Author Topic: Silly census question  (Read 5555 times)

Offline Guy Etchells

  • Deceased † Rest In Peace
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,632
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #18 on: Monday 11 April 16 09:00 BST (UK) »
Several weeks after each main Census  a small sample "check" census is undertaken.   Probably a computer generates the addresses at random.

If you look at the 1871 census transcriptions I did in 2000 you will see the later additions in red.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01hfg/

This Bottesford part of the census was -
Transcribed by enumerator, Henry Norris, on  07 April 1871
Examined by Registrar, Charles Goodson, on 24 April 1871
Examined by Superintendent Registrar, R H Johnston, 16 May 1871
Revised by H Graves 22nd August 1871

Cheers
Guy
http://anguline.co.uk/Framland/index.htm   The site that gives you facts not promises!
http://burial-inscriptions.co.uk Tombstones & Monumental Inscriptions.

As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #19 on: Monday 11 April 16 09:08 BST (UK) »
Sorry jj, I am a little confused.

Can you please clearly write down names, dates, plus any other information that is known about the missing family? This will hopefully help us to help you.

Mentioning "grandad's dad" and "grandad" is a bit confusing - it is easier to sort families out if you just mention names and dates.

I don't understand where Leicestershire fits in, nor the Australian researcher. :-\

Lets see if I have this right:
James Kelly born 1895 or 1897
He is in Glass Houghton, Yorkshire in the 1901 census.
He is a miner.
You don't have his birth and you can't find him in the 1911 census. He may or may not be at home with his family. Have you found any of his family in 1911? He is of the age to be away from home, and with a common name maybe that is why you can't find him? I don't think a 15 ish year old male would have much to do with the suffragette movement.

You have ordered some birth certificates. Presumably you know his parent's names as you have found him in 1901?


Offline carol8353

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 17,587
  • Me,mum and dad and both gran's c 1955
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #20 on: Monday 11 April 16 09:18 BST (UK) »
Me too Ruskie,getting my knickers in a twist here,but this link to a previous query may help  ;D

http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=666691.msg5931905#msg5931905
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #21 on: Monday 11 April 16 09:28 BST (UK) »
Thanks Carol.

Jj sent me the following via pm, which I think summarises the situation:

JAmes kelly, son of James Kelly son of JOHN Kelly!
My granddad, James Jr, appeared age 4 in the 1901 census in Glass Houghton, Yorkshire, Sister Catherine was 3, baby Thomas 10 mnths.
Catherine was born 1 yr & 2 days after her parents, James kelly Sr & Ellen Slattery married in Whitwick, Leicestershire. Simple, eh? the stork brought him a bit early.
But there is no record of James Kelly Jr being born in Whitwick 1895-7 as claimed in the 1901 census.
Was the child born to one of Ellen's family or even James Sr's & taken in by James Sr & Ellen because they were getting married?
I've ordered birth certificates for Ellen & baby Arthur, if addresses tally with the marriage certificate, I think we will have at last a birthday for my granddad.
jj
The clever people in Leicestershire have found an "Arthur Kelly" born to Ellen Slattery, 2nd 1/4 1896. It seems the stork brought him VERY early and because Ellen had a young brother Arthur, James Sr decided his son should be yet another James.


Offline carol8353

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 17,587
  • Me,mum and dad and both gran's c 1955
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #22 on: Monday 11 April 16 09:32 BST (UK) »
Thanks Ruskie- clear as mud now (especially the one who is the son of James and John  :o)  LOL

My immediate reaction with all those Kelly's is that they were over in Ireland on census day.

I'll see what I can find...

Carol
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #23 on: Monday 11 April 16 09:49 BST (UK) »
It will be a while before I have the peace and quiet to concentrate enough to look at this. Good luck Carol! I will be back later .... :)

Offline JenB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,830
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #24 on: Monday 11 April 16 10:09 BST (UK) »
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline jesika jae

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 65
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #25 on: Monday 11 April 16 11:21 BST (UK) »
My apologies for the confusion my missing granddad & my inability to write clearly has caused. If I knew how to make links, it would have been much easier for readers to understand. (The names are even more confusing in hubby's family but we don't need to go there!!!)
John Kelly (1839) & his wife,  Ellen Wall (1841), were Irish & married in Staffordshire in 1859, so it's possible James (1896?) & his parents (James 1874)  had visited relatives in Ireland.
The same few names appear in each generation, very confusing since Kelly is a common name. I had hoped that Ellen Slattery would make finding the family in the 1911 census easy. Maybe it doesn't really matter where they were, I know what happened after Nov 22 1911.
I apologise again for the ridiculous confusion, perhaps it's time to abandon the search and thank you all for your attempts to go far beyond my original question which was why or how a census record might be missing.
Many thanks
jj

Offline JenB

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 16,830
    • View Profile
Re: Silly census question
« Reply #26 on: Monday 11 April 16 11:31 BST (UK) »
I don't think you should necessarily place major significance on the fact that they can't be found.
Some families simply eluded the enumerator. Forms went missing.
The fact that you can't find them in 1911 certainly doesn't mean that they 'refused' to fill in the necessary forms.

Links are easy - if I can do them anyone can  ::)  http://www.rootschat.com/help/faqs.php#link_2_post
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk