RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: maria087 on Wednesday 17 April 13 06:48 BST (UK)
-
unsure what to make of this!From the 1851 census-
DUNLOP, James Head Married M 30 1821
DUNLOP, Anne Daughter Unmarried F 32 1819
DUNLOP, James Grand Son M 6 1845
Piece: 590 Folio: 37 Page: 11 Registration District: Irvine Civil Parish: Dundonald
Municipal Borough: Irvine Address: Fullarton Street, Dundonald, Irvine
County: Ayrshire
-
Sorry, I misread that. Not right is it, must be a mistake somewhere. Anne cannot be the daughter of James.
-
I would hazard a guess that James age has been mistranscribed! ;D
What does it say on the original?
-
The only way I can make it fit, assuming only one mistake is something like this.
DUNLOP, James Head Married M 50 1801
DUNLOP, Anne Daughter Unmarried F 32 1819
DUNLOP, James Grand Son M 6 1845
All that would have needed is a 5 transcribed as a 3 somewhere along the line
-
Sometimes I have seen the head of household not being the oldest family member, so maybe there is a father or mother of Ann, and James, assuming that he is her brother. This may not be the case and with other theory,s the only way to tell is to check the household and family.
-
Hi
You need to look at the original image of the census (available from Scotlandspeople) to see what the actual information is. Ancestry has transcribed James age 30 as 'son about head' (head) This could be a poor transcription of 'son of the head' but without looking at the image it is guesswork.
Andy
-
Thanks everybody who contributed. What fun this is.......I feel like Miss Marple.
-
Thanks everybody who contributed. What fun this is.......I feel like Miss Marple.
Yes but do you have access to Scotlandspeople? We've seen the transcript and it would be good to know what the original looks like. Can you post a clipped section?
Mike
-
Sometimes I have seen the head of household not being the oldest family member, so maybe there is a father or mother of Ann, and James, assuming that he is her brother. This may not be the case and with other theory,s the only way to tell is to check the household and family.
If it turns out that the age is correct, it might pay to check next door. The father could be there.
Mind you, it's not as if it's the first transcription error from ancestry. ::)
-
In 1911 Census of distant cousins, the grandchildren are described as niece/nephew..
I think was happened was that the son of the house actually filled in the census ( so they were his niece/nephew), then he put his mother as Head of the House, and himself as son.
As we've a lot of knowledge of this family, who were born in a variety of counties, it was easy enough to figure out, but without background knowledge it would have been a nightmare.
eadaoin
-
I think it was on the 1861 or 71, but there were 2 girls aged 6 and 8 who were described as "daughter in law"! Turns out it should have been "step-daughter"
-
In 1911 Census of distant cousins, the grandchildren are described as niece/nephew..
I think was happened was that the son of the house actually filled in the census ( so they were his niece/nephew), then he put his mother as Head of the House, and himself as son.
As we've a lot of knowledge of this family, who were born in a variety of counties, it was easy enough to figure out, but without background knowledge it would have been a nightmare.
eadaoin
I have a similar example, the mother is head of house but the eldest daughter must have filled out the form beacuse there is an uncle, aunt, sister (husband away so appears with married surname) and various other relations, in all five different surnames within one family household ::)
-
I think it was on the 1861 or 71, but there were 2 girls aged 6 and 8 who were described as "daughter in law"! Turns out it should have been "step-daughter"
That's not so much an error as a different terminology. The term "step" didn't come into vogue until later. Until then, what we know as "step" (and I don't like that term personally) was for our ancestors "in law".
-
Still took a while to work out though :-)
Yes, I think a list of terminology would be good when it comes to relationships.
-
Relationships get even more confusing when you go back to the 17th and 18th centuries. The word "cousin" applied to cousins, nieces and nephews! Then there is the term "kinsman". With that one you need to search around; at least you know they were related.