Author Topic: "Relative" on the census  (Read 4824 times)

Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
"Relative" on the census
« on: Saturday 07 April 18 20:10 BST (UK) »
What is the reasonable limit of the term "relative" on the 1911 census? 

I'm trying to prove a complicated theory, and a key part of it is that a man and woman having all their children in the same townland (pop. >200) in the 1820s were brother and sister.  From baptisms, the husband of the woman definitely knew the man.  The woman at marriage in 1820 is listed as being from the same townland as the man had his very first child in 1809.  I infer that he was already living there when he married, but the record only gives the bride's townland.

Two other women with the same surname who married were said to be from the same townland and known to the man.  No other men with the surname had children in the townland.  Though it is a common name: Brien.  Possibly some men may have married out of the townland, but it is not known.

Here's the key part: the 1911 census.  A grandson of the early woman is listed as a widower.  He has no children in his house, and though he has adult siblings in the same townland (different from the original), none of his children are staying there.  I can only trace one.  The others might even be in America.  A three y.o. girl, daughter of the widower, is living two townlands over, in the household of the grandson of the early man and is listed as a "relative."

Some qualifiers:  I know the wives were not 1st cousins, but cannot trace it further, as they came from parishes where the records only go back to 1850 and 1830.  Different parishes though perhaps not too distant from each other.  No repeat names.

The men on the census were also not 1st cousins, though quite likely were related twice, as they shared a surname, but the closest they could have been along the male line of the surname was 3rd cousins.

Is it reasonable for me to assume (let's say >90%) that the men on the census were 2nd cousins and their grandparents siblings?

I know that Irish people often knew their 3rd cousins, but my theory would make the little children 3rd cousins to each other. And it seems hard for me to believe that anyone with living siblings would leave their child with 3rd cousins, if the heads were only 3rd cousins, and the original man and woman not brother and sister, but 1st cousins.

Thoughts?

Offline BallyaltikilliganG

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,587
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #1 on: Thursday 19 April 18 23:31 BST (UK) »
my reaction in 2018  is you cant ask his 1911 enumerator, who was facing a variety of dialects and many illerate people and taking down records as best as he could. He wouldn’t be human if he didn’t make mistakes ie Enumerators made mistakes as did clergymen in church records, as did staff in registrar offices in my opinion.  if he left out the word son or daughter what would your interpretation be. I dislike the idea of basing you quest of proving your shaky incest theory all being caused by a brother and sister. in the 1820s-30s.   However lets suppose you are right, incest has been studied for years since history began and judges were appointed, and sadly it is bound to exist although very very rarely wherever they are human beings. I suggest you ask a professional sociologist on the known genealogy descendacy recorded.  Moving to a genealogical story, even with DNA I think the generations might be large enough to question the accuracy you want.

So I then ask are you an experienced professional genealogist. ~Your list of sources is unknown to us, the only clue is a Brien, one of 268 widowers in the 1911 census.yet your make judgments.  Just on the name in the 1830s spelling variations were numerous eg Brian did you include O amd Mc etc or a missing letter Brie/ Brin have you searched in your civil parish for all the possible variants and the surrounding ring of adjoining civil parishes just in case.
To quote you “No other men with the surname had children in the townland.” Did you include all the denominations possible
To quote you “Possibly some men may have married out of the townland, but it is not known.” My experiences is almost rarely is in the same townland more likely in surrounding townland ie the civil parish needs to be checked. its also possible to make a ring of adjoining parishes all around your parish as a safety net.
To quote you “And it seems hard for me to believe that anyone with living siblings would leave their children.......” I believe the various famine caused grief and unusal taking care of others. I believe that mixed marriages in certain areas produced disastrous events for the couple.  Equally straight bigotry meant you ere not welcome.

Presumably your family history includes resuls if any from Griffiths valuationand earlier the tithes applotment books. My own family history interest is more local history sources where people are named in other reports or events.eg ploughing matches etc 

on cousins I once made a chart of family relations naming the relationship I think available on the internet, my grandfather marrying twice  I think prodiuced ‘once removed cousins ‘ 
 
good luck in your quest  but I don’t think I have anything to add. Assume nothing leave the record as you find it,  mark all speculations clearly as with all comments
sorry tired out off to bed
Gracey Gracie Gracy Grassy Greacy
worldwide

Online heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,653
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #2 on: Thursday 19 April 18 23:59 BST (UK) »
Hello,

I think your theory and explanation here is too complicated because of the lack of names and the timespan.
For example,
BallyaltikilliganG has assumed incest which I didn’t see at all in your explanation but now I am wondering  :-\
It might be best to explain with names and places, do you think?

Heywood
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Sinann

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,813
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #3 on: Thursday 19 April 18 23:59 BST (UK) »
And Census links.


Online heywood

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 40,653
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #4 on: Friday 20 April 18 00:01 BST (UK) »
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Offline Sinann

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 10,813
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #5 on: Friday 20 April 18 00:24 BST (UK) »
On the Relative in Census question.
My example of a questionable relationship listed in a census.
http://www.census.nationalarchives.ie/pages/1901/Kildare/Oldconnell/Blacktrench/1443445/
Dennis Morrissey is listed as nephew to William Rourke.
Dennis is not William's nephew, he's not Jane's nephew either, he is Jane's sister's husband's nephew.


Offline aghadowey

  • RootsChat Honorary
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 51,235
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #6 on: Friday 20 April 18 09:23 BST (UK) »
There's no way to be sure of the accuracy of the relationship to head of household on any particular census as details depend on both information from the informant (not always head of household) and recording of the enumerator.

In 1911 my grandfather's aunt listed her nephew as 'visitor' which was correct as he was just staying with her and didn't normally reside there.
Away sorting out DNA matches... I may be gone for some time many years!

Offline Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #7 on: Friday 20 April 18 11:08 BST (UK) »
Ghostwheel, I'm afraid you have made a complex theory even more complicated by not mentioning names and other facts.

If you re-write this giving names and dates and then offer your theory after presenting us with the facts we might have more chance of comprehending. Rather than saying "the man" "the woman" "the child" "woman at marriage" and "woman's townland", it would be preferable to maybe set the situation out in a timeline, for example:

Joe Bloggs married Hannah Smith, date, place
They had X number of children (give names and dates if relevant)
In X date, Joe Bloggs had a child with Sarah Connor.
In the X census Joe and Hannah were living with X and X at X address or townland.
I am trying to find out who the parents of X and X are .... Etc etc.


This is not your scenario, just an example of a way you could set it out to make it clearer.  :)

Added: Just a thought .. If you believe a certain man and woman were brother and sister, do you have a marriage entry or certificate? Would it name the fathers of bride and groom? Apologies if you have already mentioned this in the question.


Offline majm

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 25,385
  • NSW 1806 Bowman Flag Ecce signum.
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #8 on: Friday 20 April 18 13:01 BST (UK) »
I agree with the comments from everyone who has already replied.   I cannot fathom why you are concerned as to what the actual relationship (to the head of the household) was for the 'relative' in the census.    I am aware of many families who include 'god-children', 'in-laws' and 'steps' for example as 'relatives'.  :)  :)  :)

JM
The information in my posts is provided for academic and non-commercial research purposes. 
Random Acts of Kindness Given Freely are never Worthless for they are Priceless.
Qui scit et non docet.    Qui docet et non vivit.    Qui nescit et non interrogat.   
All Census Look Ups Are Crown Copyright from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
I do not have a face book or a twitter account.