* Erroneous Data on Census

The place to post news about genealogy products and services that might be of interest to other Family Historian users.
Post Reply
avatar
Gowermick
Megastar
Posts: 1702
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 07:22
Family Historian: V7
Location: Swansea

Erroneous Data on Census

Post by Gowermick »

If you've ever had trouble finding someone in the census, take heed of the following, which I came across today. I found my family living at 11 Fourth Street in Wakefield in both 1901 and 1911.

But the places of birth for the family are completely different, as shown as follows:

In 1911, the places are listed as 1) Exton Nr Chorley 2) Wakefield 3) Wakefield and 4) St Helens., Lancs, (these are consistent with 1891 census.)

BUT in 1901, they are shown as 1) Wigan, 2) Hull, 3) Batley 4) Wigan - eh?

I can only assume the enumerator must have got his notes wrong or turned over two pages, as the places of birth are truly fictitional and not even close to reality!

I was going to reject the 1901 census, until I saw they were still at same address in 1911, so moral is, don't always trust what enumerator has written. If it looks like a good match, it probably is :D
Mike Loney

Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com
User avatar
LornaCraig
Megastar
Posts: 3190
Joined: 11 Jan 2005 17:36
Family Historian: V7
Location: Oxfordshire, UK

Re: Erroneous Data on Census

Post by LornaCraig »

I have seen a similar problem where an enumerator obviously invented the contents of the 'Relationship to Head' and 'Marital Status' columns. These were given as:
Head, Married
Wife, Married
Daughter, Married
Grandson, Single
Granddaughter, Single

The only word correct was 'Head'!
Other records show beyond doubt that they should have been:

Head, Single
Sister, Widowed
Niece, Single
Niece's son, Married
Wife (of niece's son), Married
Lorna
User avatar
Martin Tolley
Diamond
Posts: 63
Joined: 02 Aug 2015 10:48
Family Historian: V6

Re: Erroneous Data on Census

Post by Martin Tolley »

Another issue to consider is who actually may have supplied the information. I have several cases where Mrs X (not the head of household) supplied the information from her view - so "sister" was not the sister of the HoH, but actually his sister-in-law. That maybe easy to spot, but in cases of "nephew" and "niece" it can be more complex. I've been down more than a couple of rabbit holes with stuff like that.
User avatar
tatewise
Megastar
Posts: 28341
Joined: 25 May 2010 11:00
Family Historian: V7
Location: Torbay, Devon, UK
Contact:

Re: Erroneous Data on Census

Post by tatewise »

In Mick's example, after a bit of investigation, it is not as erroneous as it first seems (I like a challenge).

John Robinson registered birth is 1859 Chorley, Lancs only 10 miles from Wigan, Lancs
Mary Ann Brook registered birth is 1859 Wakefield, Yorks and registered marriage is 1881 Wakefield, Yorks
1st son Herbert registered birth is 1883 Leigh, Lancs only 7 miles from Wigan, Lancs
2nd son Arthur registered birth is 1885 Wakefield, Yorks ~7 miles from Batley, Yorks
3rd son Thomas registered birth is 1887 Prescot, Lancs ~4 miles from St.Helens only 9 miles from Wigan, Lancs

So the only 1901 birth place that is way out is Mary Ann born in Hull.

From their marriage in 1881 until 1891 they seem to oscillate between Wakefield, Yorks and near Wigan, Lancs until settling in Wakefield where two sons Willie (1889) and Frederick (1894) were born.
Mike Tate ~ researching the Tate and Scott family history ~ tatewise ancestry
User avatar
mjashby
Megastar
Posts: 719
Joined: 23 Oct 2004 10:45
Family Historian: V7
Location: Yorkshire

Re: Erroneous Data on Census

Post by mjashby »

I also get fascinated by family movements, especially the traffic flows between Yorkshire and Lancashire in the 19th century and the ways people living further from 'home' described where they were born.

In the first post for example is 'Exton near Chorley' is given as a birthplace, but later was described as Wigan. Exton clearly relates to the village of Euxton (pronounced locally, I believe, as EXT-EN), which was in the Registration District of Chorley until 2005, and is now in the Borough of Chorley, but it is also located on the Wigan Road and on a mainline rail route to Wigan, which may explain how the different interpretations came about.
avatar
Gowermick
Megastar
Posts: 1702
Joined: 13 Oct 2015 07:22
Family Historian: V7
Location: Swansea

Re: Erroneous Data on Census

Post by Gowermick »

I admit I too have done similar, when completing my own census returns.

My parents were evacuated to Calne, Wiltshire where I was born, but I was actually born in Melksham Cottage Hospital, about 10 miles away. So my answer to where I was born varies between Calne and Melksham. In fairness, I was only a baby at the time so have no memory of either, and we quickly moved back to the East End of London, where my parents came from.
In saying that, I do know where my own children were born, so that has never changed!
Mike Loney

Website http://www.loney.tribalpages.com
http://www.mickloney.tribalpages.com
User avatar
AdrianBruce
Megastar
Posts: 2090
Joined: 09 Aug 2003 21:02
Family Historian: V7
Location: South Cheshire
Contact:

Re: Erroneous Data on Census

Post by AdrianBruce »

mjashby wrote: 26 Jul 2020 13:20 ... the ways people living further from 'home' described where they were born. ...
Yes, I suspect that if people come from a small village (e.g. Penwortham, Lancs) next to a big town (Preston), if they move, they get fed up with explaining where Penwortham is and just say that they come from Preston - and this eventually gets applied to the census as well.
Adrian
Post Reply