1911 Census

[Suzy W]

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

[CaroleW]

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?

[Suzy W]

Ahh, but he did not record that child had died.  Nor 6 living children in total, only the ones at home.

Suzy W

[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

[Nick29]

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.

[coombs]

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.

[Cell]

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

[coombs]

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.

[Alan b]

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.