'Transcriptions'

[StevieSteve]

Can't see that anyone else has had a go so...

Lustheart?

[Andrew Tarr]

Can't see that anyone else has had a go so...  Lustheart?

Nice try, but the capital is not like the L of Labourer.  I'm pretty sure it's an S.  And your 'u' looks more like 'ee'.  I've added a larger image to my earlier post, so you can have a better look ...

I don't know the right answer this time - honest .....

[avm228]

Alice's parish register entry is a tricky one, but I think she must be Alice Suthurst (Dec qtr 1876 Bolton).  She's in Quarlton in 1881 as Alice Southerst (4), with parents Robert and Ellen and several siblings.

[Sloe Gin]

I was just going to ask for a date, and to see the rest of the page, but avm has it 

[Andrew Tarr]

Alice's parish register entry is a tricky one, but I think she must be Alice Suthurst (Dec qtr 1876 Bolton).  She's in Quarlton in 1881 as Alice Southerst (4), with parents Robert and Ellen and several siblings.

Very good.  You've just saved me a minute or two - I was going on to FreeBMD to check it out.  I did hit what must have been an earlier sibling several pages back, when the name looked more like Southeast (who is a cricketer, for Kent I think).

LATER - I have looked at FreeBMD.  My cleric wasn't the only person to show uncertainty over the name: between 1870 and 1888 I have found in Bolton

Sutherst     1870, 1872, 1874, 1879       Suthers      1874, 1881, 1883
Suthurst     1876                                    Southerst   1882

I wonder how it was pronounced .... 

[coombs]

I record what (I think) I see, when I can make no better sense of a word.  I may add a comment if I think it might be read differently.

So here is a Christmas puzzle to illustrate my point.  The writing is pretty clear, but I can't even guess at a surname I recognise, and it isn't one of the local tribes.  I suspect the cleric (Mr Spencer) wasn't too sure either, but the last half may have been '-hurst'.  Answers please .... 

Looks like Sustheart to me.

[Rosinish]

.
Although some mistakes are just plain odd.
I found the following occupation on a 1939 Register for my uncle -
"General Worker Embalmer Coffee Maker Polish"

but on the image  is clearly written the words "Funeral Worker"  (not General Worker) so I am presuming he wasn't a barista.
Jan

So, Coffee Maker likely to be Coffin Maker?

Annie

[clairec666]

It's unfair to assume that foreign transcribers can't read British records. It all depends on familiarity with the handwriting of the time. I've shown some census images to family members and they can't read a word of it, yet I find it easier than reading my own handwriting!

There are two main reasons FreeREG translations (for example) are better than Ancestry's - 1) the transcribers are experienced genealogists who are familiar with pre-20th-century handwriting, and 2) they care about the accuracy of their work so don't hurry it.

I suggest the problem lies with Ancestry rather than the transcribers... their priority is to add records as quickly and cheaply as possible, and if we don't like it we can vote with our feet!

[bugbear]

(The enumerator did spell it 'Mathew' so the transcription was right there, but this is the only instance of that spelling of his forename. 

We can't possibly expect an enumerator working through a page of census to check other records for each individual!!

 BugBear