Genealogy Chat
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.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Can't find ancestors on census's
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Spongecake | Report | 5 Apr 2010 21:34 |
Can't seem to find a trace of ancestors that I know were married and born here - none of them show up on any of the census's. Odd. Any ideas? |
|||
|
Caroline | Report | 5 Apr 2010 22:03 |
Karman, |
|||
|
KathleenBell | Report | 5 Apr 2010 23:44 |
If you give their names and approximate years of birth and place of birth someone will try to find them for you. |
|||
|
SylviaInCanada | Report | 6 Apr 2010 00:28 |
Most common reason |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Spongecake | Report | 6 Apr 2010 18:44 |
Thanks for all the advice peeps. One of the son's of the father I am trying to find is listed in the 1871 census as being in the house on his own (aged 9) with his 3 year old brother (and the spelling of the surname is completely different to the surname I have). I would assume it was illegal for children to be left alone in the house at that age? |
|||
|
Jill 2011 (aka Warrior Princess of Cilla!) | Report | 6 Apr 2010 18:55 |
Not sure about the illegality of leaving children on their own at home aged 9 - not in 1871! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ChristineinPortugal | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:06 |
Have you looked at the actual census image or are you just refering to the transcription? |
|||
|
Spongecake | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:12 |
Ok, I'm stuck - if anyone could help, would be very much appreciated: |
|||
|
Jill 2011 (aka Warrior Princess of Cilla!) | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:22 |
This marriage? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Jill 2011 (aka Warrior Princess of Cilla!) | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:29 |
1891 - are these related? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Rambling | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:32 |
this them for ref? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
GlitterBaby | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:34 |
1851 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Spongecake | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:35 |
Yes, thanks Mrs Grumpy, this marriage but why can't I find Andrew and Ruth anywhere on the census's? |
|||
|
GlitterBaby | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:36 |
1861 |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Spongecake | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:40 |
yes, looks like it ... mispellings are very frustrating!! Thanks for that. |
|||
|
Rambling | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:41 |
edit wrong one |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
ChristineinPortugal | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:54 |
Is this the family in 1881 mistranscribed again? |
|||
|
Spongecake | Report | 6 Apr 2010 19:59 |
Thanks to everyone for their help. Appreciated!! |
|||
|
Jill 2011 (aka Warrior Princess of Cilla!) | Report | 6 Apr 2010 20:02 |
Karman, |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Spongecake | Report | 7 Apr 2010 17:35 |
lol, yes Jill. I am now confused as to what the correct spelling would be. So far, I have four variants - mind boggling!!! |