Missing on 1901 census

[clickaway]

My Great Grandmother and her offspring do not appear on the 1901 census, yet I cannot see any obvious reason for this.

Apart from a baby son who died, they should all be there as I have evidence of them in post 1901 records.

They would have almost certainly been living in Bethnal Green/Mile End  area of London.

The only unusual factor is that my Great Grandfather had already left the family by 1891, yet he is given as the father of two daughters in 1896 and 1900. I cannot trace him in 1901 either, but I have no evidence of him being alive then.

Has anybody any clues on this, and anyway I could tackle this thorny problem? According to the 1901 census on line, the only entries missing are for Deal in Kent, although some other data is missing due to damage.

Cheers

Ray

[casalguidi]

Hi Ray

Maybe they just weren't at home when the census enumerator called?  If the family had split, perhaps they were just lodging somewhere whose household didn't include them in the return?  Perhaps they just lived some place that the enumerator missed?

Could they be misindexed?

You say that the father had left the home by 1891 so I assume you are thinking that the younger children may have been fathered by somebody else.  If so, could they be living under this other man's name?

I have four families (all belonging to the same extended family) who are missing from the 1901 census as far as I can tell - I have been searching for them ever since it first came on line in 2002.  I am sure that one of the families would have been in Deal.  The others, well, they were travelling families who had settled in Ashford, Kent - 2 are likely to have been on the road so more easily missed but the other I would have expected to find there and they are not.

I happen to know somebody who was missed from a more recent census.  Not through any fault of their own but during conversation that came to light at a later date:  The occupant of a dwelling was not supposed to sub let so didn't include his lodger.  They were unaware that their landlord would not have any access to the information.  If it can happen now, goodness knows what happened then!

Casalguidi

[indiapaleale]

Hi Ray,
There may be any number of reasons that the family seems to be missing from the census. Most often it is spelling errors.

If you give us the family names and ages one of us may be able to find them for you. If you tell us who they are, I'll give it a go.

Cheers,
India 

[Darcy]

Ray,

I believed that my Great grandparents were not on the 1901 census and gave up trying to find them.

Recently I decided to give it another go. Instead of putting in some of the information I knew I used as many asterisks as possible.

They were there all the time - the problem was spelling errors in both name and place of birth.

Darcy

[clickaway]

India,

The people I’m missing on the 1901 census are

Eliza Ann Crook, married, age 40, born Haggerston (London)
Henry James Crook, single, age 18, born Fulham
Edith Adelaide Crook, single, age 15, born Mile End
Ivy Crook, single, age 5, born Mile End
Doris Violet Crook, age 1, born Mile End (born July 1900)

Doris Violet Crook was born at 91 Devonshire Street in July 1900, but others are there in 1901.

The estranged Husband is George Crook, age 45, last known to be a visitor in Portsmouth 1891.
Could be described as a licenced victualler, or someone of independent means. He’s a very mysterious character!

I've tried putting in asterisks but still no joy!

Thanks,

Ray 

[indiapaleale]

Hi Ray,

I found 'em!!

Mile End, Old Town, London
28 Cleveland Lane?
Thomas Richardson   Head  W  70  Gen Lab     Essex, Saffron Walden
Eliza Crook  Dau  Wid   59                                 London, Hackney
Henry Crook  Gr Son     17                                 London, Fulham
Edith Crook   Gr Dau      15                                London, Mile End
Ivy Crook   Gr. Dau    3                                      London, Mile End
RG13/331  Folio 17  Page 25

On the index Henry is listed as Harry. Ivy is listed as Evy. All of the children are listed a grandsons!!! Eliza's age does not agree with your data but on the image it looks like 59. I think it is meant to be 39. If Thomas is her father she cannot possibly be 59.

I couldn't find any trace of Doris Violet on the census but I did find a death for Doris Violet Crook in June 1902 in Abingdon. Maybe she was sick and in the hospital? Might be worth getting the death cert.

No sign of George Crook....maybe he really was dead!!!

Hope this helps.
Merry Christmas
India   

[clickaway]

Thanks India,  that was great.

I think it should be Cleveland Street, but its interesting to see all those mistakes.

My Doris Crook in fact survived and later married.

What happened in that family in the last decade of the nineteenth century is a bit mysterious!

Ray