simpson: census confusion who,s the father?

[mypurdy50]

hi,can someone help solve my confusion..on searching 1861 census Barkby Leics George Wm Simpson is named as father for the children on this census..1871 census Francis Simpson is named as father to these same children
Has anyone got any info on this family as to who is the correct father.
Hope someone can solve my dilema
 thankyou
Carol

[rosie99]

Hi

The 1861 census says that the children are the grandchildren of Francis Simpson (Widower age 69)
Also there are
Francis age 37 and Sarah his wife (son and dtr in law)
George William is listed as unmarried (son of Francis Snr)

It looks to me as though they are the children of Francis and Sarah (It does not say that George is their father)

Rosie

[Gadget]

Hi Carol


On the 1861 RG9/2282/92/9 . Francis is given as married son (to Sarah) , aged 37 -  assume the grandchildren are his. This is continued on the 1871 RG10/3267/96/12

Francis would be brother to George (unm on the 1861), who is not on the 1871 with them


gnu

[lizdb]

I would say in 1861 Francis and Sarah are likely to be the parents of the children.
(The census does not name the childrens' father as either, just that the children are grandchildren of the HEad of the House - their parents need not even be in the household! But seeing as George William is unmarried, and Francis and Sarah are married, and there is a small baby there, plus you have the children with Franci in another census, indicates they are fransis's)

RG9 2282 92 9
Barkby
Francis 69 head widower
Francis 37 son married
Sarah 35 dtr in law married
George William 35 son unmarried
Francis 12 grandson
George Wm 10 grandson
Sarah 9 grdtr
Joseph 7 grdson
Susanna 4 grnddtr
Thomas 2 grndson
Colin 1mth grndsn

[davidrigg3]

I also agree that the children belong to Francis and Sarah.

I can however understand where the idea that they are George William's comes from on the 1861 census. I suspect the original poster was using a well known site - Anc****ry.

The layout of the summary of a census record has a field for Father's name, it seems that this has not been completed by a human being but by a computer that assumes the male name directly above the children's names is the father of those children. I'm not sure why this field has been added if it is unreliable, I have had several occasions myself where I have been surprised at a Father's name, only to discover why when looking at the actual image.