Author Topic: "Relative" on the census  (Read 4828 times)

Online Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #27 on: Saturday 21 April 18 13:02 BST (UK) »
I am now even more confused if that is possible.  :P No matter.

I think we might be back to square one and your original question about what relationship a "relative" might be to head of household in 1911. The answer is probably "who knows".  ;D

I thought if you were willing to give names, dates, places of the individuals involved then someone may be able to find some facts/concrete evidence for you about the relationships rather than assumptions and guesswork, which is all we can do without more facts.


Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #28 on: Saturday 21 April 18 18:51 BST (UK) »
Heywood, that is an interesting perspective.  I had never thought that: there is a level of kin beyond knowledge.  For instance, sometimes rarer first names are associated with surnames.  if you were living in the same parish with another fellow who had the same name as you, you'd probably consider him kin.

Sinann, that is quite a lifelike picture you paint.  If you have secretly built some time machine in your garage, I hope you don't throw anything out of whack in one my parishes.  Or should I even say counties and provinces?  Just how far are you going back?!  Maybe, next time hop to Ming-era China to be on the safe side?

Aghadowey, that is really a funny line about not saying anything.  i'm surprised I never heard it in a movie.  Thinking about it, I'm not too sure how far back people could remember.  My own aunt had some really mistaken impressions about her aunts, thinking some were half-sisters, because her grandfather was a widower who had remarried.  I can't decide, if she was told a story or not, as the first birth was a bit early.  But I've always thought of that as Americans quickly forgetting most kin.

Offline Ghostwheel

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 330
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #29 on: Saturday 21 April 18 19:32 BST (UK) »
Ruskie,

In my personal philosophy, impressions and guesswork are very important.  You need them to come up with hunches, that can possibly be tested.  That was why I was soliciting impressions, to hone my hunches.

I'm sure, what I've said has struck you as using a dousing rod.  But in my experience, it really helps.  Studying the map, even the mountains and looking at very lateral names - people I wasn't directly interested in, that couldn't be connected on a tree - has helped me enormously, not once, but twice.  In Ireland, you need out of the box approaches.

In one instance, my starting point was actually this same "relative."  Her mother was born quite close to where one of my G grandfathers was born.  My G grandparents had married in the US.  They were from different parishes and I hadn't even conceived of the idea that they had known each other in Ireland.  This changed all that.  It changed my idea of scale and direction.  It helped me find 2 of my GG grandmothers who had extremely common names, and who had almost zero clues associated with them.  Me finding them so close together - associated with the same townland and knowing that they had the same surname was its own check,  Because I realized that they were related, though the paper record didn't go far back enough to say how.

No one searching for just one name, or just in one line, would have ever found that.  It was on nobody's tree, and I'm sure I was the first person to figure it out, and likely the only one who would have ever figured it out.  Because no one else would have had the patience or the right clue. 

And, it all began with this same unknown "relative", and ended with two other people who were unknown relatives to each other.  My closing thought: "relative" or "cousin" should never be disregarded in Ireland.  It may be a snipe hunt, but it might surprise you and turn out to be profitable, even if you can't trace it.

Offline brigidmac

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 5,892
  • Computer incompetent but stiil trying
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #30 on: Saturday 21 April 18 19:52 BST (UK) »

This is a very interesting general topic ..thou I'm sure some of us would like a go at seeing if we could match up the actual people.

I too use hunches then check up
my grandmother was given an unusual middle name ....I didnt know that was used as a way of identifying birth fathers to get child maintenance but there were only 2 men with that surname in Birkenhead in 1901
one was married age 46 with 6 children the other was single aged 30

my hunch was that it could also be the married man's eldest son who may have left birkenhead before the baby was born

it turned out that the single man was the eldest son of the other ! we identified him
because he did pay the child maintenance  we found a great grandfather

a few years after identifying his siblings we then had a great  great grandfather too
Roberts,Fellman.Macdermid smith jones,Bloch,Irvine,Hallis Stevenson


Online Ruskie

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 26,196
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #31 on: Saturday 21 April 18 23:37 BST (UK) »
It is not uncommon for couple to know each other in one country, travel to another separately, then marry, sometimes years later. I have a few examples of this.

It's fine if you want to work on hunches - sometimes you might get lucky and find that an educated guess is correct ... other times, maybe not.

There are regularly threads on rootschat trying to prove or disprove family stories about relationships - sometimes they are completely wrong, and sometimes there is a grain of truth in them. Finding documentation is really the only way to prove or disprove.

It is your family so it is up to you how you approach your research and what conclusions you come to based on what you find or assume.

Brigidmac, In your example I would say you used lateral thinking rather than going by a hunch.  :)

Offline jfchaly

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 53
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #32 on: Sunday 27 May 18 16:45 BST (UK) »
To Ghostwheel,
Is it possible that the child was with her mother's relations on census night.
The other possibility is that child was looked after near where her father worked.
Having the same surname is not proof that both families are related.

Jfch



Offline Wexflyer

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,166
  • Not Crown Copyright
    • View Profile
Re: "Relative" on the census
« Reply #33 on: Sunday 27 May 18 21:31 BST (UK) »
People put down all sorts on census returns. Or it may be just the enumerator.
I once saw a return where a son has his own mother down as "boarder" under relationship.
BRENNANx2 Davidstown/Taghmon,Ballybrennan; COOPER St.Helens;CREAN Raheennaskeagh/Ballywalter;COSGRAVE Castlebridge?;CULLEN Lady's Island;CULLETON Forth Commons;CURRAN Hillbrook, Wic;DOYLE Clonee/Tombrack;FOX Knockbrandon; FURLONG Moortown;HAYESx2 Walsheslough/Wex;McGILL Litter;MORRIS Forth Commons;PIERCE Ladys Island;POTTS Bennettstown;REDMOND Gerry; ROCHEx2 Wex; ROCHFORD Ballysampson/Ballyhit;SHERIDAN Moneydurtlow; SINNOTT Wex;SMYTH Gerry/Oulart;WALSH Kilrane/Wex; WHITE Tagoat area