1911 census- very helpful

[Margaret in Burton]

Not a question, just something interesting I found.

I have Samuel and Eliza Bailey.

It says that they have had 5 children, 2 of which have died.

BUT, they have listed the children who died with the ages they would have been had they still been alive. The enumerator has crossed it out and written dead but it is still easy to read.

These 2 children died in 1901 and 1902. It's quite sad to read.

[Merry]

It is sad, isn't it....

I can just imagine them trying to decide what they should write on the form. Apparently there are a few like this, but I've not seen any myself yet.

[Durham Lady]

I had one census like that, it was helpful to know but is sad.

[Gert in Oz]

I had one, my OHs grandparents named their first born, which nobody knew about.

[WendyPusey]

Wish my Great Grandparents had named their deceased child. I can't find out anything about it, as they moved about the country, so it could have been born anywhere!!!!

[Nell]

I found a branch of my husband's family in 1911 when I was at Kew with my prize-day - had the advantage of having David Annal who works there, at my side. He spotted there was something up with the children's ages - and then realised that the family had listed all their children and given the ages at death. Only 2 children had survived.

They were:

Albert Charles Higho 7 weeks
William Alfred Higho 11 months
Annie Higho 4
Annie Higho 12 hours
Albert Higho 6 hours
Albert Charles Higho
Annie Higho

Only the last two survived. The children that died at 12 and 6 hours were twins. I know the family lived in a particularly poor part of London which probably contributed to this high mortality rate.

It was very sad reading, but from a genealogical view point, very useful (although Higho is an unusual name, there were several families and this clarified which births/deaths in the indexes belonged to which sets of children). And it might have been the parents' way of ensuring some immortality and remembrance of their children who probably had no photo and no gravestone.

[Margaret in Burton]

That is sad Nell

This one I found had listed the ages of the dead children as though they were still alive. They were ages 11 and 9, even though they both died in infancy.

[lozaras]

....... And it might have been the parents' way of ensuring some immortality and remembrance of their children who probably had no photo and no gravestone.

My children know that their elder brother was stillborn. They know his name. They don't know the date he was born (not because it's a secret, but just because it's irrelevant to then - I'll tell them if they ask).
He will be completely invisible to any researchers in the future.
He's not even on my ftm tree.
Just in my heart.

[Nell]

Sarah

Of course he is and always will be.

I was glad to be able to put my husband's elder brother on the family tree. He only lived for 2 minutes (appalling mismanagement of mil's labour followed by emergency caesarian in which she nearly died). Fil refused to talk about it at all, and I think mil was led to believe baby had been born dead, so I was glad I got the birth and death certs for him.

My brother-in-law and his wife had a baby that died when in the womb and she delivered him knowing he was already dead. His name is on their family tree.

My gt x 2 grandmother was pregnant 9 times but only had 6 children, 3 of whom died as infants. So I don't know if the other 3 pregnancies were miscarriages or stillbirths.

So sad.

[Margaret in Burton]

I've found another example of a dead daughter being listed as though she was still alive.

Ada Rushton listed as age 12, crossed out presumably by the enumeator and "dead" written in the occupation column.
I have found her death in 1903 aged 4.

[Kit]

* is going to have to stop talking to Margaret as none of my rellies have written names of dead children and I'm incredibly jealous *

[Merry]

You can still talk to me Toni as most of mine were not able to count up successfully the number of children I know they had, never mind any others.

[Margaret in Burton]

* is going to have to stop talking to Margaret as none of my rellies have written names of dead children and I'm incredibly jealous *

:p:p:p:p

[Kit]

You can still talk to me Toni as most of mine were not able to count up successfully the number of children I know they had, never mind any others.

I'll always talk to you Merry. :)

I know how you feel. I've been looking through some newspaper death notices and my lot are now subtracting a child. :mad: ie they leave behind a wife and 5 children, when I know they had 6 and none were yet dead.

* ignores woman who can't keep her tongue in her mouth :d *

[maggie_4_7]

Kit

They probably just couldn't count or forgot how many. My Nan could never remember how many children she had it'd be 12 one day 11 another and sometimes went up to 13 or 14. I only know of 11 but she might have counted the still borns or something.

[Uncle John]

When I had access to the 19th. century provincial newspapers I found loads of "extra" children in the "Hatches Matches and Dispatches" columns who had been born and died between censuses.

[Kit]

Maggie you are probably right but it isn't one family it is a whole lot of different families. lol But you are right they probably couldn't count, or only counted those in the room with him.

UJ none of my UK lot who lost children between census were considerate to put them in the paper. OH's lot who didn't appear to have lost one child put nearly every birth in the paper. :mad:

The papers I've been looking at recently are those down under. Apparently there is one unmentionable child in every family I've looked at.