Slapdash census enumerators.

[coombs]

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.

[emeltom]

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.

[coombs]

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.

[Treetotal]

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

[Jomot]

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. 

[PurdeyB]

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.

[andrewalston]

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.

[melba_schmelba]

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.

[coombs]

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.