Just found another way transcribers/enumerators lose our names...

[Christine in Herts]

Have a look at the 1871 census:
RG10/2675 fo 76, p 3
Cheltenham Union Workhouse

The surnames are there, but where people appear on the row below someone and are labelled as "his wife" or "her child(ren/er)" they don't get a surname transcribed. The appear, on their own page, as "Sarah Her Child", say - but the "Her Child" bit doesn't appear as a surname.

How that's dealt with in the searches I've no idea. I've just been putting in corrections to allow for the likelihood that the children share their mother's surname, and the wife shares her husband's. Technically not a certainty, I suppose, but at least you're likely to look for that, eventually, even if it's wrong!

Christine

[dicole]

Hi Christine

In the 1841 census, I found a whole house in Sussex with names written on two lines, because they put their full names, it was very weirdly indexed by ancestry, lots of "n.k" the whole household did not appear together.

Even though its not my family, I sent corrections to ancestry, as one of the women was Marianne Caroline Byles who married Coventry Patmore (he wasn't there) but I did suppose someone might be doing more research into the family one day.

There was another one I saw in Cambridgeshire, where the enumerator had put "n.k." for the names of three ag.labs, although he had their ages and born in Cambs. No one will ever know who they were !!


Di

[Little Nell]

But they are probably rellies family researchers have been looking for for years!