RootsChat.Com
Census Lookups General Lookups => Census and Resource Discussion => Topic started by: jesika jae on Sunday 10 April 16 20:12 BST (UK)
-
Can anyone think of a reason, sensible or otherwise, why an entire family would be missing from the 1911 census, please? The only thing I could think of was that the adults were in support of the Suffragette movement, perhaps not likely for a miner, his wife & rapidly growing brood of offspring.
Any and all ideas welcome!
Thanks in advance
jj
100416
-
Hi,
Have you tried searching using only christian names and other details like birth year, place of birth, likely residence, family members?
It could be that there is an error in the transcription.
JJ
-
As the 1911 census was on single sheets filled in by each householder the sheet may just have got lost.
If there are electoral rolls surviving it may be possible to find the adult males.
Hope this helps.
Philip
-
In any Census, there will always be people who refuse to complete the forms.
Some Enumerators will be slap dash and be less than enthusiastic and less than efficient.
What percentage would you estimate that the Census themselves give for errors and omissions?
-
One reason could be that part of the 1911 census is missing.
Try searching http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/ using the Census ref RG 14 and the word missing.
Perhaps just a page is missing from the census and has not been noticed
Perhaps they moved or even emigrated for a period of time.
Cheers
Guy
-
My first instinct is that they aren't missing, but are just proving difficult to find! Perhaps the head of house had awful writing which is difficult to transcribe. Perhaps (as some of my relatives did) they only gave the initials of the first names, or wrote the surname before the first name.
If you need tips for searching, we've got plenty! (Lots of practise...) First I'd say, use a different website to search from them, i.e. FindMyPast or Ancestry. The transcriptions are different, so if your family aren't easy to find on one site, they may be on the other.
-
Several weeks after each main Census a small sample "check" census is undertaken. Probably a computer generates the addresses at random.
-
Several weeks after each main Census a small sample "check" census is undertaken. Probably a computer generates the addresses at random.
Not in 1911. The first comprehensive attempt to check the quality of the census results in Britain was made following the 1966 sample census. A rather less rigorous check was made following the 1971 Census but, in 1981, a full post-enumeration census was conducted.
Stan
-
As far as I can recall, in 1971, a specially selected and meticulous officer was given a list of addresses in each Borough and conducted an exercise with the aim of doing quality control. Presumably, the two different results would be compared and contrasted. Then a margin for error could be calculated.
-
Several weeks after each main Census a small sample "check" census is undertaken. Probably a computer generates the addresses at random.
Not in 1911. The first comprehensive attempt to check the quality of the census results in Britain was made following the 1966 sample census. A rather less rigorous check was made following the 1971 Census but, in 1981, a full post-enumeration census was conducted.
Stan
And in 2011 we can assume addresses were selected for well qualified and careful officers to visit as a control and audit exercise.
Statistics were prepared internally which indicated a percentage of success in coverage.
-
Many thanks to all of you. I'll probably never know why they are AWOL, and maybe doesn't matter TOO much as long as I have all the important details - who, when, where.
I've got a couple of other avenues to explore now.
Thank you once again
jj
1001416
-
As far as I can recall, in 1971, a specially selected and meticulous officer was given a list of addresses in each Borough and conducted an exercise with the aim of doing quality control. Presumably, the two different results would be compared and contrasted. Then a margin for error could be calculated.
The 1971 quality check was conducted by means of a post enumeration survey, covering the whole of Great Britain, by interviews at just under 5,000 addresses. The field work was not completed until about five months after cenus night. "Post Censal Surveys in Great Britain" by Robert Barnes
Stan
-
As far as I can recall, in 1971, a specially selected and meticulous officer was given a list of addresses in each Borough and conducted an exercise with the aim of doing quality control.
The General Report on the 1971 Census said "it was carried out by census officers some of whom would still have been busy with other work on the census. Some census officers might have viewed the check as a fault finding mission and in consequence would not have been fully motivated to ensure its success"
Stan
-
Typical Civil Service "Umbrella" job. To put it politely.
-
As far as I can recall, in 1971, a specially selected and meticulous officer was given a list of addresses in each Borough and conducted an exercise with the aim of doing quality control.
The General Report on the 1971 Census said "it was carried out by census officers some of whom would still have been busy with other work on the census. Some census officers might have viewed the check as a fault finding mission and in consequence would not have been fully motivated to ensure its success"
Stan
As far as I can recall from my area, most of the interviews would have been carried out by Local Government officers getting paid a fee for conducting the interviews. I cannot recall after all this time who analysed the data.
-
Jesika, do you have any trace of ay of the family after 1911? Marriages, deaths etc?
-
Good question Ruskie ;)
Do you have them in 1901 & can you post details please with names of family members whether on 1901 census or not with dates/places of birth?
Although we can't do look-ups for 1911 census we can research anything else which may help :P
Annie
-
Good morning to all who have responded over night. I certainly know more about census taking than I used to! I simply couldn't undestand why or how a family would decline to complete the census unless they supported the Suffragette movement and that seems unlikely.
I am incapable of making links, (blame my bus pass, I do), but the WWI & Leicestershire fora have more or less solved the "who was my granddad?" question, the awaited birth certificates should answer that question.
"James Kelly 1895/7 - 1927" & "Granddad's dad" in WWI.
An Australian researcher made the great break through when looking for his wife's gran, but we still couldn't find a birth date for granddad. So I tried to find his family in the 1911 census, only to find them totally absent, after being in Glass Houghton, Yorks in 1901. We know they moved a lot, in mining areas, Leicestershire, Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, Yorkshire again.
So many people have been so helpful, thank you is inadequate, but it's all I have
jj
110416
-
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
-
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?
-
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
-
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.
-
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
-
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 .... :)
-
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
And another one here :)
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=745759.0
-
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
-
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
-
I have a 3xgreat-uncle whose family "goes missing" in 1881. They were a farming family in Kent and all their children were baptised in the same village, where they lived in both 1871 and 1891. No sign of them in 1881. It's only a small village so I've looked through the images for the whole village. I can only assume that they were missed somehow, and I've had to accept I'll never find them.
-
Once again, my thanks to all who have read my question.
I had considered the Suffragette supporters idea & dismissed it.
I had considered a holiday, possible but unlikely because the head of the family was a miner and certainly in the mining village where I grew up, holidays were in the summer not spring.
I had NOT thought that the enumerator might have been less than meticulous or that the papers simply lost.
I thank you all & ask please not to pursue the question further, your time & efforts can be better spent on more important topics.
Many thanks
jj
-
I thank you all & ask please not to pursue the question further, your time & efforts can be better spent on more important topics.
You are very welcome, but I have to add that questions like yours are fun! Personally, I really appreciate questions that make me do some thinking. :)
-
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
"The enumerator's books were supposed to be checked by the registrars and superintendent registrars before dispatch to the Census Office in London. In the Cesus Office the books were gone over again to sort out any problems or ambiguities in the data, reference no doubt being made to the household schedules." "Making Sense of the Census Revisited" Edward Higgs.
Stan
-
When did Edward Higgs write that, though?
-
Again, my grateful thanks to all who have helped and apologies to those I have confused.
Time to put the topic behind me and concentrate on what I know & hope soon to confirm.
Thank you
jj
110416
-
When did Edward Higgs write that, though?
I believe the first edition of Making Sense of the Census by Edward Higgs was in 1989 with an updated version Making Sense of the Census in 2005.
Cheers
Guy
-
When did Edward Higgs write that, though?
It does not matter when he wrote it that was the official procedure upto the 1901 census. Of course there were no enumerator's books after that census.
Stan
-
As the Census usually takes place every ten years, Enumerators are normally specially recruited for a certain period around the date of the Census Day.
They are paid a fee for the work. They have to sign a confidentiality declaration.
Civil servants and Local Government Officers often volunteer for Enumerator jobs.
-
Several weeks after each main Census a small sample "check" census is undertaken. Probably a computer generates the addresses at random.
Not in 1911. The first comprehensive attempt to check the quality of the census results in Britain was made following the 1966 sample census. A rather less rigorous check was made following the 1971 Census but, in 1981, a full post-enumeration census was conducted.
Stan
It is not reasonable to compare the 1966 sample with the 1971 full census.
I contend that the follow up interviews conducted a certain time after the 1971 Census were rigorous. They were conducted by experienced and professional staff.
One wonders how after Census analysis of the 2001 compares to after-Census analysis of the 2011.
-
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
"The enumerator's books were supposed to be checked by the registrars and superintendent registrars before dispatch to the Census Office in London. In the Cesus Office the books were gone over again to sort out any problems or ambiguities in the data, reference no doubt being made to the household schedules." "Making Sense of the Census Revisited" Edward Higgs.
Stan
Yes I have been in contact, through a series of emails, with Professor Edward Higgs, who looked at the 1871 census with a colleague.
As he notes many of the revisions seem to be those that the census clerks made to clarify which headings occupations should go in which category in the published tables (as also noted by Stan).
He also notes the examples I sent him (from the Bottesford census) showed examples of named information being inserted.
This is something he knew happened but had never seen in practice.
As he writes “it's nice to see evidence of one of the steps in the census process that is often ignored.”
It also raises the question whether the revision was based on the original schedules or whether the clerk (H Graves) returned to Bottesford and gathered additional information.
If it was based on the schedules why were the omissions missed by the checks by the registrar and superintendant registrar
This is also an example of why I caution people that good as it is, not everything is on the internet.
The internet companies, like transcribers before them have to make decisions about what to include and what to leave out. In this case much of the preamble to the census returns has been missed out. This can leave the researcher with questions.
In most cases this may be solved by the researcher using earlier sources such as microfilms or microfiche of the original source but in cases such as the 1939 National Registration where the original is out of reach and the Medal Index Cards which were going to be destroyed but were saved by the Western Front Association and others there is a fear that information may be lost or out of reach for ever.
Cheers
Guy
-
I have a similar problem with a Maud Mary Titshall, my 2xgreat aunty. Born in 1890 in Letheringham, Suffolk, and is missing in 1911, she wed in Dulwich, London in 1915. Maybe she is mistranscribed grossly or was part of the Suffragette movement.
I have come across census entries of families who just put England for birthplace and initials for firstnames, they obviously liked to keep a low profile.