Another 1911 surprise!

[Anne in Carlisle]

We recently got the 1911 transcription for my OH's grandfather's family. His father (my f i l)was the baby of the family not born until 1918 but the census form shows the first 5 of his brothers and sisters.

We had not rushed to get the census because we 'knew' everything. Dad often talked about his 9 siblings and our daughter made a list of them when she was a child - extracting all the info from Grandad, who was pleased to chat with her ....... BUT.....

On the census there is a completely unknown sister, Muriel! My immediate thought was that she had died as a child - but NO! From the GRO index it appears she married in 1935 and within a year died. She was 25 and f i l was 17. F i l had other siblings who had died young including one who died aged 27 in 1934. He mentioned all those so WHY didn't he ever, ever mention Muriel?????

I'm just going to have to get the marriage and death certificates - maybe there was a big scandal!!!

The moral of this is - get stuck into 1911 - you never know what you might find!

Anne

[kylejustin]

good for you finding another sibling!! i have a feeling my 1911 ones will have a surprise or two!!

[KiteRunner]

Maybe there was a big falling-out in the family?

[Haydn]

Anne

Yes i also found info that i was not aware of, one of my ancestors filled in the census form,and i am pleased to say he made a complete hash of it, he had filled in the names of all his 4 children, but 2 were born and died between 1901 and 1911, so the names should not have been included
The enumerator had crossed them out but i was able to read the names,and found their births and deaths.
Without that mistake i probably would have never discovered these children, so a good piece of luck.:D

George

[Anne in Carlisle]

Maybe there was a big falling-out in the family?

That's what we are thinking Kite. Also it seems pretty unusual for the bride to die within a few months of marrying in 1935. Childbirth is the obvious thought but you can let the imagination rip! Must get those certs!

Anne

[susan h]

Anne

Yes i also found info that i was not aware of, one of my ancestors filled in the census form,and i am pleased to say he made a complete hash of it, he had filled in the names of all his 4 children, but 2 were born and died between 1901 and 1911, so the names should not have been included
The enumerator had crossed them out but i was able to read the names,and found their births and deaths.
Without that mistake i probably would have never discovered these children, so a good piece of luck.:D

George

Hi George,

So far as I understand, for the 1911 census women were asked to name all children they gave birth to, which meant including babies who had died before the census was taken

[Helen Smith Too]

No, married women were only supposed to say how many live births they had had of that marriage, and how many of the children were still living, but many householders got it wrong.

My gr-grandfather had an elder sister who had supposedly 'done a bunk', never to be heard of again when she was quite young, so I was very surprised to find her living with an aunt in Fleetwood in 1911, with a possible marriage for her in 1915 - cert on order.
Both she and her brother were born in London - one Poplar, one West Ham but both are claiming to be born in Kensington on this census.

[susan h]

but 2 were born and died between 1901 and 1911, so the names should not have been included
George

Yes, Helen only live births had to be enumerated, but George says born and died , not stillborn.

[Helen Smith Too]

Any child that had been born alive of that marriage, but who had subsequently died should not have had their name recorded.
We're lucky that so many did make a mess of it.

I have one widowed 2xgrGrandfather who stated he had 4 children, 3 of who were alive. This confirms the existance of a child from his first marriage that we have only hearsay evidence for. This man had been widowed for 31 years!
Another widowed 2xGrGrandmother (her husband had died in 1890) states she had 6 children, only 2 of whom are still alive. We knew of 3, including my great grandmother who had died in 1906 aged 25.
I think one thing it shows, is that people had to move on with their lives, but they never forgot.

[Anne in Carlisle]

I have a census return in front of me. In the column with the names listed it says (in effect)
Name and surname
of every person who passed the night of April 2nd 1911 or who arrived in the dwelling on the morning of April 3rd, not having been enumerated anywhere else.

It follows therefore that dead people should not be entered, which is why the ones who had died on George's return had been crossed out by the clerk.

the column about children is just a numbers one
- how many live births for the present marriage
- how many still living
- how many who have died.

As has been said - the ones who died were never forgotten. I can imagine it felt wrong to just put them in as a number without recording their names.

Anne

[susan h]

Well! I don't consider myself slow, but quite obviously I'd have got it wrong ;)

Anne, I quite agree the babies who died were not forgotten, they were family members dear to them, and to record them as a number without a name would have been inconceivable.