1911 Census

[dreen22]

Hello.
This concerns mis-information on the 1911 Census, however, it could easily apply to any of them from 1841-1911.

On the 1911 a couple are listed as being married 15 years, incorrect, not married except the wife who has been married to someone else for 15 years and was still very much alive in 1911. Also a Foster child is listed as aged 16 and she was 26. I think the form was completed by a neighbour because mention is made of the form being left with a neighbour.

I contacted the 1911 people, via Find My Past. I knew it probably would not get me anywhere but I was furious. They say it is a Legal Document and cannot be changed. Only thing that can be changed is a Transcript. Fair enough if that is sealed in concrete, but what about other people who are searching the families, are not in posession of all the facts and then mess up their research.

Anyone else fumed about a census with such blatant untruths.!!

[Olde Crone Holden]

dreen22

The census was not taken for the benefit of family history researchers, it was taken to gather statistics for forward planning.

As such, it really doesn't matter whether they told the truth about things or not - they were supposed to, but of course many people didn't.

It should be treated, like all other documents, official or not, with caution and you should build your tree on the strength of a number of documents, not just the census.

OC

[Christine in Herts]

It's very frustrating when you find such things in the census records - but the various database sites can't afford to change records in the database unless they are mistranscriptions: it would be two fallible. At least you know that the family was there, and choosing to lie.

My great grandmother lied persistently about her age: she started when she got married , by lopping seven years off. She maintained that fiction for many years - including the censuses. It led me a merry dance... but it's part of her story - and the lying may be behind the fact that that marriage broke up. My great-grandfather was a lot younger than she was.

Christine

[Paul in Poole]

I was looking at 10 Downing Street on Find my Past. Mrs Asquith said she had had 4 children 2 of which had died but 4 child were mentioned on the Census. They had only been married 16 years and the eldest was 24. Was Mr Asquith married twice or did they marry later?

[Christine in Herts]

Perhaps - illustrious as they were - they, also, had trouble understanding what info they were supposed to supply. Perhaps she git the columns wrong and she should have said 6 children of which four were still alive and two had died?

Christine

[dreen22]

I am fully aware what the census is for. I have been researching my various families for over 20 years and have come across several incorrect and misleading entries. For example one of my maternal gt.grandmothers in 1851, when she had 3 children, stated she was married when in fact she did not marry until 1852, her place of birth is given as Stepney but in 1861 place of birth is Plymouth and that, and still is, leading me a merry dance. There are many more I could quote. I take them in conjunction with other findings of course, if I did not I would not be aware of errors.

My irritation with the 1911 entry is I strongly believe the couple in question did not fill out the census form themselves.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[dreen22]

1911

Thank-u for all replies to 1911 census.

[margaretmarch]

I am fully aware what the census is for. I have been researching my various families for over 20 years and have come across several incorrect and misleading entries. For example one of my maternal gt.grandmothers in 1851, when she had 3 children, stated she was married when in fact she did not marry until 1852, her place of birth is given as Stepney but in 1861 place of birth is Plymouth and that, and still is, leading me a merry dance. There are many more I could quote. I take them in conjunction with other findings of course, if I did not I would not be aware of errors.

My irritation with the 1911 entry is I strongly believe the couple in question did not fill out the census form themselves.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

It was surely for the authorities at the time to decide whether a form completed at the time was adequate for their purposes and nothing can be altered now. The information is only of use to us historians and as OC said it is for us to verify by a variety of means what the true facts may be.
Perhaps you could suggest to FMP that they instigate a system like Ancestry have where you can enter alternative information about an individual census record for others following to see. When Ancestry have the 1911 on their site you could submit the information you have to them.

[dreen22]

Because I find, check and check again all information I have unearthed on my various families over the years I am able to record their information as correctly as it is presented to me. For that reason I am confident about the discrepancies in the 1911 in question.

[JBee]

Tell me about it - I've a nightmare with one direct line family - in 1911 census AA says she's been married 16 years and is living with her son but where on earth is her so-called husband JA in 1911? No marriage found. He appeared with her and their son on the 1901 census and I haven't found hide nor hair of him since - was he actually with her in 1901 or just wishful thinking??? As far as I can tell she didn't marry the father of her child JA jnr at all as I think she was still married to FN who was living with another woman and their child in 1901 under her surname and then committed bigamy in 1907 and died in 1909. AA dies in 1915 and the death certificate states she's the widow of JA!!! I can't even find a parish record for a christening of the son - so annoying.

[kylejustin]

hehe, jbee, that remins me of my 3rd great grandmother, she is on the 1871, under her married name of conway with her 2 young children. states she is a butler's wife, but he isn't home. 1881 she states widow, as with 1891, and 1901. daughter's marriage gives father's name and occupation as butler, and that's all i know of him, as he sure as hell didnt marry the mother!! the kids are under her name of ingle for births. but then in 1911 mother is with daughter, saying she's been married since 1868, the year her son was born!! after being a widow for 3 decades? haha