Author Topic: Double trouble in the census?  (Read 266 times)

Offline Spiral

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 14
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Double trouble in the census?
« on: Thursday 10 January 19 23:52 GMT (UK) »
I am wondering people on RootsChat have had similar odd census discoveries to this I made with my Castle family.
In the 1911 census I have found two entries for 46 Vaughton Street Birmingham
Registration district                           Aston
Registration District Number              385
Sub-registration district                     Deritend
ED, institution, or vessel                    3
Piece                                                18150
Images                                             0149 to 0154
At first I assumed that the one the Castles inhabited should be no. 47 and that it was just an interesting coincidence that in both houses there was a 23 year old woman called Ellen with a very young son called George. One being Ellen Susannah Gouldingay, married to Frank, and the other being Ellen Castle, daughter of George Castle and a young child called George who I assumed was her son.

However, further research on Ellen Castle revealed that she was called Ellen Susannah and had married Frank Gouldingay in 1908 – in other words it looks like she is both the Ellens and her son is recorded twice as well!– so why has George her father described her as single and her son as George Castle rather than George Gouldingay?

Bit odd isn’t it? By the way Ellen and Frank go on to have another 7 children after this 😊

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline rosie99

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 28,375
    • View Profile
Re: Double trouble in the census?
« Reply #1 on: Friday 11 January 19 08:30 GMT (UK) »
I suspect that it is the same property where two 'household' forms have been issued as there were effectively two family units and that perhaps Ellens father wrongly included her and George on his form. 

Maybe Ellens husbands work took him away from home that night and she was staying in her parents part of the house, alternatively perhaps her father did not understand who he should be putting on the form.  It was after all only a record of occupation for one night of a year and many people found these forms confusing
Census information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

RootsChat is the busiest, largest free family history forum site in the country. It is completely free to use. Register now.
Also register instantly with Facebook or Twitter (and other social networks). Start your genealogy search now.


Offline Spiral

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 14
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Double trouble in the census?
« Reply #2 on: Friday 11 January 19 09:11 GMT (UK) »
Oh, I didn't realise that they would issue two forms to the one accommodation. Of course if Frank was away he shouldn't have filled in the other form at all. He clearly didn't understand what was required fully at the start as he originally entered the names of their first two children who had died.

Offline jim1

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 21,653
  • ain't life grand
    • View Profile
Re: Double trouble in the census?
« Reply #3 on: Friday 11 January 19 11:26 GMT (UK) »
I notice Frank was a boatman so away at the time.
1911 was the first census filled in by the householder & lots of mistakes were made.
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 medpat

  • RootsChat Veteran
  • *****
  • Posts: 655
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Double trouble in the census?
« Reply #4 on: Friday 11 January 19 11:45 GMT (UK) »
I have a man put in all his children, including the dead ones, on the 1911 Census.

All the girls had their maiden names and he wrote they were single and annotating 'dead' on some, they had a red line put through them. All his married children lived away from his home so they were duplicated. :o

They were written in age order, I think he was just naming those born to the marriage from that question not answering the question who was at the house on a certain night.
Lloyd, Paddock, Cooper, Morris, Darby, Rigby, Platt, Armstrong. All based in West Midlands

GEDmatch M157477

Offline Spiral

  • RootsChat Extra
  • **
  • Posts: 14
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Double trouble in the census?
« Reply #5 on: Friday 11 January 19 11:58 GMT (UK) »
I have a man put in all his children, including the dead ones, on the 1911 Census.

All the girls had their maiden names and he wrote they were single and annotating 'dead' on some, they had a red line put through them. All his married children lived away from his home so they were duplicated. :o

They were written in age order, I think he was just naming those born to the marriage from that question not answering the question who was at the house on a certain night.
Ah! Maybe that is what George was doing-his other child was a George Edward who died aged 1.
If at least two people did this I wonder how may others did too.   ::)

Offline stanmapstone

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 23,922
    • View Profile
Re: Double trouble in the census?
« Reply #6 on: Friday 11 January 19 13:13 GMT (UK) »
I notice Frank was a boatman so away at the time.
1911 was the first census filled in by the householder & lots of mistakes were made.

The Household Schedules were filled in by the householder, or someone on his/her behalf, in every census. 1911 is the first census where the schedules survive, all the others were destroyed. In the censuses upto 1901 the enumerator copied the deatails from the schedules into his enumerator book, which were not used in 1911.

Stan
Mapstone, Mapston.
Census Information is Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk

Online Maiden Stone

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,038
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Double trouble in the census?
« Reply #7 on: Friday 11 January 19 17:24 GMT (UK) »
I notice Frank was a boatman so away at the time.
1911 was the first census filled in by the householder & lots of mistakes were made.
I found duplication for a boatman's family on an earlier census. His wife and his small grandson were recorded in his household and also at the home of his daughter in a town a few miles away. I assume that the wife took the grandson from one place to another on census weekend, perhaps staying for a night at her daughter's house. Boatman, wife + 14 year-old grandson were all on their boat at the next census.
1911 census is the first one on which we can see mistakes. One set of my grandparents were married by 1911 census. If I had taken everything on it as accurate I would have gone off in several wrong directions. There were 5 major pieces of incorrect information, some apparently deliberate, others mere confusion.