RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: coombs on Sunday 30 April 23 14:26 BST (UK)
-
In the 1881 census I have my ancestors sister's children as being born "London in Suffolk" and the original census page says so. In fact they were born in Paddington, London Middlesex when Sarah was living in London. After her first husband died she moved back to Suffolk.
Also i have seen many instances of someone not born in county of residence as saying they were "born in county" in the 1841 census yet all other documents say otherwise. One 4xgreat gran was born in Kent but lived in Essex much of her life, and 1841 census in Essex says she was born in county but all other documents say she was born in Kent, like her baptism and subsequent censuses. And an ancestors neighbour in 1851 in mid Suffolk said she was born in an Essex parish, but 1841 census says she was born in county of residence which was Suffolk.
Enumerators may have been a bit slapdash to try and save time.
-
I think that sometimes they just stopped listening. I have an ancestor living in Lancashire. His wife and children were all born in Lancashire but he was born in Stepney, London. The 1841 Census, however, has him down as born in Lancashire, even though all the other censues following say Stepney.
Someone had followed the 1841 Census and not looked any further, and had him down as born in Lancashire on their tree.
-
I think that sometimes they just stopped listening. I have an ancestor living in Lancashire. His wife and children were all born in Lancashire but he was born in Stepney, London. The 1841 Census, however, has him down as born in Lancashire, even though all the other censues following say Stepney.
Someone had followed the 1841 Census and not looked any further, and had him down as born in Lancashire on their tree.
I have often come across people who were said to be born in county in 1841 but later censuses dispute that, but never yet came across someone "not born in county" when they actually were.
I guess being born near county borders added to the confusion for some.
-
I had one census listing the Mother's age as 23 years old and her Daughter's age 13, her age should have actually been 33. It was correct on the next census.
Carol
-
the original census page says so.
Except it isn't the original census. With the exception of 1911 and 1921 what we see today is what was manually copied over from the individual household returns (as filled out by the householder, with help if needed), which were then destroyed.
The enumerator may well have been slapdash in doing this, but without the original to refer to we simply don't know. Given the rates of illiteracy, especially in the early years, I'm sure it can't have been the easiest of jobs trying to decipher what had been written and then to copy it over by hand.
-
I had one census listing the Mother's age as 23 years old and her Daughter's age 13, her age should have actually been 33. It was correct on the next census.
Carol
When I started researching my family history the first document I found containing a reference to my GG grandfather was the 1851 census. His age was given as 50 when was he was actually 30. He was younger than his wife and so I'll never know whether the enumerator had misread a '3' as a'5' because it was a better fit or simply in error. Either way, it threw me off track for ages as I was looking for someone born 20 years before he was.
-
The one which gets me is where nearly everyone is born in the same place (usually the place being enumerated), so the enumerator uses ditto down that column on the right hand side.
Then he realises that the woman on line 3 was born somewhere else so he corrects that line ONLY.
So we end up with two people born in Birmingham and 18 born in India.
The transcription is, of course, correct, because that is what the enumerator specified according to the instructions he was given.
-
I think the 1841 census should be treated with a pinch of salt, as regards 'born in county' and also the ages, which generally are I think are often rounded to the nearest '5'. I have often found claims of being born in the county, later proven wrong by later census information or proven baptismal records.
-
the original census page says so.
Except it isn't the original census. With the exception of 1911 and 1921 what we see today is what was manually copied over from the individual household returns (as filled out by the householder, with help if needed), which were then destroyed.
The enumerator may well have been slapdash in doing this, but without the original to refer to we simply don't know. Given the rates of illiteracy, especially in the early years, I'm sure it can't have been the easiest of jobs trying to decipher what had been written and then to copy it over by hand.
With all due respect, I was talking about the original enumerators sheets, not the household forms which I know very well were destroyed once the info copied into the following enumerators sheets, the ones we see when we look at censuses.
-
My apologies for this BUT I think you are being far too pedantic about the census returns and the enumerators.
As I understand it there were some 26 million people recorded in the 1841 census for England and Wales, a lot of whom I think could have been illiterate, probably the majority.
The enumerator possibly had to knock on doors in order to obtain the information AND he/she didn't have a computer to record the details offered to him/her. He/she had to physically write down the details and then transfer them to the sheets.
Also I remind you to look at my avatar, especially HE/SHE WHO NEVER MADE A MISTAKE, NEVER MADE ANYTHING! :o :-X
-
I suppose we should be thankful that people are giving us the opportunity to Further our knowledge of how and where our ancestors lived. When I first started Family research, the best I had was the 1881census which was loaned from the library and had 8 discs to trawl through.
I'm thankful for all the other census returns that are now available to us.
Carol
-
I suppose we should be thankful that people are giving us the opportunity to Further our knowledge of how and where our ancestors lived. When I first started Family research, the best I had was the 1881census which was loaned from the library and had 8 discs to trawl through.
I'm thankful for all the other census returns that are now available to us.
Carol
Oh yes I used to do blanket searches at the FRC in Clerkenwell for hours one time. Pity the pre 1911 individual household forms were destroyed as they may have contained notes which was not added to the enumerators book. Then again they probably read the instructions and what the enumerator put into the book was pretty much what was said in the original individual household forms. We have to be grateful that the enumerators sheets were kept.
-
I'm with the enumerators and the job they did with so much against them, particularly the '41 Census.
They were unlikely to get rich -
"The persons employed in taking the new census are to e paid in proportion to the number of houses or persons in the districts assigned to them; from 10s for every district containing less than 50 inhabited houses or 30 persons, up to £1 1s for every district containing from 150 to 160 inhabited houses or 900 to 960 persons enumerated, with an increasing rate of 1s for every 10 additional houses or 60 additional persons."
"THE CENSUS - a bill to provide for the better remuneration of the enumerators, to lessen their work, and to alter the day of taking to the 7th of June, was introduced into the House of Commons and read a first time on Friday, and a second reading ordered for Monday".
I think (1) an additional payment of 5s and (2) other than the enumerator could deliver the forms pre Census was proposed.
-
Contributors to this thread might be interested in a 9-minute video on 'Setting the Record Straight', Episode 13.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bkoe4bVhI
-
I think "not born in county", while it meant born outside of county of residence, it will be anywhere in England or Wales. I assumed it was just England. So the ancestor "not born in county" may have been from Wales if they died before the 1851 census or you do not have other evidence of their birthplace.
-
Contributors to this thread might be interested in a 9-minute video on 'Setting the Record Straight', Episode 13.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7bkoe4bVhI
Bookbox - thanks for posting. A 9 mins well spent.
-
Also thanks for the link Bookbox. I wish I could spend a day with Dave and we would have a great day discussing genealogy, and have a bit of a booze up that evening. ;)
-
Then you have the transcription errors. In the 1901 census I have a great aunt and three cousins transcribed as coming from Cork, Ireland, not the county of Cornwall which is clearly written by the enumerator. Is there a Redruth in Ireland?
-
Thank you, Bookbox :)
-
I have tried more than once to get a correction to an entry in the 1851 Scottish census. I wonder if this is actually possible? All I get is the standard reply saying "we agree, and it will be corrected soon", then nothing happens. The father's entry is transcribed Coldingham. Berwickshire Scotland, and the rest of the family apparently lived in Brecknockshire, Wales!
-
As David Annal says, the householder/s completed the census form, and David does not like the "common image" of the enumerator stood at the doorstep writing out the answers to the householders question. Instead he prefers it to be the image of the enumerator collecting the completed forms after census night.