Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Stupid ?...can the transcribers get the date wrong??

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

  • Stupid ?...can the transcribers get the date wrong??

    I have been searching and searching for the marriage of my William Teer ( Teare ), to Elizabeth Ann (Lillian), and have been assuming they were married give or take 5 years prior to 1st son Leo b.1891. Considering all the mistakes transcribers make with names and places, can they be dislexic with the dates, especially if handwriting was bad?? William was b. 1861ish according to census's. She was b. abt.1867, and died 1920. She was Lillian on 1891 & 1901 census's, but Elizabeth Ann on 1911. She was buried as Elizabeth Ann Teer.
    What I mean is, say they were married 1889, but it was mis read as say 1859, or even 39???? Is it possible??

    jackie
    Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

  • #2
    Why not, with partly illegible and scrawled over census entries, anything is possible, the transcriber can only give the best interpretation of the entry. Why are you so sure they married before Leo was born ? Many have found their grandparents and g-grandparents to finally get married long after the children come along !Are you sure Lillian and Elizabeth Ann ARE the same wife ? They might have even (heaven forbid) have lied to the census, saying they were married in 1889 when they were not - who would have known ? If my OHs g-g-g grandparents were prepared to lie to the BDM Registrar, why not the census enumerator too ?

    Di
    Diane
    Sydney Australia
    Avatar: Reuben Edward Page and Lilly Mary Anne Dawson

    Comment


    • #3
      Hi - if it's the same wife, Lillian could have been from Elizabeth Anne - Lilli - and An.
      Dates are often wrong...and yes, I'm sure a lot was misread...There's also a chance they didn't marry...
      where would it have taken place?

      Comment


      • #4
        Have you obtained any birth certs to gain knowledge on Elizabeth/Lilian maiden name?
        WendyP

        Comment


        • #5
          I notice her daughter Ethel bn 1898 is not with them on the 1911 census but she is to be found listed as a niece in the household of a Christopher Stackhouse Green and a Mary Eleanor. These 2 married in 1897 in Chorlton. A marriage check show that Mary was Taylor when she married which tallies with the fact that there was a Frank Taylor shown as step son to Christopher.


          checking the 1891 census to find this child Frank his father shows as one Arthur G Taylor. So the question should be at this point is Ethel Teer/Trear/Tear the direct niece of Chistopher Green or Mary Eleanor Green formerley Taylor nee something?
          WendyP

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Jacqueline View Post
            I have been searching and searching for the marriage of my William Teer ( Teare ), to Elizabeth Ann (Lillian), and have been assuming they were married give or take 5 years prior to 1st son Leo b.1891. Considering all the mistakes transcribers make with names and places, can they be dislexic with the dates, especially if handwriting was bad?? William was b. 1861ish according to census's. She was b. abt.1867, and died 1920. She was Lillian on 1891 & 1901 census's, but Elizabeth Ann on 1911. She was buried as Elizabeth Ann Teer.
            What I mean is, say they were married 1889, but it was mis read as say 1859, or even 39???? Is it possible??

            jackie
            Of course anything can be mistranscribed, especially if handwriting is hard to read but consider the circumstances-
            Marriages were recorded in the church or registry office register on the day they happened so would be in date order. At the end of the quarter returns were supposed to be sent to superintendant registrar - if the vicar missed a couple they might not reach the indexes at all, or might be sent a quarter or two late but couldn't have been sent before the event, and not likely to be sent years after the event.
            When the indexes to the registers were originally compiled it was a quarter at a time, on pages which had the year and quarter at the top, so an entry would hardly have been put into the wrong year. Possible though that the entry was missed altogether when the clerk lost concentration.
            Modern transcribers for FreeBMD, which ancestry then use as well in the time span you are interested in, take a page from an index to transcribe. The year and quarter of that page are entered in the header then all entries transcribed under that heading. So the only way they could record a wrong year is if they did so for the whole index page - hundreds of entries, not just one. - possible but as transcriptions are double keyed the other transcriber would have got the right year and the error picked up. Again it is possible that the transcriber just missed the entry or mistranscribed it so badly that the name is unrecognisable, though the second transcriber ought to have picked it up.
            What I've just said in a long winded way is that quite possibly your marriage happened but never reached the indexes. On the other hand it may not have happened at all or took place long after the children were born. My 2x gt grandparents always claimed to be married when registering their 9 children and on all censuses. They eventually married 38 years after the birth of their first child.
            Judith passed away in October 2018

            Comment


            • #7
              In view of WendyP's post, here's an interesting marriage

              1915 Salford RO
              William H Teer to Lilian Taylor

              OC

              Comment


              • #8
                Those who compiled the original indexes made mistakes too!

                My ancestor Charles James Potter married Charlotte Dunkley in Edmonton, north London in 1896. But a distant relative, also researching the family tree, had Charles James Potter married to Lottie Buchanan in Lambeth in 1898, which he insisted was correct. When Ancestry published the CofE registers, I could see that there were two Charles James Potters; the 1896 entry was correct, but the indexer who compiled the 1898 index looked at the register, which had two marriages per page, and took Charles James Potter from the first marriage and Lottie Buchanan from the second. They were indeed married in Lambeth on that date in 1898 - but not to each other!
                Looking for Bysh, Potter, Littleton, Parke, Franks, Sullivan, Gosden, Carroll, Hurst, Churcher, Covell, Elverson, Giles, Hawkins, Witherden...

                Comment


                • #9
                  [QUOTE=dicole;2033551] Why are you so sure they married before Leo was born ? !Are you sure Lillian and Elizabeth Ann ARE the same wife ?

                  Di, I guess it's a bit of an assumption considering she registered the births of all the kids except Frank ( OH's grandfather, b. 22/3/1904 ). as for the names, 1911 census appears to be the only one with Elizabeth Ann on it, and OH's Father said she was ? Elizabeth Schofield Taylor. Also the number of children born and years married makes sense.
                  Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by naomiatt View Post
                    Hi - if it's the same wife, Lillian could have been from Elizabeth Anne - Lilli - and An.
                    Dates are often wrong...and yes, I'm sure a lot was misread...There's also a chance they didn't marry...
                    where would it have taken place?
                    Yes that makes sense naomiatt. It would have taken place in Manchester, based on all the census's.
                    Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by WendyP View Post
                      Have you obtained any birth certs to gain knowledge on Elizabeth/Lilian maiden name?
                      I have Leo's and Ethel's and they just state married name.
                      Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by WendyP View Post
                        I notice her daughter Ethel bn 1898 is not with them on the 1911 census but she is to be found listed as a niece in the household of a Christopher Stackhouse Green and a Mary Eleanor. These 2 married in 1897 in Chorlton. A marriage check show that Mary was Taylor when she married which tallies with the fact that there was a Frank Taylor shown as step son to Christopher.


                        checking the 1891 census to find this child Frank his father shows as one Arthur G Taylor. So the question should be at this point is Ethel Teer/Trear/Tear the direct niece of Chistopher Green or Mary Eleanor Green formerley Taylor nee something?
                        Yes Wendy I found that too. Further checking finds Christopher Stackhouse Green and Mary E Taylor marrying.( but can't find my notes.) Based on this I went looking for her and hopefully a sister names Elizabeth Ann. I found 1871 James and Mary J taylor parents, with Mary E, Elizabeth A S and James. 1881 finds James, Mary J, Mary E, Elizabeth A, Jams S P D, Florence A, and Fanny H. 1891 finds James Tayler, James St PD, Florence A, and Henenella F ( Henrietta perhaps?). No Elizabeth A ( cause by this time she would have been with William Teer), and no Mary E cause she would have been with Christopher. Since 1911 census for Ethel states that Frank Taylor is his stepson, I am assuming Frank is Mary's child. Therefore, Ethel would be Mary's neice.
                        Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by WendyP View Post
                          I notice her daughter Ethel bn 1898 is not with them on the 1911 census but she is to be found listed as a niece in the household of a Christopher Stackhouse Green and a Mary Eleanor. These 2 married in 1897 in Chorlton. A marriage check show that Mary was Taylor when she married which tallies with the fact that there was a Frank Taylor shown as step son to Christopher.


                          checking the 1891 census to find this child Frank his father shows as one Arthur G Taylor. So the question should be at this point is Ethel Teer/Trear/Tear the direct niece of Chistopher Green or Mary Eleanor Green formerley Taylor nee something?
                          Yes Wendy I found that too. Further checking finds Christopher Stackhouse Green and Mary E Taylor marrying.( but can't find my notes.) Based on this I went looking for her and hopefully a sister names Elizabeth Ann. I found 1871 James and Mary J taylor parents, with Mary E, Elizabeth A S and James. 1881 finds James, Mary J, Mary E, Elizabeth A, Jams S P D, Florence A, and Fanny H. 1891 finds James Tayler, James St PD, Florence A, and Henenella F ( Henrietta perhaps?). No Elizabeth A ( cause by this time she would have been with William Teer), and no Mary E cause she would have been with Christopher. Since 1911 census for Ethel states that Frank Taylor is his stepson, I am assuming Frank is Mary's child. Therefore, Ethel would be Mary's neice.
                          Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Judith M, thanks for your reply. Basically you are saying it would be impossible to get the date wrong? So, I have to believe it hasn't made it to the indexes?
                            Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                              In view of WendyP's post, here's an interesting marriage

                              1915 Salford RO
                              William H Teer to Lilian Taylor

                              OC
                              Yes OC, I ordered that cert years ago, ( actually stupidly did it twice. ) Ages and occupations were way out. Unless they lied like crazy, But I find it hard to beleive 2 forty somethings could pass as 23 and 21 respectively. LOL!
                              Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Originally posted by Olde Crone Holden View Post
                                In view of WendyP's post, here's an interesting marriage

                                1915 Salford RO
                                William H Teer to Lilian Taylor

                                OC
                                Hi Jackie - I think OC is on to something here....

                                oops - we posted at the same time!
                                still - it's a big coincidence...
                                Last edited by naomiatt; 14-05-10, 00:45.

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  Originally posted by Somerset Sal View Post
                                  Those who compiled the original indexes made mistakes too!

                                  My ancestor Charles James Potter married Charlotte Dunkley in Edmonton, north London in 1896. But a distant relative, also researching the family tree, had Charles James Potter married to Lottie Buchanan in Lambeth in 1898, which he insisted was correct. When Ancestry published the CofE registers, I could see that there were two Charles James Potters; the 1896 entry was correct, but the indexer who compiled the 1898 index looked at the register, which had two marriages per page, and took Charles James Potter from the first marriage and Lottie Buchanan from the second. They were indeed married in Lambeth on that date in 1898 - but not to each other!
                                  Grrr! wouldn't that make you mad! I did apply for a cert, but the GRO refunded me saying these two weren't married to each other! I was taking pot luck assuming the spelling was wrong!
                                  Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    another thought.....I have found that William and Elizabeth Ann are buried together in Southern Cemetery, with Ethel and daughter Lillian's ( Dorothy Lillian) husband. They are in a non conformist plot. Could they have married in non conformist? If so where are these records?
                                    Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Originally posted by naomiatt View Post
                                      Hi Jackie - I think OC is on to something here....
                                      LOL naomiatt! Just posted about that one.
                                      Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        [QUOTE=WendyP;2033564]

                                        checking the 1891 census to find this child Frank his father shows as one Arthur G Taylor.

                                        Not sure about this one. Mary's initial looks like an S to me. RG12, 3229...what do you other's think?

                                        PS Interesting though, there is a William Teer further up that page!
                                        Last edited by Jacqueline; 14-05-10, 00:34.
                                        Be nice to your kids...they have to choose your nursing home!

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X