A discrepancy in the 1911 Census.

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.

Profile	Posted by	Options	Post Date
Member Since: April 2004 Posts: 23,482 Send Message	MargaretM	Report	31 May 2019 12:36
	Just another example of why one should always look at the original image. Never take the transcription as accurate.
	Researching: Great grandmother Dorothy Bean nee Abbott (1858-1908)
Member Since: February 2006 Posts: 36,149 Send Message	Rambling	Report	31 May 2019 12:31
	Yes it's Lucas on image so just a transcription error, the transcriber has put Flood for her in error. 1911 Census For England & Wales 87 Cheltenham Street Rochdale Road Manchester, Manchester, Lancashire, James Flood Head Married Male 28 1883 Packer Lancs Manchester Mary Flood Wife Married Female 27 1884 - Lancs Manchester Elizabeth Flood Boarder Widow Female 51 1860 - Belfast Ireland Mary Elizabeth Flood - - Female 6 1905 - Buxton Derbyshire
	Researching:
Member Since: September 2005 Posts: 1 Send Message	Anne	Report	31 May 2019 12:14
Member Since: September 2005 Posts: 1 Send Message	Searching the 1911 Census for my Grandparents in Manchester I came across the original saying there was an 'Elizabeth Lucas age 51- Boarder - Belfast' on the transcript it reads 'Elizabeth Flood '. I'm sure Lucas is right ,so is this a typo error? James and Mary Flood Daughter Mary Elizabeth Flood age 6 Regards Anne Rosalind