Genealogy Chat

Was having a look on 1901 for some other newish rellies, and had a bit of brainwave. I have been unable to find a lot of my Threshers in Census and 1837 due to spelling mistakes. Well luckily enough I have a Hardy Thresher in my tree, so I decided to search by first name, you have to enter age where born and gender, I know hes male and probably born in London, and I enter 15 as the age with plus minus 15 years so that covered it. And guess what there are my Thresher's transcribed as 'Shreaher' needless to say the only family of 'Shreaher' on 1901. Just had to share that as was getting concerned that my lot had something to hide from the enumerators!!

I had the same sort of success too. My grandmother, Olive Marsland, was a small child in 1901 but I couldn't find her on the 1901 census. I searched on Christian name and age only and found the family transcribed as Jillarsland!!! Not a spelling variation that immediately springs to mind!!!

i also had trouble finding my nan on 1901 her name was hathaway.finally found it transcribed as hathausey!! susie

I had the same trouble with areas - one relative from Almondsbury was listed as from Amsesbury, another three from Chipping Sodbury were on the census as from Chipping Tolbury. Christian names too - we have a "Lizzie" who became "Lily" on more than one occasion!! Must have either had a speech impediment or a hard-of-hearing enumerator! ShirleyB

On the 1891 census PORTSEA has been transcribed as porkea in one instance! -Kat

I have a Hagar Ann on an 1861 census, but on the 1881 she is not there but a Hannah is - can not find them on 1871 yet, but still working on it. either this is a spelling mistake or 2 were born close to each other. I wonder what our descendants will make of the spelling mictaskes (whoops!) that often happen when entering on computers? Suzanne

I think the 1901 online census contains the most transcribing errors all of my ancestors are recorded with incorrect spelling, but looking at the actual image, looks nothing like what the 1901 people have transcribed. Basically its been rushed and inexperienced people have done some of the transcribing. I know its difficult to read old handwriting at the best of times, but some people are more experienced.

Donna I understand how you feel, I was racking my brain trying to find my ancestors on the 1901 census, until I asked another pair of eyes to look for me. Guess what someone found them, my Littlejohns where transcribed as Littlestone, I honestly didn't think they would be transcribed that badly, I have looked at the original image and it clearly says Littlejohns. I have also had a lot of trouble with my ancestors changing back and forth from Littlejohn to Littlejohns, I am sure they did it deliberatly

The thing is because we know the name when you look at the original document I cant beleive that someone could get it that wrong, but then I have trouble reading names that I dont know. Im just glad I finally found them because on this document shows a sister of my grandad that we didnt know about, I bet my dad will be chuffed to know he has yet another Aunt!

I had the same problem my Bransby's were transcribed as Bramsby in 1901 and in 1891 as BransBy. These things are sent to try us........ Kay

I've found 1891 much worse - names AND ages mistranscribed from the originals!!! I don't mind searchign for needles in haystacks, but I draw the line at noodles in hayricks.

Janice Tibble: Perhaps the J's i's and l's were all slanted lines to create what could look like an M - e.g. |\/|

My TIVERS family are recorded as LIVERS on 1901. It's only because there were so many of them that I found them at all! Also I have a Joseph SELDON listed as Joe SELBURN. He was very hard to find - lots of Josephs born around 1880! Oh well, nobody said this was an easy hobby! Sue