Posts filed under ‘Census’
I’ve written before about indexes whose titles suggest they are accessing the same records but in fact yield different results (see ‘Multiple indexes are not all the same‘).
However, competition between subscription websites as well as freely available material means that sometimes we now have the luxury of choosing between more than one index to the same information. Especially when those indexes are separately created and not just duplicated, we have an increased chance of actually finding the record we are looking for.
I transcribed some of the 1901 London census and I am well aware how difficult it can be to read the writing. Sometimes I am almost surprised at the amount the indexers seem to have correct! Plus I hope that when researchers find an indexing error they will take the trouble to notify the webmaster (or database or index owner), so a correction can be made, and the general accuracy of the indexes will increase.
I had a reminder this week of the usefulness of multiple indexes. Dr Landsborough took a local census of the inhabitants of Stevenston in Ayrshire (Scotland) in 1819. (A version of this index can be seen on the ThreeTowners website).
We all know that Bill could be William. In Scotland Jessie was interchangeable with Jean, Jane or Janet. Morag becomes Sarah, and Donald could be Daniel.
A Scottish ancestor of mine was Grizel McKENZIE. Over the years I’ve looked for spelling variations of Grizel, but until this week I hadn’t tried looking for the English version of the name ‘Grizel’ – which is ‘Grace’. So the Grizel McKENZIE I was looking for seems to be the Grace McKENZIE who married Andrew SILLARS in Stevenston (Ayrshire) in 1833.
SILLARS is a name that seems to beg mis-spelling – SILLERS and SILAS are common, so when searching an online index I was trying SIL*S. The wildcard * (asterisk) can substitute for none, 1 or more characters. That picked up a number of spelling variations but not all.
That’s when multiple indexes came in handy. For English censuses I might check both FindMyPast.co.uk as well as Ancestry.co.uk but for Scottish censuses I was looking at Ancestry as well as ScotlandsPeople. (You can do a fair bit of searching on ScotlandsPeople before you have to pay). Ancestry only has transcriptions of the Scottish censuses, rather than the full images of the records on ScotlandsPeople, but I have a subscription for Ancestry and so did not have to pay more to search. (Ancestry.com is also generally freely available at libraries.)
In the 1841 census on Ancestry I found my couple as ‘Andrew and Gaiyle SILLARS’ – I thought that Gaiyle might be a mis-reading of Grizle. But although knowing they were likely there somewhere, I could not find the same couple on ScotlandsPeople – I tried putting a wildcard on the *front* of the name and even that did not find them. In the end I abandoned looking for the surname at all. Fortunately their first names were uncommon so I tried looking for them by first name only, coupled with age and place – and finally I found them – as Andrew and Grizle LILLAY!
So ‘Andrew and Gaiyle SILLARS’ in one index were ‘Andrew and Grizle LILLAY’ in another. Here’s a copy of the image – what do you think?
I was fortunate enough to attend two reunions this weekend, in both cases with friends I’ve known half my life or more. This set me thinking about our ancestors and their friends. When we find a ‘visitor’ or ‘boarder’ staying with our ancestors in a 19th century census, how much effort do we put into trying to track down who that visitor was?
A child might well turn out to be a grandchild (or niece or nephew), and their surname might provide the clue to what happened to missing children or siblings. Often the boarder or visitor is a relative. Just as today, when visiting or moving to a new location, it might be convenient to stay with a family connection. Or perhaps the visitor was a work colleague.
Sometimes we don’t know the reason why the boarder is staying in that particular family home, but they continue to be present at census after census. One such person in my family history is Ralph MORT. In the 1851 census, Ralph and his younger sister Ann were lodging with the family of William and Maria KELLETT, in Preston, Lancashire (England). William was my 3g.grandfather, and in the 1851 census William was listed as a coal carter and Ralph MORT was a (railway) engine driver, so perhaps they knew each other through work. That is the nearest I have found to a possible explanation for their connection.
In the 1861, 1871 and 1881 censuses, Ralph (without his sister Ann) continued to live with the KELLETT family. William KELLETT died in 1883 and his wife Maria in 1889. In the 1891 census, Ralph was listed as the head of the household, living at that same address with KELLETT relatives. In 1901 (again same address) 81-year-old Ralph is back to being a boarder with a KELLETT son as head of the household.
When I ordered a copy of the 1889 will of Maria KELLETT, I had a sinking feeling as I deciphered the names of her heirs. I had never heard of the children that were named and the children that I knew about were not mentioned. I thought I must have the wrong Maria KELLETT – until I interpreted the signature of a witness – Ralph MORT. It was the confirmation I needed that in fact I had the right will and so a number of new children to research as relatives.
Ralph Mort – long-time friend or a branch of the family not yet connected? (Ralph’s will unfortunately does not answer that question.) Either way for me “and Ralph Mort” is like the full stop at the end of this family sentence. He is also an example of why it is worth paying attention to the various lodgers and visitors listed with our families on census nights.