Author Topic: Confused about a census entry in 1911  (Read 666 times)

Offline jaimeepage

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 4
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Confused about a census entry in 1911
« on: Monday 15 May 17 23:32 BST (UK) »
So I have a query and wonder if anybody has come accross something similar. On the census for my great grandfather in 1911 he is a child listed as living with his parents and brother and sister, however it states the couple have had 3 children during their marriage but only 2 have survived - yet 3 are listed on the census?

Would they have put a child that died on the census record? It seems odd as the child listed last is not the youngest and his birth record matches with a death record for the same year!?

Thanks in advance for any help!

Offline Jomot

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 3,722
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Confused about a census entry in 1911
« Reply #1 on: Tuesday 16 May 17 00:44 BST (UK) »
Although the census should only have been completed with the details of anyone staying at the house on census night (2nd April 1911), there are countless examples of people misunderstanding, or completing the census in advance and then someone being elsewhere that night and so counted twice etc.  It is therefore entirely possible that their deceased child has been included.
MORGAN: Glamorgan, Durham, Ohio. DAVIS/DAVIES/DAVID: Glamorgan, Ohio.  GIBSON: Leicestershire, Durham, North Yorkshire.  RAIN/RAINE: Cumberland.  TAYLOR: North Yorks. BOURDAS: North Yorks. JEFFREYS: Worcestershire & Northumberland. FORBES: Berwickshire, CHEESMOND: Durham/Northumberland. WINTER: Durham/Northumberland. SNOWBALL: Durham.

Offline jim1

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,792
  • ain't life grand
    • View Profile
Re: Confused about a census entry in 1911
« Reply #2 on: Tuesday 16 May 17 10:53 BST (UK) »
As Jomot said there was lot of confusion particularly to this part.
It says:
State, for each married woman entered on this schedule :-
Children born alive to present marriage.
Someone could easily read that as all children born alive had to be named which looks like what's happened here, so the 2 children that were alive have been listed first then they've had a think about it & put the one that died down too.
Warks:Ashford;Cadby;Clarke;Clifford;Cooke Copage;Easthope;
Edmonds;Felton;Colledge;Lutwyche;Mander(s);May;Poole;Withers.
Staffs.Edmonds;Addison;Duffield;Webb;Fisher;Archer
Salop:Easthope,Eddowes,Hoorde,Oteley,Vernon,Talbot,De Neville.
Notts.Clarke;Redfearne;Treece.
Som.May;Perriman;Cox
India Kane;Felton;Cadby
London.Haysom.
Lancs.Gay.
Worcs.Coley;Mander;Sawyer.
Kings of Wessex & Scotland
Census information is Crown copyright,from
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/

Offline avm228

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 24,827
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Confused about a census entry in 1911
« Reply #3 on: Tuesday 16 May 17 11:47 BST (UK) »
Yes, I have seen a few examples in 1911 where a deceased child has been mistakenly included - presumably (as has been suggested) because the person completing the return was confused by the fertility questions directed at married women.
Ayr: Barnes, Wylie
Caithness: MacGregor
Essex: Eldred (Pebmarsh)
Gloucs: Timbrell (Winchcomb)
Hants: Stares (Wickham)
Lincs: Maw, Jackson (Epworth, Belton)
London: Pierce
Suffolk: Markham (Framlingham)
Surrey: Gosling (Richmond)
Wilts: Matthews, Tarrant (Calne, Preshute)
Worcs: Milward (Redditch)
Yorks: Beaumont, Crook, Moore, Styring (Huddersfield); Middleton (Church Fenton); Exley, Gelder (High Hoyland); Barnes, Birchinall (Sheffield); Kenyon, Wood (Cumberworth/Denby Dale)