Genealogy Chat

Samuel CHANDLER - born abt 1845, Dudley Worcestershire, boiler smith; Hannah CHANDLER - born about 1846, Flookburgh, Lancashire, Living West Ham, Essex 1881 census, Deptford St. Paul 1901census So where the **** have they gone in 1891? I would expect them to have their youngest 3 - Albert age 1; Herbert age 9 and Beatrice age 11 with them. I've spent half the evening trying all the combinations I can think of, eg no surname found them in 1901 that way asthey are listed as Chardler, but that didn't help! Very grateful thanks to any one who can help. Mavis

Where were the children born?

1881 for reference Name: Samuel Chandler Age: 36 Estimated birth year: abt 1845 Spouse's name: Hannah Where Born: Betherton, Worcestershire, England Civil parish: West Ham County: Essex Street address: 5 Bradley St Occupation: Boiler Smith Registration district: West Ham Sub registration district: West Ham Household Members: Beatrice Chandler 1 (Canning Town) Edward Chandler 13 Edward Chandler 37 Frederic Chandler 6 (Middlesboro) Gilbert Chandler 4 (Middlesboro, Yorks) Hannah Chandler 35 Milo Chandler 12 Samuel Chandler 36 Samuel Chandler 9 (Betherton, Worcs) Thomas W. Chandler 8 (Middlesboro)

Sorry forgot to say, according to 1901 census - Albert & Herbert Plaistow, London, Beatrice Canning Town, London. Thanks Mavis

I've got that little boy with the rope again on ancestry - are they tweaking it again! Sorry, but giving up for the night - hope someone else has more luck accessing ancestry.

Very sinister expression, that boy. Not at all sure what he intends to do with that rope, lol!

1891 I presume you have this already Name: Miles Chandler Age: 22 Estimated birth year: abt 1869 Relation: Son-in-law Gender: Male Where Born: Middlesborough, Yorkshire, England Civil parish: West Ham Ecclesiastical parish: St Mary County/Island: Essex Country: England Registration district: West Ham Sub registration district: West Ham ED, institution, or vessel: 38 Household Members: Name age Miles Chandler 22 Emily Port 22 - image is Chandler James Port 49 Lozzie Port 49 Source Citation: Class: RG12; Piece: 1325; Folio 72; Page 6; GSU roll: 6096435 Maureen

1891 some of the family mistranscribed as LEWIS Check out the following ref - the family on schedule 227 is Lewis but Chandlers are on schedule 228 RG12/1324/112/36 Samuel 19 Thomas W 18 Frederick 16 Gilbert 14 Beatrice 11 Herbert 9 Albert 1 The parents are not shown on the image so wondering if they were not transferred from the original household schedule. Samuel (19) is not shown as head of household. Unless anyone else can find them. Maureen Update I have put a name correction against Beatrice - which will take weeks to show on Ancestry. You might like to do the same for the rest of the household. Maureen

Thanks for that GB. Yes I'd found Miles (and cursed him for getting married & moving in with his in-laws when I was trying to find the rest of his family). The children names & ages do look like too good a fit to be co-incidence, and the transciber could have left out the parnets, but where the **** did 'LEWIS' come from? Any sugestions from listers appreciated. Mavis

Mavis, The family at the top of the image are LEWIS and I think that because Samuel is shown as son that the transcriber just carried on with the Lewis name. Maureen

Sorry, answered OC post before I looked up the census image, yes I see now they are Chandlers on the image. Just thought, I think eons ago (well it feels like it) I found a Samuel & Hannah without any children, wonder if they were away for census night leaving the oldest children to look after the younger ones .... off to plough through my ' think these arn't mine notes'! Mavis

Suspect the transcriber forgot to change the surname when he started the next family. Lewis is the family above. Jim You may want to submit corrections

How do I add a correction, I could add loads! A side question, I take it that 1901online and Ancestry are different transcriptions of the census, as mine are Chandler on 1901online and Chardler on Ancestry? Or is it just that 1901online has been corrected. Cheers Mavis