regarding relationship information. These are allowed for with the third principle.
3) Wherever additional information has been added in the transcription phase an attempt is made to make it useable.
To account for these alterations and 'corrections' a second code has been added to assist in family and household analysis. The basic principle behind this code is to show the 'real' relationship to the head of the household. Thus the relationship 'Son (Head)' when found in the data is assumed to mean that this individual is the son of an absent head of household and for the purposes of the LDSs exercise this person has become the head of household. In this case the first code is 31 and the second code is 11 [male head].
This secondary information, in brackets, is, with two exceptions always coded in the second code position. The first exception refers to the possibility that the information in the brackets has the same meaning as that without the brackets or if the information without the brackets is not a relationship; the second concerns those that are only present in brackets, thus:
table>
Wife (Head)2212
Son (in law)3135
Unm (Head)10-
Bro Wife (Sis in law)156-
(Wife)22-
The following outline of relationship classification in the British census details why altering the transcribed relationships was sometimes necessary.
During the transcription process the LDS made a number of revisions to the relationship to head of household field. These alterations impinge on the manner in which the relationship to head of household has been coded.
For the purposes of the LDS' data entry program every household had to have a head of household. If the original census enumerator's book (CEB) contained a household (usually defined as being between a pair of double slashes) whose head was not defined as such that word should be added after the relationship as enumerated. e.g., a family which contained a woman and two children, where the woman was enumerated as being a 'wife' would become the head, i.e. WIFE (HEAD). A problem concerning consistency is compounded by the diligence of some enumerators. Consider a family containing a husband (temporarily absent) who lives with his wife and 20-year old son. One enumerator may have considered the son the head of household and enumerated him as such; another might consider the mother the head and enumerate her as such.
Exactly how the transcribers would approach this problem is unclear. If it was necessary to establish a head they were told to use five pieces of information within the CEBs to assist them in their choices:
schedule number
change of address
inhabited strokes
household strokes
family relationships
Note, however, it is impossible to check this process internally because schedule numbers as they appeared in the CEB were not included in the machine-readable version. Transcribers were instructed not to resolve unusual relationships, rather to give them as enumerated with clarifications written in single brackets. They were categorically instructed to leave the original as enumerated if there was any problem. There is evidence to suggest that this was not carried out consistently.
If any member of a household was enumerated before the head of household transcribers were instructed to leave it as the enumerator recorded it but adding a note saying that this had occurred.
If a household consisted of co-resident family groups and the CEBs gave correct relationships to the head of household (not head of family) the original was not to be altered, for example:
// WILSONGEORGEHEAD
WILSONMARYWIFE
WILSONJOHNSON
/JONESROBERTSON IN LAW
JONESALICEDAUGHTER
JONESJAMESGRANDSON
However, it is unclear precisely what would have happened if this family was enumerated as:
//WILSONGEORGEHEAD
WILSONMARYWIFE
WILSONJOHNSON
/JONESROBERTSON IN LAW
JONESALICEWIFE
JONESJAMESSON
What would happen? One of two possibilities could be expected. The first would have been to alter the relationships to those as stated in the first example; the second would be to make Robert Jones's relationship HEAD (SON IN LAW) and leave the other relationships as they are.
These problems are compounded when considering household 'inmates', i.e., lodgers and boarders.
Where distinct households contained only lodgers the first one listed, regardless of age or sex would have the relationship head added as the relationship to the head of household in brackets. If a lodger or boarder was identified as such in the relationship column, and it was clear to the transcriber that s/he resided within that household, the additional head should not have been added, even if there was a single stroke in the CEB. It is unclear on what grounds this rule was applied, though surname and occupation are likely to give clues.
When lodgers or boarders were living with their own families and were given relationships to suggest this by the enumerator, the transcribers were instructed to ensure that one of the group should be identified as the head, for example:
//WILLIAMSROBERTHEAD
WILLIAMSELIZ.WIFE
WILLIAMSMARYDAUR
/SMITHHENRYLODGER (HEAD)
SMITHFANNYWIFE
SMITHDAVIDSON
When lodgers or boarders were living with their own families and were not given relationships to suggest this by the enumerator, the transcribers were instructed not to make one of them the head of household. Note that transcribers were told to ignore the occupations or names of people only to use the information given in the relationship to head of household column.
//WILLIAMSROBERTHEADSHOPKEEPER
WILLIAMSELIZ.WIFESHOPKEEPER'S WIFE
WILLIAMSMARYDAURSCHOLAR
/SMITHHENRYLODGER LABOURER
SMITHFANNYLODGERLABOURER'S WIFE
SMITHDAVIDLODGERSCHOLAR
When relationships within families were given incorrectly to the head of household, transcribers were instructed to add the correct relationship within brackets:
//JONESMARYDAUR (HEAD)18
JONESJOHNSON (BROTHER)17
JONESALICEDAUR (SISTER)13
JONESGEORGESON (BROTHER)11
It is perhaps interesting to note that the LDS generally choose the eldest person, regardless of gender as head, rather than the eldest male, the latter probably being the chosen practice of most enumerators. Also, for example:
//GREENEDWARDHEAD55
GREENPHOEBEWIFE51
JAMESROBERTSON IN LAW25
JAMESSUSANWIFE (DAUR)25
GREENRICHARDSON20
The transcribers were instructed to transcribe the relationships as enumerated, however the evaluators were instructed not to alter obvious abbreviations. For example, if the CEB says 'Daughter' and it was transcribed as Daur, it will be found in the machine-readable version as DAUR. A single exception to this was the head of household: whatever was found in the CEBs the machine-readable version will contain HEAD. (It is on this basis that we believe that the contents of the HOUSESTD field were allocated to Self or otherwise.)
What these rules boil down to is the possibility that there are two possible relationships which can be used in the coding and reformatting program. Depending on the circumstances the different relationships will be used.
There are three basic principles behind this coding scheme:
1) that the trailing digit of the code denotes the gender of the individual, as follows:
oddmale
evenfemale
zerogender unknown
Thus a male head is 11, a female head 12 and a head of indeterminate gender 10. (The exception to this rule is those people whose relationship code ends in 199 which is a form used for an undetermined relation.)
2) The codes fall into a number of distinct ranges:
0-1999residential kin
2000-2199visitors
3000-3199lodgers and their familial inmates
4000-4199boarders and their familial inmates
5000-5199institutional inmates and their familial inmates
6000-6199servants and their familial inmates
9999others
The residential kin codes are grouped reflecting the vertical and lateral relationships to the head of the household.
The codes for familial inmates and servants are applied on the same basis as the head's residential kin. For example:
Head10
Wife [of head]22
Son31
Daughter32
Lodger's Son3032
There are two problems with the data as produced by the LDS regarding relationship information. These are allowed for with the third principle.
3) Wherever additional information has been added in the transcription phase an attempt is made to make it useable.
To account for these alterations and 'corrections' a second code has been added to assist in family and household analysis. The basic principle behind this code is to show the 'real' relationship to the head of the household. Thus the relationship 'Son (Head)' when found in the data is assumed to mean that this individual is the son of an absent head of household and for the purposes of the LDSs exercise this person has become the head of household. In this case the first code is 31 and the second code is 11 [male head].
This secondary information, in brackets, is, with two exceptions always coded in the second code position. The first exception refers to the possibility that the information in the brackets has the same meaning as that without the brackets or if the information without the brackets is not a relationship; the second concerns those that are only present in brackets, thus:
table>
Wife (Head)2212
Son (in law)3135
Unm (Head)10-
Bro Wife (Sis in law)156-
(Wife)22-
concept
Concept