Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Enumerators and their shortcomings.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #41
    Thanks, Jewels. I had a look at the 1851 - 1901 censuses at the record office, but the instructions to enumerators don't go into details about what should be entered in the "relationship to head" column, apart from the standard abbreviations to be used so I would think it would be the instructions to householders for filling in the original form that would tell us that!
    KiteRunner

    Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh"
    (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")

    Comment


    • #42
      The article about the 1901 enumerator was very interesting. Clearly there was quite a lot of filling in done by the enumerator where he/she couldn't get it any other way.

      The bit about the poor pay was interesting too. I have seen several times (but stupidly never noted down where :() the enumerator had written at the end of the schedule some disparaging comments about how little they were paid. Sometimes it is a little throw away sentence but I have seen one where he had most of the page to play with and he used it to the full!!! :D

      In the 'old days' of trawling through whole census areas I used to be amused at the change in writing which sometimes happened halfway through. The enumerator had obviously got tired of it and a spouse or child had continued!! And then there are those which start off with really nice writing and gradually get worse and worse as time and patience ran out.

      Anne

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by KiteRunner View Post
        ... the instructions to enumerators don't go into details about what should be entered in the "relationship to head" column, apart from the standard abbreviations to be used so I would think it would be the instructions to householders for filling in the original form that would tell us that!
        Here's an small extract from the Householder's Schedule from 1851. Regarding relationship to the head of household, the householder had to rely on "the three examples of the mode of filling up the Householder's Schedule". There were lengthy instructions regarding occupations, and a lodger was defined as a person who lets or sub-lets part of the house. Otherwise there were just the examples.
        Phil
        historyhouse.co.uk
        Essex - family and local history.

        Comment


        • #44
          So a householder might put their relative down as a lodger if the relative was paying him something for keep/a room etc.

          Comment


          • #45
            It's certainly open to different interpretations. I don't know whether the form was made clearer in later decades. I'll dig around and see if I can find some.

            Edit:
            There's one on this page for 1861 (near the bottom)
            FREE UK Family History Forums, Genealogy Forums & Ancestry Community
            Last edited by keldon; 05-12-08, 16:25.
            Phil
            historyhouse.co.uk
            Essex - family and local history.

            Comment


            • #46
              I can't resist sticking my oar in here! Don't forget the Census wasn't done for our benefit, we just came along later and complained when we couldn't find our rellies:(

              I was an enumerator for two or three census and it was jolly difficult, I'm quite glad that I shan't be here in a hundred years or so to hear people complaining about me and how I've managed to mis-interpret the forms. I remember having terrible trouble with one old lady who lived in a house with oil lamps, a primus stove for cooking and an outside toilet that had to be emptied by hand. The questions about electricity, kitchens and flush indoor and outdoor toilets completely stumped me so goodness knows how that is going to read in 2080 if anyone still does family history. Then of course there are people who refuse to answer and tell any old lies just to get rid of you And wasn't there something in a recent census about if you put your religion down as being a Jedi or something that would go down as being an authentic religion - now that will really confuse family historians of the future.

              I'm now going to put my head back down below the parapet.:D

              Margaret
              Margaret

              Comment


              • #47
                Great thread!!

                I have often been amused not just by the shortcomings of the enumerators but also by the way some have added bits :D

                This is from the 1851 census..... I think this enumerator must have been paid :D

                HO107; Piece 1993; Folio 405; Page 10

                Allie
                Researching Betton, Cook/Cooke, Fallows, Howell, Jones, Lewis, Morgan, Rogers, Weston. All in Shropshire.

                Richards in Denbighshire.

                Comment


                • #48
                  Originally posted by Wilf View Post
                  This is from the 1851 census..... I think this enumerator must have been paid :D

                  HO107; Piece 1993; Folio 405; Page 10

                  Allie
                  lol! Love it!! Pity the first name of Mr Hughes is difficult to read! lol

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Hi Ben my 4 x great gran did the same, more and more precise with each census. She started off with just giving London, but by her last census 5 years before her death she did give the exact street of birth, only time I have ever seen this in my family research recorded on a census, Bow Lane, Cheapside, City of London. I later found out her uncle had a tea business the same time she was born at 15 Bow Lane Cheapside, in the shadow of the church of St-Mary Le Bow. Tied up everthing nicely.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      I know for sure that my OHs ancestors on the 1901 census have relatives described as boarders and they actually have the same surname as the head of household - he was his brother.

                      My grandmother was transcribed as being the daughter of the head on the 1891 census but I know she wasn't. In fact the census that are vital to my research are mostly flawed.
                      Last edited by Kath nr the Crooked Spire; 05-12-08, 21:43.
                      Kathleen

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X