Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: What a judgmental enumerator!  (Read 1702 times)

Offline familydar

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 980
    • View Profile
What a judgmental enumerator!
« on: Monday 15 October 18 11:24 BST (UK) »
Amazingly the head of household was able to sign his name but he evidently had a problem with counting.  The first-born daughter arrived at least 6 months after the wedding!

Jane :-)
ALLEN
BARR, BARRATT, BERRY, BRADLEY,BRAMLEY,BRISTOW,BROWN,BUGBIRD,BUTLER
CAIN,CARR,CHAPMAN,CHARLES,CH*LTON,CHESTER,COCKETT
COLLASON,COLLYER,CORKERY
DARLING, DENYER,DICKERSON,DOLLING,DURBAN
FARMER,FURNELL
GIBSON,GILES,GROOMBRIDGE
HALL,HAMBIDGE,HARMES,HART,HICKS,HILL,HOLLOWAY
JACKSON
K*AT*S
LANCASTER,LINTON
MCDONALD,MCFADEN,MEARS,MILLARD
NICOLAS,NOAK,NORTH
PARFIT,PORTER
RIPPINGALE,ROBINS
SEARLE,SPENCER,STEDHAM
TYLER,TILLY,TUCKWELL
WADE,WAGER,WALKER,WATSON,WEBB,WITHRINGTON,WOOD

Offline Dyingout

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 360
  • My Father Charles in his hockey playing days
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #1 on: Monday 15 October 18 12:34 BST (UK) »
Yes. Even 10 years after the reign of of the prudish Victoria. Prudish values still existed, in some rural parts even until after the second world war.
Being base borne, living under the brush, were sayings bandied about in even my childhood.
Vilifying someone from 1911 for their beliefs by today's standards is being a bit harsh. Remember these people were brought up with Victorian beliefs, where the glimpse of an ankle was deemed as extreme rudeness.
Dow/Dowe Norfolk and Suffolk
Mulley/Wilden Suffolk
Loome/lombe Norfolk

Offline Mart 'n' Al

  • RootsChat Leaver
  • RootsChat Pioneer
  • *
  • Posts: 0
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #2 on: Monday 15 October 18 13:01 BST (UK) »
My favourite euphemism for bastardy is "born the wrong side of the blanket."

Martin

Offline Sloe Gin

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,394
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #3 on: Monday 15 October 18 13:12 BST (UK) »
Those amendments would have been made by an office clerk.  I don't see it as judgmental, just someone being especially pernickety over the statistics being correct.
UK census content is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk  Transcriptions are my own.

Offline Treetotal

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 28,450
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #4 on: Monday 15 October 18 13:15 BST (UK) »
Quote from: Mart 'n' Al on Monday 15 October 18 13:01 BST (UK)
My favourite euphemism for bastardy is "born the wrong side of the blanket."

Martin


"Base Born"....I thought it meant born at a military camp  ;D ;D It me some years to realise what this meant.

Carol
CAPES Hull. KIRK  Leeds, Hull. JONES  Wales,  Lancashire. CARROLL Ireland, Lancashire, U.S.A. BROUGHTON Leicester, Goole, Hull BORRILL  Lincolnshire, Durham, Hull. GROOM  Wishbech, Hull. ANTHONY St. John's Nfld. BUCKNALL Lincolnshire, Hull. BUTT Harbour Grace, Newfoundland. PARSONS  Western Bay, Newfoundland. MONAGHAN  Ireland, U.S.A. PERRY Cheshire, Liverpool.
 
RESTORERS:PLEASE DO NOT USE MY RESTORES WITHOUT PRIOR PERMISSION - THANK YOU

Offline carom

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #5 on: Monday 15 October 18 13:19 BST (UK) »
The column heading says"completed years the marriage has lasted", so they could have been married 18 years and 11 months, in which case the child would be legitimate?

Offline carom

  • RootsChat Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 175
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #6 on: Monday 15 October 18 13:38 BST (UK) »
Sorry, my last post was nonsense, must learn to engage brain before posting!

Offline JohninSussex

  • RootsChat Senior
  • ****
  • Posts: 486
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #7 on: Monday 15 October 18 13:42 BST (UK) »
Quote from: carom on Monday 15 October 18 13:19 BST (UK)
The column heading says"completed years the marriage has lasted", so they could have been married 18 years and 11 months, in which case the child would be legitimate?
Then the child would not have been aged 19.

As Familydar said, the householder has written information that is inconsistent.  Some census clerk has noticed the anomaly and made an assumption  as to how to rectify it.

If the marriage had lasted for 18y and 11m, and the child was aged 18 and 9, yes she would have been legitimate.  But it's not usual to round up someone's age.

ADDED, sorry Carom just saw you retracted, but it is another explanation the clerk could have considered.
Rutter, Sampson, Swinerd, Head, Redman in Kent.  Others in Cheshire, Manchester, Glos/War/Worcs.
RUTTER family and Matilda Sampson's Will:

Offline hallmark

  • ~
  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • ****
  • Posts: 17,525
    • View Profile
Re: What a judgmental enumerator!
« Reply #8 on: Monday 15 October 18 13:45 BST (UK) »
Quote from: familydar on Monday 15 October 18 11:24 BST (UK)
Amazingly the head of household was able to sign his name but he evidently had a problem with counting.  The first-born daughter arrived at least 6 months after the wedding!

Jane :-)


Looks like it.

Not the Enumerator's fault!
Give a man a record and you feed him for a day.
Teach a man to research, and you feed him for a lifetime.
Pages: [1] 2