willam peel and ellen elliott

[morbri]

You need to tell me where your profile is so that I can contact you. Sorry, as I said I am new on this forum.
Regards,
Maureen

[lawsue]

Hi Maureen,
It's ok, I have sent you an email through your profile. But I will add that my connection is playing up. If you click on "Lawsue" on this post, it will show "send email". Looking forward to sharing with you.
Sue

[TonyProctor]

This is obviously a mistake on the LDS records. The enumerator recorded several people with a role of 'Husband' and 'Wife'. In some circumstances, LDS selects the wrong 'Wife' for the 'Head' of the household, and in other cases it gets it right.

If you look for William Peel and Laura Hoskins together then it incorrectly says she's his spouse. The citation is shows for this is:

"England and Wales Census, 1881," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XQMV-TX9 : accessed 26 Feb 2014), William Peel, 1881.

However, if I look for Clara Peel then it correctly says her parents and William and Ellen. The citation for this is:

"England and Wales Census, 1881," index, FamilySearch (https://familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/XQMV-TX7 : accessed 26 Feb 2014), Clara Peel in entry for William Peel, 1881.

In both cases, the census page is the same one [RG11/3355/134/41], and the transcription is not in doubt. It's just that they've made a mess of using the Role/Relationship field in their index. It's not the first case of this I've seen, and I wrote about a similar case where Ancestry had indexed someone as having two wives - one was actually the wife of a 'Boarder' but they'd simply taken the two instances of 'wife' and applied them to the 'head' of the household.

[lawsue]

Thank you Tony...all sorted now, but I appreciate the time you have taken