Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

  • The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
  • You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
  • And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
  • The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Boards

Quick Search

Single word search

Tools

Findmypast DNA Banner

Icons

  • New posts
  • No new posts
  • Thread closed
  • Stickied, new posts
  • Stickied, no new posts

1901 Census Help

Login to Add Reply Watch This
ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

Joanne

Joanne Report 18 Apr 2012 11:46

I have found a connection to my family in the 1901 census but on one of the household members in the relation to head of family and condition as to marriage it says Ditto in both. Can anyone tell me why this maybe?

Thanks
Joanne

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 18 Apr 2012 11:50

What does it say for the person above in the family list?

If you want to give details of the name and where they are so we can have a look it might help.

Kath. x

+++DetEcTive+++

+++DetEcTive+++ Report 18 Apr 2012 11:53

Ditto or ,, normally means the same details as the line above. You need to look at the image to see what they were.

Researching:
Dormant member as from 20 Sep 2019 . Click on my board name to send a message

Joanne

Joanne Report 18 Apr 2012 12:00

The person in question is Ernest E Crocker 1893 swimbridge devon
I was searching his father which is my GG grand father.

Joanne

Joanne Report 18 Apr 2012 12:04

I have just looked at original census and it does say son and he's not old enough to be married, It's just I had never seen that before.

Thanks

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 18 Apr 2012 12:04

Is this the one:-

1901 census transcription details for: Swimbridge Village, Swimbridge

National Archive Reference:
RG number: RG13 Piece: 2153 Folio: 13 Page: 2


Reg. District: Barnstaple Sub District: Bishop's Tawton
Parish: Swimbridge Enum. District: 13
Ecclesiastical District: Swimbridge St James City/Municipal Borough:
Address: Swimbridge Village, Swimbridge
County: Devonshire

Name Relation Condition Sex Age Birth
Year Occupation ,
Disability Where Born
CROCKER, Charles F Head Married M 40 1861 Ordinary Agricultural Labourer
Swimbridge
Devonshire
CROCKER, Fanny Wife Married F 32 1869
Wiveliscombe
Somersetshire
CROCKER, Florence E Daughter Single F 14 1887
Swimbridge
Devonshire
CROCKER, Frederick J Son Single M 9 1892
Swimbridge
Devonshire
CROCKER, Ernest E Son Single M 7 1894
Swimbridge
Devonshire
CROCKER, Winifred Daughter Single F 5 1896
Swimbridge
Devonshire
CROCKER, Herbert Son Single M 2 1899
Swimbridge
Devonshire

Kath. x

Joanne

Joanne Report 18 Apr 2012 12:11

Yes that is the one, also in the 1911 it says Fanny had 5 children born alive and 5 children living but according to the census for 1901 and 1911 there is 6 maybe its just a typing error, as my G grandfather was born in 1902 he's not in the 1901 census.

Joanne

KathleenBell

KathleenBell Report 18 Apr 2012 12:17

Perhaps it says 5 children born to the marriage because Florence was born before the marriage.

This is the marriage and Fanny's surname was Clarke:-


Name: CROCKER, Charles Frederic
Registration district: Barnstaple
County: Devon
Year of registration: 1891
Quarter of registration: Jul-Aug-Sep
Spouse's last name: Not available before 1912
Volume no: 5B
Page no: 835
MarriageFinder: Charles Frederic Crocker married one of the following people:

BLAKE, Mary Jane
CLARKE, Fanny

Kath. x

Joanne

Joanne Report 18 Apr 2012 12:17

I believe the reason for this is Fanny's maiden name is Clarke and I have just found a marrige for Fanny and Charles in 1891 and it is Clarke

Joanne

Joanne Report 18 Apr 2012 12:27

It looks like you might be right Kath as they didnt marry until 1891

Thanks
Joanne