I'm making notes on Theodore and trying to trace him a little (although struggling to trace him after around 1915 to 1925, when he gets married!), which made me look at the census reports again
On the 1901 census where it mentions "adopted" - the names in the house are listed with Do after James Holroyd, as expected. However, George has his surname mentioned and then Theodore is then listed below him as Do with the "adopted" comment
This is what the 1901 census (Conchan, Isle of Man), looks like:
James Holroyd (Head) 48
Charlotte Do (Wife) 49
James Wm Do (Son) 27
Geo W. Holroyd (Son) 16
Theodore E. Do (Adopted Son) 3 months
Is there a reason they all don't have Do given that the name has remained the same?
Is this a way of documenting an illegitimate child, in a round about way, whom James & Charlotte know who the father of Theodore is and in which case when the census is done linking the adopted son by stating the name again for the father (Geo W. Holroyd) and then placing the Do after Theodores name to link him as being the adopted son to Geo to ensure no further questions asked?
Not sure if what I am talking about is utter rubbish and how the census was completed makes absolutely no difference what so ever. It was just something I noticed whilst making my notes