1881 two different results

[nora T]

Just noticed today that LDS census 1881 has  my ancester eliza culverwell as widow, and head of family, and thomas hancock, as Head next door,then on ancestry 1881, they are all living together, with thomas as head, (they did get together and have a second family) but why two different versions, and which do you think is correct. they lived in red street staffs,

[suey]

I've just looked at the image on Ancestry and Thomas Hancock is def listed as 'head of household' with Eliza underneath described as 'widow'   -   her occupation, 'housekeeper' has been sribbled through!  so it does look as though they were living together as a couple...................

hope this helps

Suey

[nora T]

Thanks Suey, yes thats right, thats what I got, but its different on LDS site.

[suey]

I know I've just looked at LDS, ...I wonder why, very odd..

Just to add - in the column 'Condition as to marriage', for Eliza something has again been crossed out...looks like 'marr' to me, as though she was going to state married and this has been crossed through and widow written in 

[bearkat]

The 1881 census on familysearch is a transcription - someone's interpretation of what the enumerator had written.

Sometimes a transcription is plain wrong sometimes it's because the orignal writing is difficult to read or has been crossed through.

It's always worth looking at the original.

[suey]

The 1881 census on familysearch is a transcription - someone's interpretation of what the enumerator had written.

Sometimes a transcription is plain wrong sometimes it's because the orignal writing is difficult to read or has been crossed through.

It's always worth looking at the original.

I totally agree with you    but whoever transcribed that particular image must have been cross eyed because it's a good image and not difficult to read even with its crossings out.

[stanmapstone]

Begun in September of 1987, the automated index is the result of a collective effort of volunteers from the Federation of Family History Societies in the United Kingdom and The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Every effort was made to reproduce the information as it was originally recorded by the British census takers in 1881. Even obvious errors were left to allow users to make their own evaluation of the information.

http://www.1881-census.co.uk/1881-british-census-available.html

Stan

[nora T]

Thanks for your replies, luckily I did know a bit about  Eliza Culverwell/ Thomas Hancock history, from passed down  gossip to my old dad,(88), Eliza,s husband James Culverwell disapeared between the 1871 and the 1881 did a runner, nobody knows where ,she then  got together with Thomas Hancock, had another  large family with him, but called them all Culverwell, most if not all the children  called themselves Hancock when they grew up. so hence poor  Eliza didnt know wether to call herself married, widow, or what on the census, little porkies for  respectability I think.

[Redroger]

And I suspect that's what's happened with the LDS entry, someone embarrassed by the real world decided to recorded as they would like it to be.