Now that Cumberland is online, I've found OH's 2xg-grandmother. Although she was a widow and so the "Number of Years Married / numbers of children" columns didn't need to be filled in, the number of children columns are filled in and it says 9 children, 3 living, 6 dead. I'm used to the number being higher than I thought, but I had her down as having 10 children! And the first of those was born several months after her marriage, so it's not a case of children born before the marriage not being counted. But now I see that she didn't fill the form in, her son did, so do you think it's possible he either guessed the number, miscounted, or thought he knew but had just not been told about one of them? (After all, the first one was born a couple of weeks short of the nine months after the wedding!) Surely I can't have got it wrong?!
Unconfigured Ad Widget
Collapse
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
1911 census number of children problem
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by KiteRunner View PostSurely I can't have got it wrong?!
NEVER!
Is the son who filled in the form a younger child? Could it be possible that he wasn't old enough to remember one of his deceased siblings being around so simply believed there was just nine of them?Zoe in London
Cio che Dio vuole, io voglio ~ What God wills, I will
-
Most probably he simply guessed as many do today when filling in a census.
Many people, when faced with official forms, think the main requirement is to fill the blank spaces.
It does not really matter what is put in as long as something is.
There is also the possibility that one child might have been still-born, or even that one child may have actually been a sister's or a daughter's child.
Cheers
GuyGuy passed away October 2022
Comment
-
Could it not be a simple error as in how many children? He counted them but of course didn't include himself?
Kiterunner was there a reason for the deathtoll or did yr 2x g gran live to a ripe old age outliving her kids? I have two incidents of large child mortality but at the moment no obvious explanation.
Comment
-
My guess is that it is likely her son's handwriting was the neatest and he was the best speller in the house and 2x gg had her pride! I would think that she would not have let him just fill the form in... he would have been under strict instructions off her.
Sad to say that having lost so many children (I presume this is the 'missing') she may have miscounted. It would have been very traumatic x 6. I am sure she would not forget but she had no OH around to run the figures past. Sometimes we do have our uses!
I think you would hard pressed to delete a child you have a record for but maybe a double check from your end would set you at easeJohn
Brick wall in Ireland demolished after 25 years! Looking for any more Carrolls of Stradbally Parish, Waterford in particular Thomas Carroll b1861 married Bridget Leavy 1896 in QLD Australia..chipping away!
Comment
-
Originally posted by samesizedfeet View PostNEVER!
Is the son who filled in the form a younger child? Could it be possible that he wasn't old enough to remember one of his deceased siblings being around so simply believed there was just nine of them?
Originally posted by Guy View PostThere is also the possibility that one child might have been still-born, or even that one child may have actually been a sister's or a daughter's child.
Originally posted by nigele2 View PostCould it not be a simple error as in how many children? He counted them but of course didn't include himself?
Kiterunner was there a reason for the deathtoll or did yr 2x g gran live to a ripe old age outliving her kids? I have two incidents of large child mortality but at the moment no obvious explanation.KiteRunner
Every five years or so I look back on my life and I have a good... laugh" (Indigo Girls, "Watershed")
Comment
-
I think it is simple human error: people + forms invariably leads to error and the son miscounted or never knew about the death of the eldest child. Sounds a bit like the film "Home alone".
I have found quite a few 1911 census forms filled out by the eldest child. Quite a few adults (particularly in my family) were unable to write.
Is it worth purchasing the birth certificate of the eldest child in order to double check? Probably too expensive and you may end up buying all 10!!!!
Kazza
Comment
-
Kite, great uncle filled in details for years married, number of children etc. He was in Portsmouth, Hants. So did great aunt, in the workhouse, Grays, Essex.
You'd have thought they'd have got their stories straight, now wouldn't you?
The only fact they can agree on is 3 living children. Guess who can only find two?:(Phoenix - with charred feathers
Researching Skillings from Norfolk, Sworn from Salisbury and Adams in Malborough, Devon.
Comment
-
It could be a simple error Kite.
I've just found my ggrandparents in Northumberland. I know there were 11 children, one of whom died in 1900 on the same day as he was born. The census states 10 children - 5 living, 5 dead. Although they could both read and write the census form was filled in by their schoolteacher son, who would have been 14 when the "missing" child was born
On another note - my other great grandparents have put n.k. in the how long married column - wonder if thats anything to do with them getting married just before the birth of their third child..............Barbara
Comment
-
Just goes to show even the censuses have to be taken with a pinch of salt.
I had high hopes of the 1911 census to sort out my grandmother's siblings - I was told she was the only girl in a family of 10 (or 11) - so far I've found 7 boys, plus my granny.
On the 1911 census g-granny has put down she'd had 3 children, 3 dead and 3 living!
What makes it worse is that at least 6 of her children were living close by in 1911 (4 in the same house!) so I can only think she got terminally confused by the form!
Comment
Comment