Giving false info to census 1901

[stanmapstone]

I am extremely grateful for this information AVM.

I note that this legislation applied only to the 1911 census. Was it an offence to lie in the previous censuses please?

Helena

There was a Census Act for each census and the main points, with minor variations, were repeated in each act.

Stan

[stanmapstone]

Like others I would be cautious about drawing inferences about the person's character on the basis of the facts you have described. 

The myth of "common-law marriage" appears to endure in pockets even today, with some people apparently believing that cohabitation for some significant period of time amounts to lawful marriage in England & Wales. Perhaps she thought of herself as a common-law wife?

Just to point out that in England and Wales there is no such thing as "common law marriage" (in spite of what you sometimes see in the media), whereby unmarried persons who live together and behave as if they were married are treated as man and wife. It has not been possible to enter into an informal marriage in this country before and after the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753.
There is a difference between using the term 'common law wife' and a 'common law marriage.' A 'common law wife' may be a wife in fact but in law, common or otherwise, she has no such status. So a child of an unmarried, co-habiting couple is illegitimate.

Stan

[avm228]

Like others I would be cautious about drawing inferences about the person's character on the basis of the facts you have described. 

The myth of "common-law marriage" appears to endure in pockets even today, with some people apparently believing that cohabitation for some significant period of time amounts to lawful marriage in England & Wales. Perhaps she thought of herself as a common-law wife?

Just to point out that in England and Wales there is no such thing as "common law marriage" (in spite of what you sometimes see in the media), whereby unmarried persons who live together and behave as if they were married are treated as man and wife. It has not been possible to enter into an informal marriage in this country since the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753.

Yes I know. That's why I used the word "myth"!

[Helena_Wojtczak]

Just to point out that in England and Wales there is no such thing as "common law marriage" (in spite of what you sometimes see in the media), whereby unmarried persons who live together and behave as if they were married are treated as man and wife. It has not been possible to enter into an informal marriage in this country since the passage of Lord Hardwicke's Act in 1753.
There is a difference between using the term 'common law wife' and a 'common law marriage.' A 'common law wife' may be a wife in fact but in law, common or otherwise, she has no such status. So a child of an unmarried, co-habiting couple is illegitimate.

Stan

Dear Stan

Please marry me. I can think of no better way to spend my old age than discussing these matters with you.  I want to sit by an open fire and rest my head on your knees. Nobody in my life knows much about history, so nobody to learn from or discuss with 

Helena

[neil1821]

Just an anecdote about false info, but I have an ancestor down on the 1901 census as being born in Australia.
It's clearly the right chap (all his family are present and correct) yet I know for a fact he was born in Gloucestershire, all the other census returns confirm it.

Makes me wonder if he was having a laugh or what!!  
Can't imagine why he would have said Australia otherwise.

[Helena_Wojtczak]

Just an anecdote about false info, but I have an ancestor down on the 1901 census as being born in Australia.
It's clearly the right chap (all his family are present and correct) yet I know for a fact he was born in Gloucestershire, all the other census returns confirm it.

Makes me wonder if he was having a laugh or what!!  
Can't imagine why he would have said Australia otherwise.

I'm writing a book about a man whose birth certificate shows he was born in Poland and in the 1901 census he said he was born in the USA. So, your chap isn't the only one!

Helena

[Nick29]

Of course, what we don't know about all the other censuses before 1911 was who actually filled in the forms.

Literacy was poor in the 1800's, and quite often it fell to young children to fill in the forms, which only adds another question mark into the mix.  Sometimes help was enlisted from neighbours or friends, who would often write down what they heard, and not what was said.

And, if my ancestors had got caught telling porkies, half of them would have been fined, because about half of them lied about their age, some of them lied about their marriage status, and a few lied about their paternity too 

Although £5 was a lot of money in those days, the chances of actually getting caught were very slim indeed.

[andycand]

Hi Helena

Gads, why have you guys such a problem with this? I've proved she lied, what is it to you? 

You haven't necessarily proved she lied, one of the cardinal rules of genealogy is not to assume as it can easily come back to bite you.

If she stated on the 1911 census she had been married 13 years then that would mean the 'marriage' took place between April 1897 and March 1898. Prior to 1898 non-conformist marriages (including Catholic) were not recognised by law unless a Registrar was present so if a couple married for example in a Catholic church and no Registrar was present then whilst the Church, and no doubt the couple, would consider them married, the Civil Authorities wouldn't. Also Scotland had Irregular Marriages the most well known of these being Gretna Green. It is also possible that they subsequently married again so that the law would recognise their union.

Certainly the most likely scenario is that she fibbed on the 1911 census but it is possible she didn't.

Andy

[Helena_Wojtczak]

Blimey. I don't know why you think it's such a mortal sin that she lied that you are all bending over backwards to convince me that she did not. You don't even know her.

I'm not saying she was a mass murderer, I am saying she lied, which she did, on two censuses.

Marriage certificate - 1903. 1911 census - said married 13 years, makes it 1898.

Could not have married in RC church etc, she was already married to someone else and bigamy is slightly not allowed by the catholic church. They didn't even allow divorcees to marry, let alone a woman already married with a child!

Lying isn't such a terrible thing, I probably lie on a daily basis - sorry I was on the loo when you rang; I have to go, the postman's at the door; yes I posted your book this morning (when it's still on my "to do" list); no your bum doesn't look big in that. We all have NOBLE reasons for lying, but it's still lying!

I'm not saying she is a demon or a monster who rotted in hell. I'm saying, she lied, which she did!