Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this unusual???

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

  • Is this unusual???

    Being very new to this game, I have spent quite a lot of time trying to sort out the family connections only to find that the census information that I have been spending a lot with and wondering who are these people? and trying to make sense of who they are where they belong etc, just like most of you out there are doing at the moment.

    Much to my surprise when looking at the back up sheet that is the census then looking at the search results that I have requested it dawned on me that the information taken from the original census sheet (hard to read)
    has been translated incorrectly..........being a newbie is this something I should have expected????? 5 family members less to investigate names were transposed incorrectly.arrgh!
    Thanks guys.just letting of steam very late at night here in Oz.:(

  • #2
    Originally posted by wulfruna View Post
    the information taken from the original census sheet (hard to read)
    has been translated incorrectly..........being a newbie is this something I should have expected????? 5 family members less to investigate names were transposed incorrectly.arrgh!

    Welcome wulfruna and YES is the short answer ! :D

    You will get used to it, just regard it as fun and a bit of a challenge


    We're all here to help if you need it



    ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

    Comment


    • #3
      Yes, you should always look at the actual census image and not just go by what has been transcribed.
      KiteRunner

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

      Comment


      • #4
        Yes, lots of original information is then mistranscribed. Also beware that not all original information will be exactly correct (I'm talking about censuses in particular). People did not always accurately record their place of birth or age (in particular). I have kept a note I wrote in 1989 where I queried whether I had found my g-grandfather on the 1881 census as his age was out by one year . I've kept this to remind me of the sort of thing newbies might question! I ignored the fact that everyone else in his household where the right people; just focused on his age!

        Comment


        • #5
          And then there are our Counties .... the borders often change, so you need to be flexible in your thinking and keeping an Atlas nearby is always useful.

          One of my gt grans was born in Lanarkshire, Scotland and I couldn't find her anywhere on one census until I realised that her place of birth was transcribed as Lancashire (England).

          ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

          Comment


          • #6
            It is as well to remember the purpose of the census, which was not for our benefit, but taken for statistical purposes by the government of the day. It was not really interested in the minutiae of a single household and very little effort (except threat of punishment) would have been expended in getting completely accurate information about Joe Bloggs and his brood.

            It was also information which was extracted under duress, with a penalty of fine or imprisonment for refusing to give the information. Many people saw this as an infuriating invasion of their privacy and gave less than truthful answers, just as they do today.

            Overall, I think census info is the least reliable information - it is at best, a transcription of something written down by a householder. It does however, give you a rough overview of your family and where they all were on one given night in ten years.

            Also remember that the question "where were you born?" changed - I think in 1871? The new instructions were to give the nearest recognisable town, not some nameless hamlet at the back of beyond, so the earlier census are likely to be more precise as far as birth locations go.

            OC

            Comment


            • #7
              I've just been looking at a family from Loudon, Ayrshire where some are shown in the census transcription as coming from London.

              I've generally been lucky, finding a family group together (more or less) from one census to the next. One clincher is often a widowed mother or mother-in-law coming to stay with a son or daughter.
              Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

              Comment


              • #8
                I Have found quite a few of my female ancestor going by their maiden name when they are widowed - particularly in early censuses.
                Also I have a couple who were called "Widow Smith", no wonder I couldn't find them by their 1st names.
                I also have relatives who become younger on the next census and ages being 12 years out on some. Also children expressed in years when their age has been entered in months.
                The list is endless.
                It requires a very open mind when looking at censuses. However I am very grateful to have access to them and can't wait for the 1911 one.
                herky
                herky
                Researching - Trimmer (Farringdon), Noble & Taylor (Ross and Cromarty), Norris (Glasgow), McGilvray (Glasgow and Australia), Leck & Efford (Glasgow), Ferrett (Hampshire), Jenkins & Williams (Aberystwyth), Morton (Motherwell and Tipton), Barrowman (Glasgow), Lilley (Bromsgrove and Glasgow), Cresswell (England and Lanarkshire). Simpson, Morrow and Norris in Ireland. Thomas Price b c 1844 Scotland.

                Comment


                • #9
                  In the censuses, my G-g-father alternated his PoB between Ilford (E of London, and not generally viewed as "posh") and Maidenhead (W of London, with posh overtones). You begin to think you've got two different people... but he was born in Barkingside (near Ilford) and brought up in Taplow (near Maidenhead).

                  His wife generally gave her age about 7 years younger than actual for most of the censuses for which she was adult (presumably not to appear too much older than her husband). I don't have concrete evidence, but I think they'd separated by 1901; maybe he found out.

                  Sometimes names or places of birth have been mis-recorded by the enumerator who was confused by a non-local regional accent. At least one of OH's ancestor's PoB was recorded in the census as "Demport". If you've ever heard anyone from the Plymouth area saying "Devonport" you'll know why I had no trouble recognising it for what it was. Similarly I could understand that someone in Surrey might think that my Gx2-uncle had been born in Leamington, when he was actually born in Lymington.

                  Christine
                  Researching: BENNETT (Leics/Birmingham-ish) - incl. Leonard BENNETT in Detroit & Florida ; WARR/WOR, STRATFORD & GARDNER/GARNAR (Oxon); CHRISTMAS, RUSSELL, PAFOOT/PAFFORD (Hants); BIGWOOD, HAYLER/HAILOR (Sussex); LANCASTER (Beds, Berks, Wilts) - plus - COCKS (Spitalfields, Liverpool, Plymouth); RUSE/ROWSE, TREMEER, WADLIN(G)/WADLETON (Devonport, E Cornwall); GOULD (S Devon); CHAPMAN, HALL/HOLE, HORN (N Devon); BARRON, SCANTLEBURY (Mevagissey)...

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post

                    Also remember that the question "where were you born?" changed - I think in 1871? The new instructions were to give the nearest recognisable town, not some nameless hamlet at the back of beyond, so the earlier census are likely to be more precise as far as birth locations go.

                    OC
                    I never realised that. Is there a website where the questions are listed?
                    Rose

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hello there, Thank you so much I feel so much better....I will start and relax a bit more and enjoy the experience.
                      I have embraced this family search with such intensity I hadn't realised how involved I had become.My search for my ancestors is now making more sense.I thought with the incorrect transcribing I was going crackers and it was getting a bit beyond me.
                      take a deep breath "once more into the breach dear friends" more happy hunting.cheers

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        wulfruna

                        don't worry, you are suffering a case of genealogical poisoning, caused by unaccustomed over-indulgence!

                        You will soon settle down and learn how much you can take at each session without feeling ill and your tolerance levels will quickly rise, although you will now always need constant top-ups!

                        OC

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          i always think it is the enumerator not ancestry that gets it wrong. most of the time.

                          i couldn't find my ancestor maria crossfield- written by the enumerator as maryia chrosfield.

                          i couldn't find my ancestors john and marian morton in 1901- written down as marshall, and john was listed as james. fortunately, his wife was born in an era and place that are uncommon for the census, and this couple didn't appear before 1901 as marshall.

                          you will always encounter problems. just sit back, try not to get frustrated and think through every possibility. and if you still can't find the answer, someone on here will pretty quickly.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            It's not only the census that can be misinterpreted in this way but also Births/Marriages and Deaths. If people just go on any site and find a Birth, Marriage or Death in a Registration District and do not purchase said certificate, then they may also be adding false information to their trees. For example if you find people's BMD registered at Oundle or Bridport those people may actually have been born/married/died at a small vilage/hamlet up to 10 miles away. I have been amazed at the number of people who put down Bridport as a place of birth/marriage/death when the person was actually born/married/ died at Chideock.

                            As for Census I have found loads of mistakes in the transcriptions, but few mistakes on the original census, except where people have got their ages incorrect.

                            Janet
                            Last edited by Janet; 07-12-08, 11:01.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kylejustin View Post
                              i always think it is the enumerator not ancestry that gets it wrong. most of the time.

                              Kyle, I would say that ancestry's error rate is much much higher than the enumerators', on average.
                              KiteRunner

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

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                tis true comment kate. but like i said , when i have trouble ancestry got it right, ad the enumerator was the weirdo.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X