Unusual Entries in 1911 Census
 

I have never come across a census completed in this way before but wondered if anyone else has?

I have attached an extract from it.

Attachment 883

Samuel Manley is shown as having had 7 children born alive up to 1911. I had already found the Birth registrations for all 7. It also shows that 5 were still alive but 2 had died.

But all 7 are listed on the census. I have identified the 2 who had died before the census. They are:
Dorothy Manley and William Edgar Manley. I have found the Births, Baptisms, Deaths and Burials for both of these children. Dorothy died in 1904 aged 20 Months and William Edgar died in 1906 Aged 3 Months.
To top it all, they are both listed as at School!

I considered that Stanley might have not understood how to complete the census but he seemed to get the number of children born alive correct and the number still alive and those who died.

Has anyone seen anything like this before?


Pat

Yes, I have seen a few like that.

I have seen a few like that, including one for the sibling of one of my ancestors, though the enumerator had crossed through the dec'd children in that case.

A few days ago I was looking at a 1911 census where the husband of the person who completed the form is showing as head of household and the wife says she has been married for 30+ years. So, it was surprising to me that not only did she say she was a widow in 1901 but also her husband's death was in 1899! At first I just imagined she had got confused about what she should write on the 1911 form (like these dec'd children you mentioned), but her husband also appears on the e-rolls for the 1911 address in 1908-1913, so that's a bit odd! In 1911 his details match with 1891 and in 1921 she is a widow again, but there's no death for him 1911-1921 presumably because he died in 1899! I can only imaging she took up with a new man and he took on the identity of her first husband? I'm trying to think why they might do that? Got to be some financial reason? They were not at all well off though...

I've found dead children, and children no longer living at home, listed on the 1911 census. In all cases I've recognised, the enumerator has crossed through the dead or absent children.

I've also found a man leaving his wife and adopting the surname of the woman he was living with. Only when he died did he revert to his true surname. In his case it was obvious as his birthplace was unusual. Had he been born John Smith from Lambeth, things would have proved more challenging.

We must also consider that, just as there are today there were people who had lost their grip. Also, apart from 1911, we really don't know who filled in the original form. I have an instance of a very respectable family, parents married for 30 years or more but everyone in the household has the wife's maiden surname on the 1861 census. From other records I know that they did not use that surname. What I think happened was that the enumerator called, had a nice cup of tea and a chat, then went home and transferred the census information, couldn't remember the wife's married name but knew she and her husband and children lived in what was HER parent's house. After all, what did it matter, the census information was never going to be seen by anyone other than the number crunchers.

OC

Some interesting replies here - thank you. I now know I am not going daft!

Pat

I've seen them with dead children listed, and another where the suffragists weren't listed but someone made a stab at their names, ages and birthplaces (they were daughters of a vicar living with their widowed mother)

Yes, in ex's tree I have a family that listed all the children in order of birth though some had died. I realised several first names were repeated and the ages didn't make sense either- until I realised they had listed the age at death. Of course, from a genealogical point of view, it was very useful.