Is this the same family?

[PeteW1959]

I have on the 1851 HO107/1468/70/46:-

Thomas Forster Head 51 Porter born Hackney Middlesex
Marion Forster Wife 37 born Hampton, Middlesex
Ann Forster Daur 13 born Hampton, Middlesex
Margaret Forster Daur 11 born Hampton, Middlesex
Sophia Forster Daur 7 born Hampton, Middlesex
Harriet Forster Daur 2 born Hampton, Middlesex

There is a lodger as well but he isn't connected.

On the 1861 RG9/16/105/45:-

Thomas Forster Head 62 Servant born Middlesex, Hackney
Marian Forster Wife 48 Governess?? born Middlesex Chiswick
Harriett Forster Dau 5 born Middlesex, Kensington

On the 1871 RG10/30/95/59 :-

Thomas Forster Head 71 Messenger born Hackney
Mary Ann Forster Wife 58 Laundress born Hampton
Harriett Forster Daur 22 Dressmaker born Middlesex, Kensington
Alice Forster Daur 15 Scholar born Middlesex, Kensington
Elizabeth Forster Gran Daur 5 born Middlesex, Kensington

Again there is a lodger, not connected

The discrepancies are:-

Harriet's age in 1861 as 5 when she is 2 in 1851 and 22 in 1871
Alice is 15 in 1871 but is not listed for 1861
Marion, Marian, Mary Ann on successive censuses
Marian's occupation as governess in 1861 (although I am not sure about that, handwriting is poor) then laundress in 1871
Thomas's occupation (although they are all unskilled manual)

I can't tie much in with BMD records, and as this is a side branch I don't really want to spend money on certificates.

It would be great to have a second opinion, just in case I have put 2 and 2 together and come up with 5

Pete

[KiteRunner]

Marion / Marian was certainly used for Mary Ann; I have one or two in my tree who did that. Harriet - her age could well just be down wrong in 1861. In fact, her age in 1861 is what Alice's should be, isn't it? So it could be that the enumerator started off copying out Harriet's details but partway through, started reading the next line (Alice) by mistake and so ended up merging the two into one line.

It does look like the same family to me. I suppose you could check back that there isn't another similar family on any of the censuses.

[Pamdidle]

Well in 1861 and 1871 they are at the same address (10, Palace Place) so l would say its the same family

[Pamdidle]

Dont know whether l need new specs, but l cannot find them in 1851 even with the ref. you have quoted

[PeteW1959]

Thanks for the replies, folks.

@Kiterunner
That is a very plausible explaination for the Alice/Harriet problem, thanks

@Pam
Sorry, typo in the 1851 ref, should be page 46 :o
I must admit I hadn't spotted it was the same address in 1861 and 1871, I am in the process of 'filling in the blanks' of missing census returns and haven't got as far as entering 1871 into Family Historian yet. Well spotted!

[Penelope]

Redacted

[Pamdidle]

They are at the same address in 1851 as well Pete. It must be the same people musnt it?

[PeteW1959]

Thanks for your replies folks.

I am now confident that they are the same family, but I wonder what happend for Mary Ann to end up as a Laundress from being a Governess? Also to confirm the Harriett/Alice confusion I think I will need certificates, but that will have to wait, I have direct lines I still need some for first!

[KiteRunner]

Maybe it was just that the children of the family she worked for had grown up by then and didn't need a governess any more.

[Konovolov]

Hi, just a thought - is it the original you've seen that says governess or just the transcription? I'd imagine that depending on how elaborate the script, governess and laundress could look very similar. Craig (apologies I can't see the censuses as i'm using my mobile at the moment)

[KiteRunner]

It does say Governess on the image for 1861 and Laundress on the image for 1871.

[Konovolov]

Thanks kite runner. I realised how stupid that question was as soon as I posted it! Lol

[KiteRunner]

No, it's definitely worth checking the image for everything like that.