1891 look up

[Ian Chambers]

We have already got a birth certificate for a James (no William) Chambers b. 1864 in Whittlesey Cambs. His parents are James and Martha.  I was led there originally by the 1901 census, as a James Chambers (railway pass guard) was with them at the time; whilst his wife was home alone in Manchester.

I know he was still a porter in 1905 from his son's birth cert. and thought pass guard was a good enough link.

[Valda]

My only other suggestion would be to check the Whittlesey parish records and see if he was baptised as James William. I have previously found differences between birth registration names and those chosen when the child was baptised - usually with the second name, or the order of the two names chosen.

Regards
Valda

[Ian Chambers]

you seem to be of the opinion that this James I have found in Whittlesey is a strong candidate despite the 1891 census having him born in Lincs.  I am feeling the same as there were so many discrepancies on that form that the birth place could also be wrong.

Thanks again for all your help

Regards

Ian

[Ian Chambers]

Having reread your recent correspondence,
Maud M would not have shown up on the census listings but been on the form because (as with Martha) she was written down incorrectly; in this case as Mary M.

[Valda]

This is the result of the census index for 1891 I am using

Chambers, James W 27 Lincolnshire Head  Barrow on Humber  Lincolnshire   
Chambers, Mary M 26 Lincolnshire Wife  Barrow on Humber  Lincolnshire 

No daughter or lodger appear in the index. James W and his wife are enumerated at the bottom of the actual census page. Quite clearly at the top of the next page in the same household is Mary M Chambers daughter and W. Hollingsworth lodger. There is nothing wrong with the census just this particular index which misses both Mary and W. Hollingsworth out. Personal names can come in any order as parents name children one thing but over time the second name takes precedence and or in formal documents there is a return to the birth order, or a return to that order anyway because when they leave home they decide to change the order etc.
There is nothing wrong with the census for her elder sister Martha apart from the fact that this census enumerated puts surnames first and then first names. However the indexer has continued this mistakely for Martha but no-one else. Hence the index looks like this (remember the index is surname first)

Martha E, Chambers 6 Cleethorpes, Lincolnshire Granddaughter  Cleethorpes  Lincolnshire 

While the rest of the household are indexed correctly and therefore can be found in the search engine

Windley, Ann E 60 Tetney, Lincolnshire Wife  Cleethorpes  Lincolnshire   
Windley, William 70 Grimoldby, Lincolnshire Head  Cleethorpes  Lincolnshire   
Windy, Mary R A 18 Grimoldby, Lincolnshire Daughter  Cleethorpes  Lincolnshire   
Windy, Thomas G 24 Grimoldby, Lincolnshire Son  Cleethorpes  Lincolnshire 

No problem with either pages of the census. The problem in both cases is purely with the index.

Regards
Valda

[Ian Chambers]

thanks Valda