I read somewhere that most householders schedules were completed by someone other than the enumerator (esp 1871 and after, as more people could read and write), mainly because the enumerator didn't have the time to fill out the forms on the doorstep. The problem was that the form might be filled out by anyone who was vaguely literate. Obviously in many cases this would be the householder, but was often a child, neighbour etc etc and they might, or might not, fill in the form correctly!

As all Victorian householders schedules have been destroyed (except the ones for shipping) I don't know how they came by this info......maybe from reports written at the time? I wish I could remember where I read it - not online - in a book or other publication.

I have numerous cases in my tree where relatives are described as lodgers or boarders, so I wonder if the enumerators had instructions to do this in some cases?

My g-g grandfather is a lodger in one or other of his childrens households for 40 years, but he is never described as father, or father-in-law! Annoying, especially as his death was registered by the nextdoor neighbour, rather than by a family member, so I don't actually have any proof as to who he is! lol

I don't know whether the instructions to enumerators on how to fill the forms in are available online. I have seen them on the microfiche at the record office so I could have a read through next time I go to see exactly what it said they should put in that kind of situation.

I do sympathise, OC!

We had a "visitor" on the 1891 census with my grandfather's family.

1891 Census
RG12; Piece: 872; Folio 97; Page 5; GSU roll: 6095982
Avondale St Ursula Road St Jude Portsea Portsmouth
Eliza Bond Head Widow 65 Living on her own means Bucks Winchendon
Joseph T Purkis Boarder M 33 Engineer Royal Navy Hants Portsmouth
Jessie J.E Purkis Boarder’s wife M 31 Surrey Norwood
Cecil H.J. Purkis Boarder’s son 3 Hants Portsmouth
Elsie Alice Sharp Visitor 11 Scholar Middlesex Camden Town
Isabella Burkinshaw Servant 17 General Servant Domestic
Joseph Symons Boarder Widower 51 Master Caulker Devon Devonport

Elisie Alice Sharp is down as a visitor. We didn't think anything of it. My mum got the 1891 census entry many years ago (she died four years ago).

Cecil is my grandfather.

When I researched further, we discovered that Eliza Bond had had three children by her first marriage, and that Elsie Alice Sharp is in fact Eliza's granddaughter! I even found a photo of her when I was going through my grandmother's photo albums a couple of months ago.

It would have saved us a lot of trouble and pointed us in the right direction much sooner had the enumerator bothered to tell us of the relationship between Eliza and Elsie!

By the way, Joseph T Purkis is Eliza Bond's son-in-law and Jessie J E Purkis is Jessie Jane Eliza, Eliza Bond's daughter! Cecil is her grandson.

Oooh, that's a very good idea!!

I wonder if the instructions vary from one census to another (hint, hint)??

Guy to the rescue!

Guy Etchells has assembled a collection of directions.

The details of what should have been recorded are given on Ancestry.

The 1851 Census for England was taken on the night of 30 March 1851. The following information was requested:

* Name of street, place, road, etc.
* House number or name
* Name of each person that had spent the night in that household
* Relationship of person enumerated to the head of the family
* Person's marital status
* Age at last birthday (sex is indicated by which column the age is recorded in)
* Person's rank, profession, or occupation
* Person's place of birth (if outside of England or Wales, only the country may be given)
* Whether blind, deaf, or idiot

Enumeration forms were distributed to all households a couple of days before census night and the complete forms were collected the next day. All responses were to reflect the individual's status as of 30 March 1851 for all individuals who had spent the night in the house. People who were traveling or living abroad were enumerated at the location where they spent the night on census night. All of the details from the individual forms were later sorted and copied into enumerators' books, which are the records we can view images of today. The original householders schedules from 1841 to 1901 were destroyed.


If the data was recorded incorrectly on the original forms you can hardly blame the poor enumerator!

I think the directions on Guy's website are just instructions to the enumerator detailing how he copies out the content of the schedules received.

or she Elaine! ;) I have several female enumerators, the first being an enumerator in 1891.

It does tend to go along with the job of registrar, as all of the women in my tree who were enumerators were either the deputy registrar of births and deaths or the daughter of a registrar!

Now how did I forget that Tom!

I have of course made the dangerous assumption that this family were illiterate and someone else (the form collector?) filled out the form on their behalf.

But I do wonder, as this is by no means the first time I have seen the obvious relationship to head of household ignored in favour of lodger or visitor.

Scottish censuses seem to be particularly at fault here and I wonder if "visitor" instead of grandchild was an attempt to show that the "visitor" did not normally reside at that address. In the case I am thinking of, there was absolutely no other reason (other than extreme density) for the grandmother to deny the relationship - grandchildren born respectably within marriage for all concerned.

OC

It was the same lady who was the first female deputy registrar. She was first enumerator in 1891 and again in 1901.

In 1901 she was joined by one of her daughters, and then in another part of the tree another female deputy registrar of b's and d's was an enumerator. She was the daughter of the registrar as opposed to the wife

I've come to a halt on one of my Somerset lines, I'm looking for a John Jacob Foster who was born anywhere between 1760 & 1780 (His age at death, in 1854, is given as 92) I've got a likely baptism in 1774 with parents Richard & Ann.

He appears as a lodger, badly mistranscribed, on the 1851 census as 36 (!) [its almost unreadable], he's living with a Richard Foster aged 66, who is a publican.
Now I know JJ was married at least twice, so its perfectly possible that Richard is his son; if not then I would think they are almost certainly cousins.
But can I find the missing link???

it would have been so helpful to know....

I can understand the householder (whether literate or not) describing a relative as a visitor if they didn't live there usually, but even if they were illiterate, I wouldn't have expected them to describe a relative as a lodger or boarder.

No, exactly, Mary!

I have seen on a few occasions "relative" as the relationship, where the relationship is a complicated one and defies easy description (wife's grandfather's first wife's sister's child, lol, or whatever) but that at least does give a clue.

OC

Come on OC, admit it ... it wouldn't be so much fun if the enumerator gave you all the answers!

I have recently been doing some research on this and have found several examples of literate people filling out the form for illiterate neighbours, often for a small sum of money. The Daily News of April 4 1871 reports that one person found a “good schollard” who filled out the form for him.

In 1881 an enumerator in London’s East End found few forms filled out by immigrant “Irish, Jews, Dutchmen, Germans, Poles” and found himself using a 10 year old girl to translate information required for the schedule.

Mistakes? It makes my head hurt to think of all the possibilities. :D

LOL Elaine!

Mind you it is times like this I marvel at those "researchers" (I use the word jokingly) who declare that it is not necessary to get certs because a census return gives a truer description of a family and tells you all you need to know!

This branch of "researchers" declare that certs are full of mistakes, lies etc....yet they are perfectly happy to accept a CENSUS return as being gospel truth!

OC