RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: Suzy W on Monday 03 May 10 00:52 BST (UK)
-
Hi All.
Just wondering how many people filled out the census form wrong in 1911? And has anyone else came across mistakes like this?
My great grandfather left his two living children off the census form, would that be due to them living and working away from home? But it does states how many living children, why leave them off?
Also he left off a child that had died in 1904 age one. No one knew of this child until recently, if we relied on the census he would of been totally forgotten about.
Was he confused on how to fill out the form, he could read and write, and certainly was not a silly man. Begs the question, how many mistakes did occur for this census?
Regards
Suzy W
-
Your great grandfather completed the return correctly. Have you read the headings to each of the columns on the actual 1911 image?
You only record people who were actually living at that address on census night. If he had adult children living elsewhere - they would be recorded at whatever address they were living at on census night.
The purpose of a census is to get as accurate a count as possible of the number of people in England & Wales at a particular time.
What you are suggesting would be double recording
But it does states how many living children, why leave them off?
It simply asks how many children the woman has given birth to and how many are still living - it does not ask you to record the names of every child
Also he left off a child that had died in 1904 age one. No one knew of this child until recently, if we relied on the census he would of been totally forgotten about.
How can a child who died 7yrs earlier be recorded as living at that address on census night?
-
Ahh, but he did not record that child had died. Nor 6 living children in total, only the ones at home.
Suzy W
-
Opps, did not explain myself very well. in total children born alive, he put six, and six children were at home, but there were 8 living children. Children who had died he just put a dash, no indication on the one who died in 1904.
Sounds better?
Sorry, Monday mornings!
Suzy W
-
Yes, mistakes were made, and sometimes it can work to your advantage.
On the 1911 census, my grandfather recorded the number of children he had (and how many were still alive), and the number of years he'd been married, even though the questions were for women only (he had been widowed 6 years before). Fortunately the enumerator had only put a line through his answers, so they could still be read.
-
My great, great grandmother in Suffolk was a 60 year old widow. Her elder children were living elsewhere, including my great grandfather who was 50 miles away in Essex. But she still put them down as living with her and they were crossed out but they could still be read.
-
Hi,
My great grandfather listed all of his children, even the ones that were dead.
The three dead ones have a red line going through them ( crossed out by the enumerator) . I guess he realised my grandfather's and grandmother's mistake by : total children born alive - 9 , children still living - 6 and Children who have died - 3 .
The 9 children are listed in order of birth . The first child is listed 19 yrs old , the second as 5 months ( obviously dead) , whilst the third child is 15 yrs old, the fourth child is 7 months (obviously dead), whilst the fifth is 12 yrs old . The sixth is 11 months ( obviously dead) and the seventh child is 7 yrs old . The eighth is 5 yrs old and ninth child is 1 yr old
It would have been such a great find if I hadn't of know of these 3 babies already. (family bible).
Kind Regards
-
They may have misinterpreted the exact rules of filling in the forums and didn't realise that children who were living away didn't have to be recorded.
-
Yes, mistakes were made, and sometimes it can work to your advantage.
To true. On one I have seen a relative put down the name of their deceased child and then crossed it out.
-
As said it is handy for us researching them. :)
-
Goes to show how many were confused or just lied.
My family in question have a sorted mess. My Great grandfather had a mistress, her census says she is married (no husband at home, because he is with his real wife on the night)
The mistress has entered the details right saying she had 8 children in total and only six living, with two down in the children died column. But clearly she lied about being married for 17 years, and was still going by her maiden name.
I think my great grandfather lost count on really how many children he did have, in the end there were 17 children between the two women (whom happen to be sisters) :o
Crazy family, and so look forward to digging up more on this family.
Suzy W
-
Some other reason why someone is not enumerated where they usually live (might apply in any UK or US census - I've seen examples in both).
1) If a person was Visiting someone else, they'd be enumerated with the person being visited as a Visitor.
2) If someone was living at a college, they'd be enumerated as part of the college student body.
3) If someone was at work (night shift, actor in theatre, ....) they'd be enumerated at that address since they were not at home when an enumerator appeared. (I seldom located performers/artistes in censuses - they might have been traveling between engagements. Or they were enumerated under a professiona/stage name rather than birth name (or their info was given by a colleague while performing on-stage or family member who did not know all the specifics).
I've also seen a college student enumerated twice - once at the college, and also with his parents (as "away at school").
Enumerators were often impatient, and did not talk directly to everyone in a household, relying on the "head" to provide all the info. So sometimes the spouse or kids provided the wrong info (such as age, birthplace, ....) because they did not know, or deliberately lied (such as about real age if they looked younger). I had one relative in Chicago whose age was never 10 years apart between censuses.
Chicago-Jones
-
Enumerators were often impatient, and did not talk directly to everyone in a household, relying on the "head" to provide all the info. So sometimes the spouse or kids provided the wrong info (such as age, birthplace, ....)
I don't know about the USA, but for the UK censuses, forms were delivered to households a few days beforehand. The enumerator merely collected the completed forms, and later transcribed the contents into a summary book. He did not need to talk to everyone.
-
I guess we all are going to find some errors. :-\
I was wondering about the ladies who hid on census night (women rights movement) There are going to be plenty of these brave ladies also left off on that night, but what a night mere for family researchers.
I know my mother hated census night, she would complain about the government wanting to know everything, right down to what toilet paper you use :o. She had a sense of humor and I would love to know what she had put on the forms.
My great grandfather filled out the 1911 census, when it was meant to be his wife to fill out the details about the children. He even left his thumb print on the side of the form, the ink must of been wet at the time, so that was a bonus, even if he did leave off some details.
Cheers
Suzy W
-
I'm sure that there were similar errors made on previous censuses too, but this is the first time that we've actually been able to see the returns from households on a UK census. On all previous censuses, all we get to see are the enumerators' returns.
-
I think in America in rural areas people had a month to compete the returns and in urban areas they had 2 weeks. But sometimes areas were enumerated days afterwards in the US.