Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How does that work then?

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

  • How does that work then?

    Ok most of us use census records, now I have always assumed that the purpose of a census is to record the whereabouts of everyone in the country and other information on census night.

    So who captures the information on the enumerators if they are out compiling returns?
    Life's a journey not a destination.

    Currently researching: Makey (Kent), Heath & Neil (London & Devon), Pegg (Norfolk & Suffolk), Gulliford (Cornwall).... Still busy busy!

  • #2
    andymak

    They fill their own forms in, in their own households. The census records who was in a given place at midnight. the census returns are collected over the next few days.

    OC

    Comment


    • #3
      Many thanks for that OC sometimes I just sit and ponder some of these strange things!
      Life's a journey not a destination.

      Currently researching: Makey (Kent), Heath & Neil (London & Devon), Pegg (Norfolk & Suffolk), Gulliford (Cornwall).... Still busy busy!

      Comment


      • #4
        Don't forget that, indeed, households were supposed to fill the census forms in themselves (if they couldn't write, they asked someone else, or the enumerator filled it in to their directions the next day), but when they were collected by the enumerators, they were copied by them too on big sheets with several households. cfr 1841, 1851, 1861, 1871, 1881, 1891 and 1901. The original census returns, filled in by the families themselves, were then destroyed. The 1911 census was also done this way, but it is the only census of which the original returns were for some reason not destroyed. The scanned images one can obtain are the original returns (hence spelling mistakes like 'dauthger').

        So, mistakes can be apparent in censuses because enumerators made them. The only census that cannot have mistakes of birth place or names or other things apart from spelling mistakes (that are sometimes very interesting nonetheless!) is the 1911 census, because before you is the original filled in page by one of the family, or at least (if they could not write) one filled in because of information first-hand and not copied at a desk at maybe 1 o'clock in the morning.

        I don't know what the 1921 census will be though...

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by kiki1982 View Post
          The only census that cannot have mistakes of birth place or names or other things apart from spelling mistakes ... is the 1911 census
          I wouldn't be so sure!

          Most people filled in the details to the best of their knowledge, but some may not have known exactly where or when they were born, or the exact details of other people in the household. Also people did make mistakes through misunderstanding, or not reading the instructions properly. Then you have the people who knowingly did not tell the truth ....

          But you make a good point about the potential for enumerators' errors in previous censuses. People tend to forget this, or are not aware that the surviving census documents are only transcriptions.

          Comment


          • #6
            And in March 1911 schools were required to give at least one lesson on the importance of the census and how the forms were to be completed. This was so they could instruct their parents.
            But I expect the government knew that in many areas of low literacy it would be the pupils who would have to fill them in for Mum and Dad.
            Last edited by Chris in Sussex; 01-03-10, 11:59.
            Avatar....My darling mum, Irene June Robinson nee Pearson 1931-2019.

            'Take nothing on its looks, take everything on evidence. There is no better rule' Charles Dickens, Great Expectations.

            Comment


            • #7
              Ok, allowing for people that did not know their own birth place or willingly lied about it. Nuance it a little bit ;).

              Still, some enumerators took too much liberty.

              Comment


              • #8
                I have always assumed that the purpose of a census is to record the whereabouts of everyone in the country and other information on census night.
                I think the purpose was to find out where people were - rather than where each person was. They needed names to (...try to...) be able to make sure that they didn't duplicate info, but the actual names weren't that material, so long as they could gauge the distribution of the population and how ages and occupations (or unemployment) were spread around. The censuses are for statistical data, with the idea that taxation and other planning can be organised appropriately (or so I understand).

                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


                • #9
                  And to see the overall growth in population.

                  But maybe also what minorities there are (at least they counted that in the Russian census, even down to the 2 Italians or whatevers that were in the whole of the Russian empire!), where they live, what kind of job they do (which class they are). Immigration, where people came from and settled obviously subsequently. Migration inside the country was even an issue. Where in the 1841 cesus there was still the word 'aboad' or 'outside census county' as birth place (if one was not born in the county one was), in the next they attempted to track migration by recording everyone's birth place. So, the great migrations to the north from about the 1840-50s are very apparent with people registered in Manchester when they were born in Surrey f.i., the same phenomena were striking to the people that made the statistics. I think a report was even published about every census, after it was made. I am not sure, but it was certainly done in America and Russia. I suppose that was also the object in the UK.

                  In times where cholera had been raging, there would probably be a dip in population.

                  The first censuses were pretty simple. Obviously the main concern was 'how many people are living in this country?' Only the head of the family was recorded and then the amount of people with him. Not even if they were family or not, not even their names. Just how many. 'John Smith in Yorkshire has 5 people living with him'; whether wife and four children, one uncle, his mother-in-law and three of his children was not really a concern. Gradually, from 1841, there came names for family members, after that (I believe) relationships to the head. So people who had mothers-in-law or lodgers do not pose a problem to researchers now. Then professions.

                  By 1911 they had become concerned with birth rate. I think, possibly it went down because of development and better care (not all children died so you didn't have to make too many). The birth rate goes down as development strengthens. So, as our 1911 sociologists were concerned about this phenomenon, they added the question 'how many years married, how many children born in this marriage, and how many children have died'. So, indirectly, even children who had been born and had died between the censuses of 1901 and 1911 were recorded.
                  Last edited by kiki1982; 02-03-10, 19:17.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    One of the overriding reasons for taking a census, be it in 1911 or 1611, lol, was to find out how many men you had of an age to fight a war.

                    This was particularly important during the Victorian era, when Britain ruled the world and needed an endless supply of young men to fight wars.

                    But yes, census are generally taken for the purpose of forward planning...how many houses will we need, how many schools, how many jobs and so on. Therefore, PERSONAL details didn't have to be specially accurate, the forward planners didn't need to know your actual name, nor your actual age etc. The truth was only important in very general terms and statisticians have always known how to adjust for error.

                    OC
                    Last edited by Olde Crone Holden; 02-03-10, 20:05. Reason: spelling gremlin

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Blackberry View Post
                      I wouldn't be so sure!

                      Most people filled in the details to the best of their knowledge, but some may not have known exactly where or when they were born, or the exact details of other people in the household. Also people did make mistakes through misunderstanding, or not reading the instructions properly. Then you have the people who knowingly did not tell the truth ....

                      They got a bit confused by some of the questions in 1911 I think. The one about the number of children born alive to the present marriage seems to have caught out a few of ours who were widows as it has been filled in and then crossed out - since they didn't have a "present marriage" I assume. This has worked to our advantage in the case of my husband's great grandmother though. The only child we thought she had was OH's grandmother but her mistake told us that she had had 5 children, one of whom (who must have been Grandma) was still alive. Fortunately, the crossing out wasn't done heavily so it was still easy to read.

                      Ann
                      ".... thy memory shall be blest by the children of the children of thy child".
                      Alfred, Lord Tennyson





                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Or the number of rooms . It wasn't an easy one because you were not llowed to count the kitchen, hallway and bathroom, or something. Probably all they had in some cases...

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by kiki1982 View Post
                          Or the number of rooms . It wasn't an easy one because you were not llowed to count the kitchen, hallway and bathroom, or something. Probably all they had in some cases...
                          I remember that sort of question in recent censuses, though I can't remember the detail.
                          Uncle John - Passed away March 2020

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I seem to remember one on the 1911 census...

                            I went to look for it. This is what it said:

                            "Write below the Number of Rooms in this Dweling (House, Tenement, or Apartment). Count the kitchen as a room, but do not count scullery, landing, lobby, closet, bathroom; nor warehouse, office, shop."

                            So they were allowed to count the kitchen.

                            I mean, I have one family, two children, who lived in one room! So, we can presume, if they counted properly, that they only lived in a kitchen where they slept as well!

                            I have someone who crossed out something and changed the number.

                            I mean, some people probably had not even ssen 'a lobby' in their lives inside a house!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              I think that most people in 1911 didn't have rooms designated as kitchen or bathroom.

                              My gt grandmother lived with her two daughters in a multi occupied house in London. They lived in one room. They would have used the fire to cook and would have had a a bowl or tin bath for washing. All the families in the house had one room each, so it was a living room where you did all your living!

                              There was probably one toilet out the back which was shared by everyone in the house. I suppose they also had chamber pots in their room.

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                My grandma's old house was a 2 story dwelling, originally 2 residences. The upstairs residence didn't have a separate kitchen. One of the rooms had a tiny alcove that was the kitchen. The kitchen wouldn't have been classed as it's own room.
                                Kit

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X