Confusing census information

[kevarms]

Hi,
I'm trying to work out  how many children my great-great-grandparents had. I have found them in the 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911 censuses. The problem I have is the names and ages seem to change a bit willy-nilly. I've done my best to make some sense of it but would like some thoughts from others.

However, I'm not sure what I'm allowed to post here with regards to copyrighted information. Am I allowed to post  what I've found?

[geniecolgan]

Hi,

you are allowed to post what you've found but you must type it or only show a clipped portion of an image.

I wouldn't be too concerned about names. I've found it is best to match the ages of children. In my family they sometimes used nicknames on the census.

I guess it depended on who answered the questions 

[Temic]

Following on from above, particularly in the late 19th/early 20th centuries, sometimes the first forename was used in one census, and perhaps the 'middle' name in another census, which was probably the name s/he used or was known by. E.g. I've a George that's apparently replaced in later cesuses by a Harry, but a baptism record shows a "George Henry". The census ages in this case are also best described as 'approximations'.

[kevarms]

Thanks for the replies. Here goes.... I hope I can explain what I have as well  as I hope....


1881 Census
RG11 Piece: 4572 Folio: 113 Page: 60   
5, St Johns Terrace, Normanton

Benj. Armstrong age 26, b. Staffs.
Hannah (wife)  age 22, b. Lancs.

Martha (dau.) age 11 mths, b. Yorks ??     there is a Martha Armstrong registered 1880 Wakefield


1891 Census
RG12 Piece: 3770 Folio: 123 Page: 13
29??, Waltham Street, Barnsley

Benjamin Armstrong age 36, b. Normanton  I've assumed the places of birth are not reliable here
Hannah (wife) age 31, b. Normanton

Martha (dau.) age 11, b. Normanton
James (son) age 8, b. Normanton           James Armstrong, registered 1882 Wakefield
Benjamin (son) age 6, b. Normanton        Benjamin Armstrong, registered 1884 Wakefield
Walter (son) age 4, b. Normanton          Walter Armstrong, registered 1887 Wakefield
Maude (dau.) age 1, b. Normanton          Alice Maud Armstrong, registered 1889 Wakefield


1901 Census
RG13 Piece: 4430 Folio: 86 Page: 42
19, William Street, Allerton Bywater

Benjamin Armstrong age 44, b. Staffs, Brierley Hill
Harriet (wife) age 41, b. Lancs, Little Leaver

Mary (dau.) age 21, b. Normanton         is this Martha ??
James (son) age 18, b. Normanton
Benjamin (son) age 16, b. Altofts
William (son) age 14, b. Altofts         is this Walter ??
Mable (dau.) age 12, b. Altofts          is this Maud ??
Walter (son) age 10, b. Snydale ??      hmm, if this is Walter then who is William ??
Harriet (dau.) age 8, b. Bowers Row      there is Hannah Armstrong, registered 1893 Tadcaster. The mother's name switches between Hannah and Harriet too.
Herbert (son) age 4, b. Bowers Row       Herbert Armstrong, registered 1897 Tadcaster
Samuel (son) age 2, b. Allerton Bywater  Samuel Arthur Armstrong, registered 1898 Tadcaster


1911 Census
RG14 Piece: 28338
37, william Street, Allerton Bywater

Benjamin Armstrong age 56, b. Staffs
Hannah (wife) age 51, b. Little Lever, Lancs.  9 children still living, 3 children have died


Maud (dau.) age 21, b. Altofts           
William (son) age 19, b. Normanton       very confusing...1887 Walter became William, now 1891 Walter becomes William too!!!
Herbert (son) age 15, b. Bowers, Allerton
Samuel (son) age 12, b. Castleford
John (son) age 10, b. Castleford         John Armstrong, registered 1901 Tadcaster

-I believe Martha married a Thomas Smith in 1902 Tadcaster
-James and Benjamin are lodging with neighbours in the 1911 census
-Walter/William is married and living in Normanton in 1911 (place of birth Altofts)
-I can't find Hannah/Harriet in the 1911, but I think she married late that year to Hubert Wilkinson, Tadcaster

The 1911 census says Hannah/Harriet has 9 children living.... but I make it 10 . Something tells me I've got into a muddle somewhere, but I'm not sure where so hopefully somebody can help shed some light.

Thanks in advance,

[tedscout]

Dear Kevarms,

Have you thought that one of the "living" children from the previous census is dead by 1911.

Are you positive you've found Mary/Martha and Harriett.

Could be that one of them is dead. Making her one of the 3 dead, and the other 2 are inbetween census's so they dont show up anywhere.


Also the census we can look up (apart from 1911) have been filled in by Neumerators from the form filled in by the house hold. Maybe the person (presumably Benjamin) couldnt write very clearly and the numerator has miss transcribed them.

Cheers Ted

[geniecolgan]

I agree with your count that Hannah/Harriet seems to have had 10 children not 9

I note there is a gap between Harriet b.1893 and Herbert b.1897 when some babies may have died and there is a death registered for Walter (Sep q. 1903, Tadcaster,9c,567) age 16.

[andycand]

Hi

I think most of the problems relate to the 1901 census. As Ted says the enumerator has likely mis-transcribed the form completed by the householder. If the quality of the writing was poor then you could easily mistake Hannah/Harriet, Maude/Mable and I think Walter and William are simply the wrong way around, this could either be a mistake by the householder or by the enumerato

Andy

[Temic]

Looking at that, I tend to agree with the above poster that the problem is an error in the 1901 census.

[Plummiegirl]

I have recently found an ancestor on the 1911 census, who, although a widower for over 18 years listed his wife and all his children.

He showed his children as being 'at home' which they were, just not his home!!

However, he also listed his daughters with their maiden and married names (fantastic)

This was an educated man, who had held down a good job.  So I can only assume he completly mis-understood the whole idea of the 'new way' of doing the census for that year.

I have also come across a lot of people on the 1911 census who have not filled out the part about children, much to my annoyance, and this is not because they have had no children.  One man had 9 children but has not mentioned that at all.