1891 census

[LouisaS]

 I have Joseph Stanley, his family Clara wife children William F, Joseph John, Clara and Thomas Stanley.
Children births Cambridge , in the 1891 census.   A lady and her son who's father is Joseph Stanley  lived with the family.  It is the lady and son who I would like to find, if any one could help me please? 
I think they were in St Andrew the less.
Louisa

I have the Stanley family in other census.

[CaroleW]

A lady and her son who's father is Joseph Stanley  lived with the family.  It is the lady and son who I would like to find,

What are their names etc?

[CaroleW]

Are you referring to Priscilla Mills aged 44 married and her son Charles Prime aged 14 - both b Cambridge?

As Joseph Stanley was only 30 in 1891 - are you sure he was the father of Charles Prime?

[CaroleW]

Marriages December qtr 1885   
William Harrison Mills     Cambridge  3b   1066    
Priscilla Prime   

Priscilla was a widow in 1881 with 3 children - inc Charles

In 1871 she is the wife of Charles Prime who only died March qtr 1878 - the same year/qtr that son Charles birth was registered

[LouisaS]

Carol W  thank you very much. Well Carol when Ancestry had a free weekend, that is what it said, son of Joseph Stanley unless there is another Joseph Stanley around.  Maybe  he was a faithfull husband!!
Not  the father to a 14 year old.
Well that sorted it out, well done Carol you found out every thing. She was a widow and  her second marriage. I shall take Ancestry census with a pinch of salt
Louisa

[bedfordshire boy]

The image, which presumably you saw, shows two families in the house, separated by a single slash to the left of the name. Priscilla Mills is described on the schedule as lodger and Charles Prime as son ie the lodger's son, not the son of Joseph J Stanley, the head of house.

Ancestry has transcribed accurately what the census schedule shows, so you can put your salt pot away! I can and do blame Ancestry for a lot of mistranscriptions, but this isn't one of them. It's your interpretation of what the census shows that's adrift, not Ancestry.

David

[LouisaS]

David when ancestry was free for a weekend  I looked at the census  1891  and others Ancestry said Charles Prime was Joseph Stanley's son. I did see this, thought it must be  in the  genes. I would not have asked otherwise
A few  years ago some one else suggested he was his son

[bedfordshire boy]

No, Ancestry didn't say  Charles Prime was Joseph Stanley's son. The census itself had "son" against Charles name. My point was that you're unfairly blaming Ancestry for transcribing exactly what's written on the census schedule. The schedule says "son", and that's what's transcribed.

You should look critically at all censuses, as not only can the transcript be wrong (but not in this case where you saw the original scanned copy), but the relationships can be mangled, as in this one, and ages and birthplaces can also be wrong, or the enumerator wrote down what he thought he was told.

[CaroleW]

I don't know whether the actual images were available to you during that free weekend or just the transcriptions.

If you only had access to the transcriptions then Charles Prime is indeed incorrectly shown as son of Joseph & Clara.

I was always under the impression that any relationship shown by an enumerator on an entry should be the relationship of that person to the head of the household - not to others in the household.  As Priscilla is shown as a lodger - her son should also have been shown as a lodger as that was their relationship to Joseph.

Because the enumerator has used "son" against Charles entry - the transcriber has taken it that he was the son of the head of the household hence the confusion.