Genealogy Chat

Something that you more experienced researchers may already know but I thought I'd pass it on.

When looking at Census Returns I've found it's important not to assume that every child bearing the same surname on the list of occupants is the son or daughter of the head of the household. I've found them to be a niece, nephew or even a grandchild. I think it's always worth checking.

Sue

So true, Sue, That's another reason that I never use a transcribed version of a census. I always go to the original and work from that.

Thats the problem with cut and paste .

Margarets method is time consuming but when doing a look up for someone checking the census image is the only way to be certain of relationships and ages. How often have ages been given as years when it should be months

Very good point. Having been given access to someones tree, I pointed out that they had included a child as a daughter when infact she was a neice. The error was made as they had not taken the time to look at the original image. The error has still not been rectified months later...oh well.

Chris

I don't work that way.
eg
1861
James Moran Bridget abt 1811 Ireland Head Liverpool, Lancashire
click "view record" and you will get;
James Moran 50
Bridget Moran 45
Honora Moran 18
Click on each in turn and you will get their details,including relationships.
Or, View others on page
James Moran Bridget abt 1811 Ireland Head Liverpool, Lancashire
Bridget Moran James abt 1816 Ireland Wife Liverpool, Lancashire
Honora Moran James,
Bridget abt 1843 Ireland Daughter Liverpool, Lancashire

Yes, Jim, but you're still getting a transcribed version which is only as good as the person who transcribed it. I'd still rather go to the original and transcribe it myself.

always check the original, transcribers often make mistakes on spelling, ages etc.

You also sometimes find relatives living next door.

Not just relationships either- I have a relative whose birthplace is transcribed as where she is living, nowhere near her birthplace, and only by looking at original did I confirm I had the right person.
Jan

Margaret you are right, I always look at the original. But of course, even that isn't an original, in many cases it is a transcription by the enumerator of the information he was given. But it's the best we have.

I also go to the image to check that there aren't more members of the household on the previous/next page (often left off or transcribed as a separate household - I've had several where the household appears to consist of one person, a child aged 5!) but even more importantly to check for other family members living nearby.

I must tell the tale of my 3-year hunt for William Holland as an example of why my approach is vital. No sign in 1871, nor of his parents. So I looked for his siblings. I quickly found a sister living in Gorton, Manchester, married, and thought no more about it. Of course, the family did not originate from Gorton, but from several towns in 3 different counties. 3 years later I returned to this census image and spotted a Sarah with an unkown surname born in the same place as William, living on the same road in Gorton as the original sister. Further inspection showed William and his mother a couple of doors away. Why hadn't I found them earlier? Well, the surname had been transcribed as Hallam. I had tried Hollum, Hollan, Hol*, Hulland, it hadn't crossed my mind to try Hallam.

So always look at the census record itself.

Margaret

How often when someone has asked for a look up and given the transcription they then return and ask for the relationships etc.

Years ago most look ups were from the census image and usually other family living next door or close by are found.
You also get to see if there are any infirmities deaf,blind etc

Something the original post just reminded me of that I find useful is to take the relationship status of other household members with a pinch of salt. Often people said to be nieces or nephews of the head will turn out to be the spouses of the head of the house's nieces and nephews.

One that still baffles me is a distant cousin on one side. At one point, he is living with his wife, some children and nieces and nephews, but when I cross-referenced with other census records, it turned out that the nieces and nephews were actually his grandchildren!

And I also have a sneaky puzzle on this same line because the father of the man above (I think it was the father) was stated to be living with his wife, a couple of adult children and a very young son. Ten years on, this little boy is 18 and suddenly "grandson" - and there's at least one adult unmarried daughter who could be the mother. I have still got to check this one but I think I may have spotted a cover-up!

Kate I've had that happen a number of times. A young child turns up as a son/daughter with an adult in the family old enough to be the mother. Then in later census's the child has become grandchild. The one that often puzzled me was calling a step-child and "in-law".

Sue

Sue, in olden days a step child was called son-in-law or daughter-in-law and it does makes sense because in law they were a son or daughter.

I almost always check the image .... and post what I've found. Yes, it's time consuming, but I ahve found that there is some important piece of information that I have missed on over 50% of the ones where I don't check!


I also go to the image on the new London marriage, births ........ you can find extra little bits on there as well. Including another child baptized at the same time!



sylvia

I think the problem is helpers wanting to be " first" to find the information.

Its great to help but if its not accurate then its a waste of your time

Point in question was on another thread earlier when someone was looking for a relative born in London but lived in Durham. They could not find him on earlier census.

Many had looked for him.

Kathleen Bell looked and after checking the census image found the person was transcribed as age 14 when he should have been 4