Genealogy Chat

Going on the premise that the 1871 lot are yours, this is the 1861 I believe - the 1871 shows that the father John was from Cornwall (not a stones throw from the Channel Islands I guess?) They are still in Cornwall in 1861 Is John H's second name Henry as this one? Elizh Wales 31 Jno Henry Wales 9 John Wales 39 Mary Jane Wales 3 Thomas Wales 12 I cant seem to find them (only a brief search to be honest) on the 1851. Now that would be just around the time John junior was born so youd hope to see him as a baby/toddler but then if they were in the Channel Islands at that time, there is no census on ancestry for that. Get the marriage certificate for John H and Rosina and then double check this is his father - you can then look for his birth cert or the parents marriage.

Hi Suzanne had a quick look at the census image for John Wales in 1871 Wales and it does indeed look like Holleny. BUT did you not say he was earlier shown born Alderney. Could this possibly be someone mishearing the name? 1871: Mountain Ash Elizabeth Wales 38 John Wales 50 John H Wales 19 Mary J Wales 12 What you really need to do is get the marriage certificate for John and who was it, Rosina? That will give his fathers name and occupation and you can then trace him in the 1871. As they are married in the 1881 with no good around, it would be worth looking from 1871-1881 for a marriage - did he remarry? In theory they would be knocking out kids a year after the marriage, if not earlier. But to trace him back you do need that marriage certificate. If you are descended from them they must have had kids! So get a birth cert of one of the kids for the mothers maiden name and then you can find the marriage.

Rebekah - what you have there is a transcription error by Ancestry's transcribers. It is a common problem, unfortunately. The transcribing errors that I was referring to in this thread were the errors that were made when filling out those actual census register pages by the enumerator. I've only been doing this ancestry lark for a few years and all this time I was under the impression that those census images were the actual forms that were filled in at the various households. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thought this as you hear people referring to them as 'the original census pages'. But as explained above, these pages are not the originals at all. I used to wonder to myself why certain ancestors gave incorrect information - when in reality they probably gave the correct info but somehow it was mistranscribed by the enumerator when he was copying from the forms into the census books. I'm feeling quite enlightened by this whole new discovery! Just wish I had known about it sooner.

Was looking for family on Ancestry census images, couldnt find them. They were born Charlton-by-Newbottle. Finally found them, in 'Chastin Nubil' , checked details out and theyre def my family. On the actual census, it CLEARLY says Charlton-by-Newbottle; but the typed print that comes up prior to you clicking on 'select image' was obviously v wrong.

Heather Thanks I have just been closed out of my 3 day free ancestry His names was John H Wales Born abt 1852 1901 living with wife Rosina and family Glamorgan Wales 1891 living mountain Ash Wales Wales 1881 living with Crockett family with wife in Glamorgan regards Suzanne

You also have to remember that many of the forms that were left for the households to complete were filled in by the children, as the parents couldn't write. The enumerator would have a quick glance when he collected the form to make sure it was basically correct and then have to write it up onto the sheets later. It's bad enough trying to read my 8 year olds writing now, simple basic letters. I can imagine how it could be almost impossible to read if he was using the curly script taught in the 1800s.

Suzanne, give us his details and we can all have a look at it.

Thanks everyone for all that interesting information. I have a Gt Gt grandfather on the 1901 census as being born in Alderney Channel Islands. On the 1881 census he's down as British citizen born in France. Then on the 1871 census the only person I could find was born in Holleny. Haven't been able to find this place and am now wondering if the spelling on the census was hard to figure out, if they just guessed at the name. If anyone knows of a place called Holleny please let me know. Suzanne

No Vera, I think youll find that is due to the americans who transcribe the census images and have no idea of UK geography. How often have I found Somerset transcribed as Somalia - due to a predictive program they use for addresses! When I first started this I spent ages trying to find my GGF's birthplace, transcribed as Thadwete. It wasnt until ancestry unveield the 1871 that I could clearly see it was Shadwell!

I think also the dialects have something to do with the mis-spelt or incorrect names. I have a gggrandfather who moved from Somerset to Lancashire, his wife was Welsh, his place of birth is down as Sewpbitewd

Well, I did know this and Ive often taken it into account when I look for people who match BUT what is that changed first name or why is he born in a different place? If you look at the image and youre lucky enough for your person to have been given a wrong first name but one that is fairly unusual, say Flora instead of Mary - always look a few lines up from them - yep, the poor old clerk, sitting their by candle light is getting tired and he has looked away, looked back and put down a name from the house above. Same goes for places - if your bloke born in say Southwark suddenly appears to be from Scotland or somewhere else, just look up a few lines and I bet youll find someone from Scotland!

Yes, I suppose the data that was entered onto the enumerator's books was only as good as the handwriting on the census forms. You can just imagine that a majority of the forms would have been filled out by the enumerator doing his rounds that night - and after a few hours of scribbling away it's no wonder that their writing became a bit sloppy and then, at a later stage, they had difficulty reading some of what they had written down, which resulted in these little errors being made. As for someone appearing twice on the same census - yes, I've got two girls from the same family on the 1901 census where this happened. They are recorded at their parents home but also at their own homes with their husbands. I think that maybe they were at their parents home in the evening when the enumerator called at their parents house, then later they went back home and another form was filled out by someone there. Despite all these minor mistakes, on the whole the enumerators did a pretty darn good job of the census, I reckon. It's just useful to know how they were completed so that if we do come up against a brick wall and can't find someone, we can then use other search criteria to try to locate them - and sometimes you might just get lucky, as I recently did! Athena

How interesting. I found that my gt grandfather was on the 1901 census twice. Looks like him and his brother were written in as living at home with their family but they are both down as boarding at another address. All the details match up. Have sent for certificat to verify. Suzanne

This will explain why my great-uncle Robert Jackson is shown as Richard on the 1891 census!!!

My great grandmother Ellen is down as Clara on the 1901 census image. It is definitely her.......born in the right place (not the county where she later lived) and with all the right children and correct husband. I don't know how that mistake was made.......I've looked at the 'original' and can see how it ended up as Clara on Ancestry as that is how it looks. So the fact that those were copies might explain it. It just goes to show that you sometimes need more than one reference document to be certain of your facts. If I'd started with 1901 (and not known Ellen from my personal knowledge) then I'd have been hunting for a Clara. Sue

this is likely to change with the 1911 one, as it is beleived that it is the household sheduals that we will use not the Emun-whats-its books.

Good point Athena, as you say, most will not realise this. Of course there is further scope for error on the transcription of the enumerators sheets as well!

Just thought this might be useful to keep in mind when you are searching the census records. The census images that we view are NOT the original data that was written down by the enumerator or household member. The original forms that were filled in were then written out (copied) at a later stage onto the forms that we now view online. So, mistakes did happen when transferring details from one form to the other - and you cannot take the census images as being 100% correct. I thought this might be useful because understanding and accepting this fact helped me find an elusive family that I had searched a few years for. I have recently discovered that their surname had been incorrectly written down on the census forms - but as everything else from the family matched up (first names, ages, occupations, birthplaces etc) it was easy to then accept that this was the family I had been searching for and that a simple mistake had been made. (Not just a transcription error on Ancestry, I mean that the name was written incorrectly on the census page). Here is an excerpt from the UK 1841 Census Website, that explains it properly: 'After information was recorded on pre-printed census schedules, a schedule was left with a household and later collected by the enumerator. If there was no one in the house who could write, the enumerator helped to record the information. The census enumerator then copied the information on the schedules into their official books known as census enumerators' books. Unfortunately, the original census schedules have been destroyed and it is the census enumerator's books that researchers see on the microfilm. Because the information in the books is a copy of the information on the schedule, there were often mistakes made in transcribing the information.' Well worth bearing in mind as most of us tend to think that the images we view are the original entries! Athena

See below in a min...