* 1911 census reference Conundrum

[johnmorrisoniom]

I have recently discovered two households on the Isle of Man with the same reference for the census image.

Ref: RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN8

First Household is at "Colenso House", 8, Palace Road, Douglas Head is John Robert Keig

Second Household is at "Homefield", Queens Promenade, Douglas. Head is Thomas Arthur Corlett

The two properties are about half a mile apart.

The same reference is used for both on Ancestry and FMP.

Any suggestions as to why this happened, or how I can find the correct ref for the one that is incorrect?

[Mark1834]

Unlike earlier censuses, the PRO/NA reference is not printed on each page. However, the Schedule Number is included, and if you scroll back through the images you should see the piece number (RG14/xxxxx) recorded at the start of the individual book (the archives “piece”). That is all I record in my citations, as the PN/SN combination is unique.

[johnmorrisoniom]

That is supposed to be correct, but in this case it is the same for two different households

[Mark1834]

Who's the head of household in the second case, to make it easier to find? Missing or incomplete citations are not unknown, so in these cases you have to go back to the original images rather than rely on the transcribers to enter the details correctly.

[johnmorrisoniom]

It is images that I am looking at.
By looking at the cover it appears that both FMP and Ancestry have the piece number incorrect for the Queens Promenade address (Thomas Arthur Corlett). It should be PN 34674

[Mark1834]

OK, makes sense. FMP photographed the documents and had exclusive use for quite a while until Ancestry also published them. This strongly suggests that Ancestry simply used FMP's citations, rather than confirming them independently.

A useful reminder for all of us - I certainly don't check the front page of every 1911 census image to make sure the piece number that I have copy/pasted is correct, so perhaps we should...

[Gowermick]

Out of interest, what filenames are given for the downloaded images? They normally contain the piece number in it somewhere. The different piece numbers should also have different ED’s.

[tatewise]

I've looked on FMP and something unusual is clear in the records.

Palace Road in Isle of Man yields the following where 1st digit is Schedule and 2nd is house number, id is in URL:
1 1, Small Heath House RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN1 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0001/1
2 2, Small Heath House RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN2 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0003/1
3 3, Geneva House
4 4, Sea Mount xxxxxxxxxxx ( I gave up researching all these but the sequence must continue )
5 5
6 6, Erin-Viele
7 8 xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN7 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0013/1
8 9, "Colenso House" RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN8 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0015/1

Queens Prom, Homefield, Athol T, etc, in Isle of Man eventually yielded the following but took some searching:
1 Mona Cottage RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN1 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0107/1
2 Mona Cottage RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN2 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0109/1
3 Mona Ville xxx RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN3 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0111/1
4 "The Kingsley" RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN4 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0113/1
5 3, Athol Terr.. RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN5 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0115/1 but Sea Crest address in image!
6 "Furnessia" xx RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN6 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0117/1
7 Studely House RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN7 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0119/1
8 "Homefield" xx RG14PN34675 RD635 SD3 ED18/22 SN8 id=GBC/1911/RG14/34675/0121/1

The entries for the above two streets have the same references for SN1, SN2, et seq, which is odd.
So presumably the ED18/22 is in error with one set.

Other entries for Athol Terrace are RG14PN34663 RD635 SD3 ED18/10 SN48 upwards.
So maybe the Queens Prom entries should be ED18/10

The transcript and images pages on FMP have a Report an Error button, so just report the above anomalies.

[johnmorrisoniom]

Looking at the front page for the Queens Promenade addresses, the Piece Number should be 34674.

What is odd is that the references are incorrect (i.e. the same) on both ancestry and FMP

[Gowermick]

Both addresses are in the same series, so have the same front page, which show 34674. in pencil but 43675 on the black and white label.

Both show ED of 22 on Address page, but the one for John Robert Kreig has the Parish of Conchan part of struck through and replaced with St Thomas. I suspect Enumerator corrected the Parish, but forgot to correct the ED
and hence Piece number

It looks like an enumerator has merged Conchan and St Thomas into the same Piece, when they should have been given different ED's and hence Piece numbers.

At a guess, Ancestry and Findmypast won't change anything, as they have correctly transcribed the piece, albeit the enumerator screwed up

NB The downloaded images have different file names, with their different page numbers included. This applies to FMP and Ancestry.