Genealogy Chat

Hey all, Has anyone run across a case of their rellie's marital status being wrong on the actual census? Or any other errors for that matter such as date of birth, birthplace etc.? I have a possible match but he is listed as single, but he wasn't. He is listed as occupation-'Traveller, C. )' What kind of an occupation is that? Warmest, Gail

They travelled around - sometimes Gypsies, sometimes Travelling Salesmen.

Traveller.Depending on what his family background was,,it was normally someone who was an agent ,a commercial traveller of goods,,visiting shops and the like selling a product of his employer,,,,, Kay.

'Traveller C' looks like a commercial traveller or salesman in other words. As to accuracy - nothing is 100 percent accurate. But sometimes the info is correct but not what you expect - was he single at the time of the census, but maybe married that same year? Was he ever really married? Maybe someone else gave his info to the census collector with the resultant errors? Ian

My gg grandfather said he was a widow in 1881 and had a new 'wife' in 1891. BUT his wife (my gg grandmother) did not die until 1896 - I found her death cert at last and the informant had said she was the wife of ... my gg grandfather! Also I have never found the 'new' marriage cert so I assume gg grandfather was telling porkies! All that when his wife was only living about 5 miles away!!! Anne

And dont forget, it can very easily be a transcription mistake. The images we can view are not the original, the enumerators collected them at the door, took them back to the office and then someone else wrote them out again. Ive seen instances where places of birth have been muddled or someone gets the first name of the person above. Just a normal guy getting tired as he copies out reams of names and places.

Thanks everyone for your input. And to Ian, yes he was married (1895). The census lists his wife as Head, married (not widowed), living with mother-in-law, daughter and sister. Whether this is the right man is still in question-however it's the only entry that makes sense as a connection. Any thoughts anyone? Regards, Gail

It makes sense that a commercial traveller was away from home on census night so his wife would show up as a married head of household. As to him being recorded as single it could be that the head of the house where he was staying filled in the form and didn't know he was married. He wouldn't be the first man to 'forget' he had a wife when away from home :-)

I have found huge errors in ages, sometimes as much as 20 years. I have just found someone who reckoned to be born in 'Crinkly Dick'. Just thought I would share that one with you!!

I have found most errors of this kind occur with servants etc. I suspect the census details were given by the Head of the house who (it seems) often guessed his servants' ages and 'rounded' their place of birth to the nearest sizeable town. Bev x

Angela(?) pmsl! Bev x

Gail, if he were 'travelling' as commercial travellers do, I take it he was in lodgings? In which case the landlord more than likely filled out the form for all the lodgers and guessed.

Ooh, Bev - I think it was meant to be in County Durham!!!

If his wife was living with her mo-in-law and other rellies and was married not widowed....are you sure your commercial traveller (or whatever) is the right man and that the true hubby isn't fighting in the Boer War?? Merry

Hello All, Merry I haven't ruled the Boer War out yet- we've had that discussion- but I'm still searching to see if Henry was in England. The ages match so it's possible. He was listed as 'visitor'. What you're saying makes sense- about the Head filling out the census and not realizing status. Grasping at straws am I? I think I may have found Henry's death in Leigh (away from home which was Essex/Middlesex. 1901 hugz for the help, Gail

In the Herefordshire village of Ullingswick in 1901 there are 2 men listed as about 26 and 30, names not known, birthplaces unknown.
Presumably this information, or lack of it, was given by the man they were working for.
I can't understand why he couldn't just ask their names at least. Surely he was paying them a wage. How did he refer to them?

Gwyneth, That makes no sense! Maybe he just knew their first names. Although that would be better on the registry then unknown. Must have been a terrible employer....