Census - could it be wrong??

[MrsLizzy]

An ancestor of my other half's, called Henry Pell, born 1842, had a son called Henry by his wife Clara, whose surname I don't yet know.  Henry Junior was born 1870 in Bethnal Green.  In the 1881 census I think I may have found Henry Junior but his mother is named as Harriet Fisher where she should be Clara. 

The transcription reads:

John Fisher - Head, aged 68, widower - a labourer born in Berkshire
Harriet Fisher - Daughter, aged 27, a carpet bag maker
Henry Pell - Grandson aged 10 born Bethnal Green.

Would it be reasonably safe to conclude that Harriet Fisher was really Henry Pell's aunt? I imagine John Fisher gave the information himself to the enumerator, and perhaps simply stated "my daughter and my grandson" without mentioning that this was his grandson by a different daughter.

The reference is Class RG11, Piece 373, Folio 109, page 28.

I'd be grateful for anyone's thoughts.

[CaroleW]

Hi

Harriet is unmarried and given John's age - it's likely there were other "Fisher" daughters who may have married a Pell

[CaroleW]

Per freebmd

Marriages September qtr 1869   
 
FISHER  Clara    Bethnal Green  1c 551   
   
PELL  Henry     Bethnal Green  1c 551

[Ecneps]

Hi MrsLizzy

The relationship given is usually to head of household, so I wouldn't just assume that Henry is Harriet's son,  just that he's John's grandson. 

The 1881 image shows John Fisher as a Lithographic printer unable to work, born Middlesex, South Madeley? Harriet as unmarried, carpet bag maker, born Middlesex Trinity Lane.

Have you not found Henry and Clara yet in 1881?

Barbara 

[murphy60]

Hi MrsLizzy,

Looking on the actual,

John is a Lithographer but unable to work b. in Middlesex
dau Harriett is unmarried

No relationship between Harriett and Henry Pell would have been asked for on the actual census I believe  so  even if John did state clearly the relationship the enumerator would not have recorded it.   So,  my opinion, you are correct,  the transcription calls out Harriett as Henry Pell's mother which was the transcriber's assumption.  

lissa

sorry...CaroleW and Barbara posting the same conclusion, I think........

[Ecneps]

The more the merrier, Lissa 

1871  RG10/420 Folio  66  Page 20
20 Glasshouse Yard, St. Botolph without Aldersgate, London
John W Fisher head m 58 Lithographic Printer  Middlesex Stepney
Emma Fisher   wife  m 54                         Warwickshire Birmingham
Harriet Fisher   dau  s 17  Servant     Little Trinity Lane, London

1861 RG9/214  Folio 24  Page 53
3 Three Herring Ct, St. Giles without Cripplegate, London
FISHER
John Wm head m  47 Lithographic Printer Middlesex Stepney
Emma      wife  m  44                 Warwicks Birmingham
Frances    son   s  19 Copper Plate Printer  Surrey Lambeth
Robert         "        15 Boy at Printers  Warwicks Birmingham
Susan       dau      12 Needlework       Middlesex St. Olaves
Clara           "        11 Scholar                 "    Bethnal Green
Harriett        "          7      "                 City  Cripplegate


Barbara 

[aghadowey]

Agree with Barbara:

The relationship given is usually to head of household, so I wouldn't just assume that Henry is Harriet's son, just that he's John's grandson.

So,  my opinion, you are correct,  the transcription calls out Harriett as Henry Pell's mother which was the transcriber's assumption. 

The enumerator recorded Harriet as the daughter of John and Henry as the grandson with no indication that Harriet was the mother of Henry.

[CaroleW]

The problem here is simply and solely an incorrect indexing by Ancestry and nothing to do with the enumerator etc etc

If you look at the index - Henry's mother is shown as Harriet

Henry Pell parent or spouse name = Harriet  relation = grandson

Ancestry made an error - nothing more.  The marriage of Henry Pell and Clara Fisher ties in with their being his parents as does his birth cert

 

[murphy60]

I just found a 21 year old Henry Pell in 1891 with a 19 year old wife Clara!   I'm confused!   I was expecting a mother named Clara.

Going to look more carefully ...  looking @ the index.   Has someone else found it already ??

CaroleW,  I think I said the Transcriber made the erroneous assumption.....maybe I wasn't clear on that