Genealogy Chat

If they have to mess about with it, they might at least put the family in the same order as on the image (parents first, then children in descending order of age) instead of alphabetical order as before. C&P worked OK for me.

Doubtless we'll soon be getting a gleeful email from ancestry about the 'improvements' they've made to searching the 1901 census & the improved results. Not. OH STUFF - (said with feeling). Now GR are determined to reunite us with our ancestors ( Tee Rex and Please Your Saw Us.) - I just _knew_ things would go down the pan from the day we stopped being GC. Gone to be grumpy as I do 2 packups for himself tomorrow. :)) Jools

Why on earth have they put it there. Not sure I'm gonna like this, lol x

lol.........scroll.............scroll....................scroll............ Merry

No, its there, just different, HIDING!! see if you can spot it.... i just have

Once you have found your household on Ancestry, if you need the RG number etc etc you would have to look them up again on the TNA site and get the numbers from there!!! NIGHTMARE! Merry

Ohhhhhhhhhh nnnnnoooooooooooooooooooo They are not there! What do we do now then?? Merry

S'cuse me, i know i can be as stoopid as the next man, but what the do-dah have they done with RG numbers?

I've just been looking at some random results for people listed as ''grandson'' in 1901. Most of them have nothing in the new column, but some do.....of the few I looked at the parent has been picked out by Ancestry because they were the only other person in the house with the same surname as the child. Merry

That's true Maureen, I've got cases of that! However, if someone follows a line assuming a particular parent is the true parent when they're not, the tree will be wrong. It's not such a big deal if a couple weren't married. Maybe, as per Glen's suggestion, this is how some of the errors on the LDS site came to be. Angela

Not sure Head and Wife would be correct either. My gt grandparents actually married in 1914 but are shown as Head and Wife. Maureen

Ah but if the word possible comes into the equation aren't we getting towards LDS submitted entry quality results? Glen

Maybe instead of Father & Mother, it should say Head & Wife. Angela

Maybe if they had put the word ''Possible'' in front of the column heading? Merry

Very misleading. My grandmother is on 1901 census - born 1900. Her older sister b 1898 has the same mother but a different father. Think this will lead to confusion and not help anyone just starting out on researching their family history. Maureen

The ''View Other Family Members'' thing has gone too....it's been replaced by a list of the rest of the household without their full details......Is this a way of making C&P more difficult (not that I would..........'%£'%&£%'** .....Ouch!!) Merry

I've just been in & seen this. Trouble is, it says Father & Mother which is not necessarily the case if Father has married again, if you see what I mean! Could be useful but maybe misleading. Angela

scroll down to the bottom of the transcribed page too> different again still looking for GGrandfather charman< concentrate Jess!! she was a widow by 1901..........

Jess.....Surely you know I would NEVER DREAM of C & P a page from Ancestry!!!! lol Merry

just found it, thought i was seeing things though!! have you tried to C&P it?....it missed the parents names off! Its a bit wierd though - my granny has only a mother.... Abagail C Charman >Martha < abt 1889 Redhill, Surrey, England Daughter Reigate Surrey