Genealogy Chat

How did people manage to escape getting their selfs on the census did they just not open the door. Margaret

In theory if you pretended that you weren't in at the time the reterns were collected, no one could prove or disprove if you were at home. the same would apply today, if you don't fill in the return and just say that you were away on census night then you woun't be on the censu.

Hi well that is what my family did from the 1851 census to the 1881 census, if only they knew the heartache it has caused thank you Margaret

Are you sure Margaret??? I have had a couple of glasses, but if you are quick and post any 1891 census info you have, I don't mind passing out in front of it!! Merry

I still have a few relatives gone AWOL on censuses, but mostly when I have difficulty finding them, its because they've been mistranscribed. My husband's lot were Carters in 1871 onwards, but Fiona kindly found them in 1861 as McCarthy - still don't know exactly when or why they changed their name - I have the parents in 1901 as Carter living next door to one of their sons who was still called McCarthy! nell

I agree with nell....Hubby and I have very few rellies who are not showing on a census. We have around 700 sheets of census data saved for our tree and can only thing of about two instances where someone is missing from even one census return. However, there are some terrible mistranscriptions and also things like one family transcribed with the surname of the family who appear immediately before them on the census page.....another where all four members of the household have been given the wrong first names, but as they are living at the right address and the two men both have the correct occupation (inc the ''urinal Cleaner for the Parish'' lol - hubbies rellies you understand!!)....we know it's them! But mostly just poor info or badly transcribed by Ancestry...... Why don't you post one of your missing people and we will see if we can find them...... Merry (no hangover!) x

I hve always had one rellie that you just can't find a record of untill she married in 1924. Given that she was supposidly born in 1900 but her birth never registered, I have come to the following conclusions abou her not being on the 1901 census:- either the family 'forgot' they had a baby daughter (mom, dad and siblings all preasent on the 1901 census) and let her off the census OR the family lied about her age later on to get her into school or work early.

Looking at ALL my families in ALL the censuses - so potentially a hundred or more separate households - I have one family who have completely vanished, and a singleton on his travels who I hope to find in 1851. Everyone else is present, if not necessarily correct. Forenames wrong, surnames wrong, ages wrong, birthplace wrong, occupations different to anything else I've found elsewhere, and relationships are not actually to the head of household. This is before you get the extra fun of guessing how they may be mistranscribed. The 1871 census for London is full of the plaintive 'lodger took schedule' excuse, and I think we forget just how transient some of the population were. In some of the rabbit warrens, basements and attics may be overlooked. It was sometimes difficult to tell where one house ended and another began. Boarders, visitors and servants are particularly liable to error. Those living out of area may have strong accents (Hempstead, reported by a Norfolk man in Yorkshire is rendered as Armston!) and Merry's description of details being misaligned happens both in transcriptions and in the originals. I'm amazed by the fact that they DON'T lie (though they may fib or stretch the truth), that they do appear. It has been recognised that some people do not appear, but the under-recording is much less in the 1800s that it is on the modern censuses.

Thank you all for your replies, I have the said person getting married in 1871 on Haverhill Risbridge , his name William Poole sometimes without the E his fathers name was George. He had 2 children while living in Haverhill both their names are Pool without the E. I have him on the 1881 census when by that time the family had moved to Edmonton Middlesex where they had a another 2 children have certificates for all of these. He had died by the 1891 census but have his wife on that census she was a widow and the youngest was 2. Cant find a dearh cert, for him. On the 1881 census it says he is 44 but on his marriage certificate it states quite clearly he was 24 that is 1871 so he aged by 10 years on the 1881 census so who knows what age he was when he married. I have searched till I am blue in the face for him on the census, but is nowhere to be found. This I have been looking for well over 3 years and I have really given up on it. Margaretx

William Pool(e) sounds like a real problem!! I remember him from before......... Can you tell me the names of the witnesses at the marriage in 1871? Did Wm actually register either of the births of the two children born in Edmonton, or did Emma do that? Have you seen baptisms for any of the children? Was his father, George, down as a labourer, or something else, on the 1871 marriage cert? You may or may not be interested to know that one of my own rellies married into the posh Gurteen family who practically ''owned'' Haverhill in Victorian times........ Not quite sure how she managed that....??!!! Merry

Hello Merry The witness's to the marriage of William and Emma were a James Smith and Rebecca Lloyd. When William married he was a Cutter and his father George was a Weaver. Emma did register all the births, in the 2 born in Edmonton William was a farm Labourer. On the 2 girls Emma and Kate both born in Haverhill their name was Pool without the E but the 2 boys born in Edmonton both had the E as did their marriage certificate. I have no record of a baptisim for any of them. Another thing that is a puzzle that is when Emma remarried in 1893 the Witness's there were a James and Susan Poole I don't know if this was a brother of William or cousin, as I can find no clue to him at all. I think it is a mystery which will never be solved. I have found Emma's family to way back. Thank you Margaret

Hello Margaret, That's interesting that she had Pooles as witnesses the second time round.........I had a couple of mini-theories that either William and Emma had split up or that he had died ages befor the last child was born (ie, she lied to the registrar!!), but if either of these ideas were true it would be very unlikely that she would have still been in touch with William's relations. What a shame witnesses don't have to give a little information about themselves!! The only Rebecca Lloyd who shows herself in 1871 is a servant to a local vicar, but he doesn't seem local enough to have conducted a service in Haverhill!! (30 miles away in Ipswich!) Frustrating aren't they!!???? Have you been in touch with anyone at the Haverhill Family History Group?? http://www.haverhill-uk(.)com/genealogy/index.shtml (remove brackets) They helped me a good deal with the Gurteens. Trouble is, I suppose despite the 1881 census, it's difficult to say with certainty that Wm Poole was born in Haverhill..... Still thinking....................... Merry

If George Poole was a weaver then he will have been working at the Gurteen Mill (or for the mill from home) in Haverhill. (and William a cutter as well - that's an important job, isn't it??) The current owner (Christopher Gurteen) is fairly interested in family history and VERY interested in the history of his company!! I wonder if they have records about the employees from that long ago??? Merry

In 1881 there were 40 cutters and 188 weavers in Haverhill. I wonder why William left the area just at the time that the Gurteen factory was becoming extremely prosperous and (for the times at least) quite forward thinking when it came to looking after their employees. Maybe he thought the streets of Edmonton were paved with gold?? Merry

Hi Merry, Yes I have been in touch with the haverhill family History and the only William Poole with a father George was a christening for a William Poole in 1831 the mothers name was Maria but she died very early but that would have made William 40 when he married perhaps he was and said 24 but would he have lied by 16 years . Also on the 1841 census there is a George and Maria Poole with children William ,Harriet ,Hannah ,George and James. only Maria was born out of county. But the Haverhill family history said they did not appear on the 1851 census. I have a copy of the marriage between George and Maria they married 1830 in Haverhill the witness's to that marriage Richard Radford and Mary Clayton or Claydon. It is just a pity that all the certificates I have got there is not one with an address on just parish of Haverhill. It is not as though I have not tried. I also though that William might have left Emma but on both the daughters marriage certificates it says father deceased so do think they were together when he died Thanking you so much Margaret

I did wonder if there might be a list of former employees anywhere but would not where to get it from I think his father out lived William and was still a weaver Margaret

Oh rats! Pride before a fall. Looked at 1851 and my singleton isn't there. At least not visibly. b****r.

As Ancestry have the 1851 on today, I had a look...... I think this may be the 1841 family you mentioned, in 1851??? George Poole abt 1813 Haverhill, Suffolk, England Head Haverhill Essex George Poole abt 1834 Haverhill, Suffolk, England Son Haverhill Essex Hannah Poole abt 1835 Haverhill, Suffolk, England Daughter Haverhill Essex Harriet Poole abt 1844 Haverhill, Suffolk, England Daughter Haverhill Essex James Poole abt 1840 Haverhill, Suffolk, England Son Haverhill Essex George senr was a Weaver (!!) and they lived at Crowland, Haverhill (must be an area; several families lived there.....the next street was ''Beggar's Row''!!) Even with an even greater range of ages, I still can't find William in 1861/71 Gggrrrrr!! Trouble is, I bet we are all actually looking at him, it's just that his details make him unrecognisable!! I can send you the address for the factory if you like (by PM)?? I'm sure they will help you if they can........ Merry

Hello Merry If that is the right family in the 1851 census William is not there but that might have been because he was the eldest according to what I know ant the mother Maria had died by then she died in 1849 I have purchased that death certificate and it says wife of George Poole weaver present at death a Maria Page. Perhaps William if this is the said family moved from home after his mother died. And Crowland is where Emma was living in the 1871 census. If it is the right family William would have been 21 then Yes I like to know that address please. Thanks so much for all your trouble. Margaretx