Person appearing in more than one place on Census

[Boongie Pam]

If the family was literate and filled out their own return they may included a member of the family who should have been there i.e. off the pub or visiting grand parents especially if they were due back that night. 

The other place, where they where, could have done the same.

In my tree there is a family (GREEN) included on the Lochmaben census with a note from the enumerator saying "this family maybe on the Tinwald schedule".  And they are - in much neater handwriting!!

I've got a daughter of a direct in a pub occupation barmaid and also at home a few roads away - definitely the same person by virtue of name and age and occupation.

In the early days when I first started looking at census films I made the mistake of reeling through - finding the family - then stopping & rewinding. Daft.  It is always valuable to finish the parish collecting and checking for duplications.

I seem a wee bit more attached to Dorothy Scott just because I know she was at work on the night of Sun 30th March 1851.

P

[sianb29]

I have one household that plays havoc with being confident about my family tree. In it both of the husband's parents are listed as living there, and the wife's father (her mother having passed away a few years previously). But all three of the older generation are found elsewhere, with more accurate birth dates and places of birth. It's like the head of the household got flummoxed with which information the enumerator needed! But it throws a big old spanner in the works of my confidence levels of tracing both sides of the family!

[robbo43]

I have a couple of cases of double entries, both cases of being entered where they usually live and where they actually were.  In 1891 my great-grandpatents were at home in West Ham with their children and staying in Tasburgh, Norfolk looking after his mother. They were actually in Tasburgh, eldest son in West Ham was probably over efficient in filling in the form

[lindyhaigh]

Hi,
I know it's a longshot as this post was written many years ago, but I have just found my 2nd great grandfather listed twice on the 1881 census, once at home as a Fireman and on board ship as a Fireman, as per the original post below. I just wondered whether he was one and the same person, quite a coincidence. I found this post after googling re finding same person on census. The person in question is Samuel Haigh, listings both in Hull.

Any info would be greatly received.

Cheers,
Lindy

In the last couple of days I have come accross 2 individuals who appear in 2 different places in the same census. They r deffinately the same people there is no doubt about that. In one situation an 18 year old girl appears at home with her parents with no accupation listed in one town and in a different town she lists a servant at her grandparents home. She has a very unusual name so there is no doubt it is the same person. In a separate incident there is a man who as well as being listed as a ships fireman at home with his family also appears to be aboard ship. I have logged both references to my file but surely in years to come someone will be confused as I am with the two entries. I thought about that and went back and added comment that the person was located in 2 separate places. As well as the usual people that no matter how hard u look u just cant find. Must we now keep our eyes open for persons appearing in more than one place at the same time? Has anybody else found this?
Kris 

[HughC]

I too have a person who was apparently both aboard his ship in harbour and at home with his wife.  I can think of two plausible explanations:
1.  The officer who was detailed to make the census return did it in advance, listing the members of the crew who were expected to be on board at the qualifying midnight.
2.  His wife didn't realize RN ships were included in the census and thought she was doing the right thing by including him.
Either could have happened in a number of cases.  And possibly he really did spend part of that night in each place.

I have another case where children were both at home with their mother in the UK and also with their father who was serving in the army in India.  As he was later sent home and discharged as insane, I think I know which to believe.

[lindyhaigh]

Thanks wee Hugh for your response, makes sense :-)

[Guy Etchells]

I am surprised that any family historian thinks it surprising that people are duplicated, or even missing on/from census returns.

Census is one form of record that is highly likely to contain errors.

The reasons for this are very simple if one thinks of how the census was taken in the UK.
First the enumerator posts schedules through the doors of houses up to a week before census night.
These are supposed to be filled in on census night or perhaps the following day, but human nature being what it is some householders fill it in as soon as the form arrives (so they don’t forget to complete it), others leave it lying about until the enumerator comes back about a week after census night to collect the schedule and fill it in then or asks the enumerators to fill it in while the householder dictates the details.
Others fill the schedule in between the drop off and collection date with some filling it on at the appropriate days.
Even if we disregard the chance of blatant deception the chances of people not being where claimed on schedules filled prior to census night must be allowed for as must errors of memory in those filled in during the days after census night.

This in itself gives plenty of opportunities for errors to creep in, without even thinking about what happens after the return has been collected by the enumerator.
Apart from the 1911 census each available census return is an enumerator’s transcript of the householder’s schedule, this allows for further errors and omissions to creep in including for some disorganised enumerators rare duplicates.

One very important step in family history and one often missed out by many is to take time to discover and understand the reason a record exists.
That is how it was recorded, why it was recorded and what it actually records, without knowing that we can often be mislead.

A prime example in the past was the IGI (International Genealogical Index) a record not used as much by family historians but which used to be one of the “main” go to records.
Many thought (and still think) the IGI was/is an Index of Parish Registers when in actual fact it was/is an Index of the Ordinances of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, by not understanding that difference they were led astray by record that was 100% accurate when used for its original purpose but was sadly lacking when used as an index of parish registers.

Cheers
Guy

[RobinRedBreast]

Hello,

I have just come across a Charles E L Ringrose, in the 1881 Census in Wakefield, Yorkshire.
He is down as being aged 32, a visitor, single and a "Barrister in practice." His place of birth was put down as:
"British Subject, the Netherlands.":
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q27Y-9WC6

The same person, in that same census (I believe likely to have been the same person anyway), was also lodging at St James Palace, Westminster, London.
He has the same name, age, occupation, marital status, and place of birth as in Wakefield, Yorkshire:

https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:Q273-FCC7

I find this quite bizarre, but also at the same time remarkable. 
I have never come across this before.

Thank you.