Genealogy Chat

Help!!! I don't know what on earth this means. Anson (Henry) Lovatt was born in Hanley Staff 1861 to Henry and Elizabeth Lovatt. I have all 3 of them appearing in the census of that year in Staff. On the 1871 census Anson does not appear with his family but his brothers and sisters do with his parents. I have entries for his granparents in the 1851 and 1861 census. A kind person on this site found an entry for them in the 1871 census and then when I checked Ancestry.com I found their entry. The record has been mistranscribed as it says that their grandson is with them and his name is Susan Hanrey Levall and he is 3months old. When I look at the original I am sure it says Anson Henry Lovatt 3months, how can this be when he should be 10years and 3months at this time. I have (I think) Anson Henry's death certificate and from this he was indeed born in 1861 his mother and fathers names also match. I have no idea how I can resolve this, can I trust the 1871 census?? Many thanks Pamela

when being transcribed - they can always be mistakes (hence susan - not anson) the age - maybe his grandparents said he was 10 years and months - but the person taking the census didn't hear the 10 years part

I really hope that this is the case otherwise it throws all of my research completely in the air. Pamela

Pamela, I've just been and had a look at the scan you're refering to ....The handwitting on this one is appalingly difficult to decipher. It DEFINITELY is ANSON HENRY LOVATT ! Now the weird bit is the relationship column. There is a word before son wich looks like it begins with an F it looks like a four letter word with an apostraphy at the end. Could it be Fam's Son .... as in family's son? And you're quite right about the age, even though it's in the male column it says 3 months, so can't help with that one. Have saved the image incase you want any other help. Back at 1pm as they say ! Sioux

On one census my Great great uncle was shown as 10 months on the next one he was 20 years!

Rather like today, the enumerators gave out schedules to each household. If necessary, they helped with the completion of the forms, then took them back and wrote them up neatly. (I gather that this last stage was omitted for the 1911 census). There was the possibility for information to be misheard or misread. We think my friend's great aunt Florence Mason appears on the 1901 census as Clarence Mason, as the age is shown in the female column, then crossed out and put in the male column, but as it shows 8 years when we expected 18 months, we have our reservations. (The enumerator made a complete hash of the following page, so we trust none of his work). In 1881 the Bounton family appear as Bouriton, presumably because there was an ink blot on the householder's schedule. All this is infuriating, but hey! it would be boring if it were easy! Brenda

Same problem. I am absolutely certain that my ancestors on the 1861 census and the 1871 census are the same. Though you wouldn't think so from the ages. Census ages are notoriously unreliable. The ladies often knocked off a few years as well. My grandmother did. I can also remember when I was child that several old people who lived in our area had only a vague idea of how old they were. It was quite common for Victorian to forget their exact age!