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
Twice on one census....
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
SueMaid | Report | 9 Apr 2011 09:38 |
Has anyone had an ancestor who has been recorded twice on a census return? I have one who appears to be with his wife in Horsforth West Yorks. and visiting his brother in law in Helmsley North Yorks. on the 1851 Census. |
|||
|
brummiejan | Report | 9 Apr 2011 09:47 |
This has happened from time-to-time. I imagine his wife just listed all members of the household rather than just who was there at the time |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Kense | Report | 9 Apr 2011 10:17 |
Yes my grandfather and his brother are listed with their parents and at an aunt's on the same census. |
|||
|
Shirley~I,m getting the hang of it | Report | 9 Apr 2011 10:22 |
Yes My grtx3 grandmother was a monthly nurse and is listed on the 1871 census at the house she was attending the new Mum and at her home address too . |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
SueMaid | Report | 9 Apr 2011 10:47 |
Thank you for your replies. I guess - as Jan has said - that sometimes people just listed the people in their household rather than who was there at the time. Shirley - that's a tricky one. Your 3 x great gran was in two households - just not at the same time:-)) |
|||
|
InspectorGreenPen | Report | 9 Apr 2011 11:45 |
Yes, we have too. My ggg grandmother is recorded at home with her family and visiting a friend the other side of the village in 1861. |
|||
|
Alan | Report | 9 Apr 2011 12:47 |
My Grandmother is listed on the 1911 Census as being at home with her parents in Lambeth London and also as being in Birmingham at her Aunts as an adopted Daughter aged 12 years old. |
|||
|
Flick | Report | 9 Apr 2011 13:10 |
Frequently.......... |
|||
|
wisechild | Report | 9 Apr 2011 14:16 |
My gggrandfather is listed as being with the family where in actual fact he was in hospital. (Rather him than me in 1851) |
|||
|
Jill 2011 (aka Warrior Princess of Cilla!) | Report | 9 Apr 2011 14:46 |
~~~~ waves to Aunty Sue |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Pat A | Report | 9 Apr 2011 17:36 |
Yes, I found someone listed on the 1851 (I think) census both in the "tied cottage" and in the "big house" where she worked as a cook - obviously her husband and her employer listed her. |
|||
|
Pat A | Report | 9 Apr 2011 17:41 |
Oh, and I also found ancestors listed in Denbighshire (Wales) and Shropshire (England) on the same census (1851); they lived right on the border |
|||
|
SueMaid | Report | 10 Apr 2011 01:08 |
Ah....not at all uncommon then. Thanks for all your replies. I was starting to think I'd made a mistake and gone down the wrong line. I now see that it does happen. |
|||
|
Pat A | Report | 10 Apr 2011 10:53 |
I think that because the census returns were filled in by an enumerator (is that the right term?) then there were a lot of spelling errors, names were written as they sounded and often the person giving the information couldn't write anyway. I have found my ancestors' surname written in many different ways (and often transcribed wrongly), so keep your witsabout you! My mother's paternal side also must have had a dispute about their surname as it appears in two different ways even on the same document (a marriage certificate where the bride's was one way and the witness who was my grandad, was the alternative). It also varied on each census. |
|||
|
SueMaid | Report | 10 Apr 2011 11:19 |
Ah Patricia...my next query. An ancestor started out as Moles even married called Moles. He and his wife then became Mawles, Maud and Maude. My 3 x great grandfather was Mr M's stepson. He ended up with the Maude name and he kept that through to his death as did his children. So Mr. Moles's children ended up being Maudes. Am I to assume this isn't uncommon? |
|||
|
InspectorGreenPen | Report | 10 Apr 2011 11:21 |
Also it is worth remembering that unlike today, in some cases there was no standard spelling of names so it could easily vary from family to family. Spelling standardisation didn't really happen until the end of the 1900's and with more people becoming literate. |
|||
|
SueMaid | Report | 10 Apr 2011 12:08 |
Thank you IGP. So I have to wonder who my ancestor is? He was born Charles Stockill - his mother married Mr Moles. Charles took that name and as said the name eventually changed to Maude and that stuck. Does that mean I'm not a direct descendant of the Maude name - it appears to have come out of nowhere. |
|||
|
Jill 2011 (aka Warrior Princess of Cilla!) | Report | 10 Apr 2011 15:34 |
Please remember that from some of the earlier censuses forms were handed out to householders to complete. That didn't start with the 1911 it happened before that. So some of the mistranscriptions and errors were down to our ancestors not being able to spell ... |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Pat A | Report | 10 Apr 2011 17:29 |
I don't think the rules were so strict either, so perhaps if you fancied changing your name you could just do so? My mother's paternal ancestors seemed to use two different variations of the surname - often at the same time so perhaps they disagreed about what it should really be and each member of the family used their own variation! |
|||
|
InspectorGreenPen | Report | 10 Apr 2011 18:38 |
You can still do that if you just fancy changing your name, as long as it is not for criminal purposes. |