On 19/04/2012 15:28, Charles Apple wrote: > I have noticed in responses to another related census thread that many *do > not" record non family members, i.e., visitors, servants, boarders, etc. I > would like to point out that in at least one circumstance my widowed great > grandmother took in boarders. Later she married one of those boarders who > would then be my great grandfather albeit by marriage. Her deceased husband > was my biological great grandfather. > > At least in this case, it was beneficial to have recorded all household > members including boarders.
I mention all "extras" - visitors, lodgers, boarders, servants etc in the Notes, where I also list all the "family members" who have their own entry in my family file. I usually mention these people by name, except in the case of servants. I also record the name of the head of the household and his/her occupation (and mention his/her family if there is one) when my family member is the visitor/boarder/lodger/servant in the household. As you say, it is often beneficial because further research can sometimes show that a visitor or whatever is, in fact, a member of the extended family or the future husband/wife of a family member. -- Jenny M Benson Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
