Dead Child included in 1911 Census

[Elastik]

I am looking at the 1911 UK Census entry for 21 Watt Street, Throston, Hartlepool, Durham where Frederick James Stephens and his wife Hellen Harriet Stephens live with their 7 children. His wife's birth is registered at the GRO as Ellen Harriet Tolputt, born in 1870, D Quarter in Dover (02A/840). Their marriage is registered as Frederick James Stephens married Ellen Harriet Talbot in 1895 in Hartlepool M Quarter (10A/129). The Registrar seems to have heard her say "Tolputt" but he wrote "Talbot". No big deal really. The problem on this 1911 entry is that the enumerator has carefully filled in the "Married Woman" details next to Hellen Harriet's name but they make no sense. He has written that the marriage has lasted 16 years, that she has had 7 children "Born Alive", that 6 children are "still Living" and that 1 child "has Died". But he has listed 7 children as living, giving their ages as 16, 14, 11, 9, 7, 5, and 2. I believe the error may possibly be the 14 year old Sarah, whose birth is registered in 1897, M Quarter, in Hartlepool to Mother Maiden Name Tolputt (10A/144). This child, Sarah Stephens, is also registered as having died in Hartlepool in 1901, M Quarter, aged 4 (10A/114). If the child had lived then she would have been 14 at the time of the census, but she did not. So these are my questions about this strange page. Why is Sarah listed as being aged 14 and alive when it looks like she died aged 4, ten years earlier. If there are 6 living children then why are 7 listed? And lastly, why is Frederick James Stephens name crossed through in black and his wife's name written over his, as Head of the Household? Was he just not at home? Sorry this is a bit complicated. Thanks in advance for any help.

[heywood]

In 1911, the householder completed the census not the enumerator.
It looks as though it was  completed in advance but for some reason, Frederick was not present on census night and the enumerator altered the name.
I have seen other instances where dead or married children have been included and this may well be the case.
Nellie is entered as 9 yrs old but Ellen in 1901 was 8 months so her age is not quite correct. Her brother Frederick’s age is not quite right either.

[Neale1961]

Yes, I would agree with Heywood above. I have also seen examples of the householder getting confused with some of the entries on the 1911 census, and marking down all children born in the marriage, whether dead or alive.

[heywood]

There is also the possibility that Hellen/Ellen completed the census and it was then corrected by the enumerator re head of household and the signature.
If you have a signed marriage certificate, you may be able to compare signatures.

I can’t see Frederick elsewhere in 1911.

[Elastik]

Thanks for these suggestions. My primary source for this info is the son of the Reuben Stephens listed on this 1911 Census. He says that his Dad, Reuben, (deceased) told him that the family moved to Bristol when he was 12. From the later 1939 Register (for a Bristol address) Reuben's DoB was given as 25/07/05 so he would have been 12 from 25/07/17 until 25/07/18 so I am assuming that the whole family moved at some time in this window, but maybe not all the children moved. Looking at Sarah Stephens who may be erroneously listed as a living child on 1911 Census at this address I purchased the image of what may be her death certificate, aged 4. It contains the following information - address 21 Watt St, date of death/registration 21/03/01, informant Father : Frederick James Stephens : Boilersmith. So, on the face of it, this is the Sarah listed as living & aged 14. However there are records of two Sarah Stephens in Hartlepool over this period. I searched the GRO & there are births registered in 1897 M Quarter MMN Tolputt (10A/144) and 1898 M Quarter MMN Robertson (10A/112). Just to make it more confusing a Sarah Stephens is listed as marrying John W V Dando in Hartlepool in 1918 J Quarter (10a/240) and this Dando/Stephens couple goes on to appear in the 1921 Census in Bristol (33 Bloy St, Easton) with her age given as 23y 7m which could agree with her being the Stephens/Robertson Sarah. It seems to be a remarkable coincidence that this Stephens should move from Hartlepool to Bristol at the same time as Reuben's family made the same move. Both towns have shipbuilding connections. WW1 had not ended so ships were needed. Is there a genealogical connection between the 2 groups or is it just a coincidence? I'm not sure where to go from here. Any suggestions would be gratefully received.

[Josephine]

Just to make it more confusing a Sarah Stephens is listed as marrying John W V Dando in Hartlepool in 1918 J Quarter (10a/240) and this Dando/Stephens couple goes on to appear in the 1921 Census in Bristol (33 Bloy St, Easton) with her age given as 23y 7m which could agree with her being the Stephens/Robertson Sarah.

The logical next step, IMO, would be to purchase this marriage record.

[heywood]

Your family were living at 21 Watt Street in the 1901 census which is the same address you have for Sarah’s death.
As the informant is Frederick James , a Boilersmith - same as the census, this seems certain that Sarah is the child entered as the deceased child but recorded on the census.
Have you searched all possible births for your couple to ensure that there is not another birth/death, although this would conflict with the census information.

[heywood]

The Stephens/Robertson family are Charles H and Dorothy A Stephens living in Hartlepool in 1901 with @ daughter, Sarah 3 yrs and two other children.

[Milliepede]

I think just a coincidence with being two Sarah Stephens born 1897.

If it helps the death for the Sarah marrying Dando has a birth date of 27 Nov 1897. 

Marriage transcription confirms her father as Charles Henry.