Genealogy Chat

Where did you get your 1891 info then Elaine, they were not transcribed as Shepherd, although they are clearly Shepherd on the image. The image info doesn't help when you're searching though, that's why it took me so long Teakle, Matilda M 42 Bow, London Wife Brighton Sussex Teakle, William E 20 Colchester, Essex Son Brighton Sussex Teakle, Florence M 17 Colchester, Essex Daughter Brighton Sussex Teakle, Harry 15 Colchester, Essex Son Brighton Sussex Teakle, Charles M 12 Colchester, Essex Son Brighton Sussex Teakle, Horace 9 Colchester, Essex Son Brighton Sussex Teakle, Robert J 7 Colchester, Essex Son Brighton Sussex Teakle, Stanley 4 Colchester, Essex Son Brighton Sussex Teakle were the three people above on the image. Sam

Sam, I think I got my 1891 census info. from freecen.org.uk Just went to check this but the server is busy at the moment. Where did you say the name Teakle was from? Thanks, Elaine

As I said above, the three people in the previous household had the surname Teakle. Your rellies are definitely Sheherd on the image Elaine, the whole page is a bit of a joke actually. There is a Harriet Andrews on the image, she's transcribed as Teakle also!! I use Ancestry

In Dundee (I think it was 1861) they had one very conscientious enumerator who went back through his streets during the night to register the people who were sleeping in the stairwells of the tenements. He also comments that the flats below streetlevel have windows but that the amount of light which gets in is minimal. Did they record the number of windows in a dwelling to connect health and sunlight?

On the family search site you can put in NK Nk as not known first and second names and it comes up with over 600 people . The funniest one I found was two nks on a barge passing under a bridge and ones occupation was 'sleeping on barge!' I wonder if that paid well? Kim

One of my sadder rellies was recorded as living in 'The Dog Kennel' Wonder what he did to deserve that??? Marjorie

I like Tina's one about the 'Head Tramp' it is priceless, and you can just imagine it can't you. However, I do wonder how many enumerators wrote up their pages by the light of a flickering candle, and sustained themselves by drinking quantities of alcohol. I did a bit of research for someone a few weeks ago and we found several howlers by searching the census before and after the one she was first interested in. The writing seemed to get more spidery as the evening wore on. Was there such thing as a Honeymoon in the 1800's? I did wonder as recently married couples often seem the very devil to track down.

''Added by Lunar Andrews on 27/02/2005 14:37:02 It wasn't only adults or whole failies that were missed or avoidend the census. I have a greatgrandmother born April 1900 who is not on the 1901 census despite the rest of the family being inluded. (Smiley Sammy - Census comes from Latin. Unless Census is an irregaular verb the plural should be Censi, the samr with prospectus being prospecti and octopus being occtipi. The gener al rule was #us to #i where # is the prefix. The moden worls uses #uses because it is easier to remember) '' Not in my Oxford dictionary it isn't! But thank you for your insight. Are there several keys missing from your keyboard? Or is your typing awful?

one of my ancestors had three girls.........Harding.on the census image they are down as Hedaux grandchildren

Lunar, Smiley: Sorry but technically you're both wrong! Census is a fourth declension Latin noun, and therefore it doesn't change in the plural (so censi is incorrect). In other words, the correct plural of Census is - Census. However, the word has been absorbed into the English language and therefore the English plural of Censuses has become acceptable through common usage. Never censi though!

I wasn't trying to make an issue of this, and I apologise to Debby for sounding pedantic.. my comment was tongue in cheek..but correct nevertheless. If it says in the Oxford dictionary Census n. (pl Censuses) how am I 'technically wrong'? *I'll get me coat....

Hi Sammy Sorry, but I was being 'tongue-in-cheek' too. Since the plural form 'censuses' is in common usage then it has become correct by default, so you are correct. My point was, that the plural of the Latin word 'census' is 'census', so strictly (pedantically!) that should be the plural in English too. Certainly it isn't (and never has it been) 'censi'! Richard :o)

Yes, it is a bit of a mouthful isn't it :)

Apparently, so many people entered their religion as Jedi Knight on the 2001 that they had to allocate a code for it when they were doing the counting! And we complain about our ancestors for having told porkies on their census forms...

My maternal grandmother's family do not appear to be on any census. Her name was Rosina Coxhead, born in 1865 in Aldersgate, (Lambeth). The nearest I have got to finding her before her marriage is on the 1871 when there is a Minard Coxhead of the right age and born in the right area - but how can Rosina become Minard (or the other way round). She is Rosina on her birth certificate and Rosina from 1891 when she was married. Several very kind people have sent me the entry for Roseanna Coxhead of Maidenhead but that is not my family. It does make me wonder what the family were doing on census nights - and why were they hiding!!!! Kathleen

Kathleen You ask how can Rosanna become Minard - well, the same way my John became Ololu. Have you looked at the image? Marjorie

I've looked at the image - they crossed out William and put Minard (and changed from male to female!).