Entering Ancestors on Lost Cousins website

[Alexander Bisset]

The "nicknames" or Tee-names was a common practice in fishing villages around the NE coast of Scotland. As you say there were so very many of them with the same surname it was their way of differentiating themselves. Such Tee-names were in many cases "officially" recognised on documents such as census and BMDs.

 

[Liberty]

The "nicknames" or Tee-names was a common practice in fishing villages around the NE coast of Scotland. As you say there were so very many of them with the same surname it was their way of differentiating themselves. Such Tee-names were in many cases "officially" recognised on documents such as census and BMDs.

In this case it's Sheringham, Norfolk, but the principle is the same. Alas, not much official recognition that I can find, more's the pity.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

There's an article on the Scotland's People website about Tee-Names.

 

[Britjan]

With regard to the question of entering entire households when the relative is only a servant or boarder does anyone have any good tips on who to add when there's no obvious connection? Sometimes the list is more than a page!!
In my search of the 1911 census I was saddened to find one of my great grandmothers in a workhouse as well as several relatives in military barracks. In this case I did not add anyone else. Again would there be a few "useful" additions to make? I am disappointed that I have never had any luck with contacting a relative of the employer of my then fourteen year old grandfather as an apprentice.

 

[Liberty]

With regard to the question of entering entire households when the relative is only a servant or boarder does anyone have any good tips on who to add when there's no obvious connection? Sometimes the list is more than a page!!
In my search of the 1911 census I was saddened to find one of my great grandmothers in a workhouse as well as several relatives in military barracks. In this case I did not add anyone else. Again would there be a few "useful" additions to make? I am disappointed that I have never had any luck with contacting a relative of the employer of my then fourteen year old grandfather as an apprentice.

Very good question! My inclination has been to leave them out of LC pages unless the link is obvious BUT..... In a couple of cases I have found, further down the line, that one of my relatives was working in the same household as her future sister-in-law, (i.e my relative's brother married the other girl). In these case, I just went back and added the extra name, but it indicates that you never know who might be of significance,or have something to add.
Perhaps re workhouses, barracks, orphanages etc, perhaps the way is to have an entry on this site - e.g 'relatives in Erpingham Poorhouse'
(Oddly linking both these points, I found in the 1891 census that a future bride was the servant in the house of her future father-in law and husband. Also, another girl with the same unusual surname married elsewhere into the the family. Checking them out in 1881, I found both girls (presumably sisters) in a school for orphan girls. Potentailly an interesting story there, I feel.)

 

[Britjan]

Well Liberty (and others) , you are quite right about schools as well. I hadn't thought of that but after I logged out of the forum last night I went on to add another 1911 "relative" (2nd cousin X 2 removed) and checked back to the 1881 census only to find her and her sister living at a school. Then I realised that I had missed the fact that the two girls weren't living with their widowed mother and younger siblings in 1881, and the whereabouts of an older brother. More LC entries at least when I sort it all out.

I noticed that you mention Erpingham Poorhouse, is that of particular interest to you? The Erpingham district figures in my search for a frustrating family connection. It was one of the areas of mass migration, in my case some to Yorkshire and some to Canada it seems through Poor Law schemes. Perhaps we could continue this conversation outside the forum?

 

[PK-KTK]

I hope this is the right thread to post this in, but I'm having trouble knowing what to enter for a particular direct line family for the 1841 census.

The census source is Class: HO107; Piece: 472; Book: 20; Civil Parish: Faversham; County: Kent; Enumeration District: 5; Folio: 6; Page: 5; Line: 15; GSU roll: 306867.
The family involved has been transcribed from a very poor image with the surname of BOURIS.
The guidelines for entering the 1841 census data is to enter from the handwritten if the transcription is wrong.
The problem is that the handwritten record is so poor a quality, that although I know the family to be surnamed BOWLES, thanks to tracking them through time, I can not determine what was written down, to me the single instance of the surname for the family of 10, doesn't look like either Bowles or Bouris, and yet looks like both of them.

This family record of this census contains 3 of my direct line ancestors, so I really do want to enter it, but I don't know if it needs to go under BOURIS or BOWLES.

Any advice?

 

[Heather]

I hope this is the right thread to post this in, but I'm having trouble knowing what to enter for a particular direct line family for the 1841 census.

The census source is Class: HO107; Piece: 472; Book: 20; Civil Parish: Faversham; County: Kent; Enumeration District: 5; Folio: 6; Page: 5; Line: 15; GSU roll: 306867.
The family involved has been transcribed from a very poor image with the surname of BOURIS.
The guidelines for entering the 1841 census data is to enter from the handwritten if the transcription is wrong.
The problem is that the handwritten record is so poor a quality, that although I know the family to be surnamed BOWLES, thanks to tracking them through time, I can not determine what was written down, to me the single instance of the surname for the family of 10, doesn't look like either Bowles or Bouris, and yet looks like both of them.

This family record of this census contains 3 of my direct line ancestors, so I really do want to enter it, but I don't know if it needs to go under BOURIS or BOWLES.

Any advice?

Hi PK-KTK, I have had a look at the entry on Find my past and it is transcribed as there as Bowles not Bouris, so I see no reason for you to enter it as Bouris, maybe other members can say what they think.

 

[PK-KTK]

Hi PK-KTK, I have had a look at the entry on Find my past and it is transcribed as there as Bowles not Bouris, so I see no reason for you to enter it as Bouris, maybe other members can say what they think.

Oh that's handy to know, especially since Ancestry has it as Bouris, and without access to FMP myself, I have been needing to rely on their transcriptions for census entries, and apart from this one they have so far been accurate and I've had no issues/concerns

 

[Bryman]

I shall have to have another sweep and try to enter more people - I have been a member for years, (but I admit I have only put on 85) and so far not one single match. Hey ho!!

I have only just come across your post but felt that I ought to add some encouragement, both to you and anyone else in a similar situation.

Like you, I started to 'dabble' a few years ago and only entered about 60 relatives, all from the 1881 census as I did not have a subscription to FMP at that time. I thought that I had done as much as I could and wondered how others had been able to find hundreds to enter as I was continually coming up with dead ends (one ggf was an immigrant from Germany and I still haven't gone further back with that line). I think at about that time, Peter had mentioned in a newsletter that everyone should be able to reach 100 entries so I kept trying.

I now have over 350 entries and have matched with two 4th cousins from different branches of the family, one in UK and the other in Western Australia.

With more entries added, things can only get better and matches will occur, completely unexpectedly and not necessarily as a result of your latest actions.

Happy searching.

 

[Bryman]

With more entries added, things can only get better and matches will occur, completely unexpectedly and not necessarily as a result of your latest actions.

I thought that I ought to add a further comment and piece of news to encourage any forum members that are getting a little depressed by their lack of LC matches.

I have been quietly adding more ancestors into Lost Cousins and have now almost reached 500. I know that is a lot less than some members but I am pleased with the steady progress. Recently, I was researching a grand aunt of my mother who was born about 150 years ago. I found her and her family (husband, son and daughter) in the 1911 UK Census and added them to LC but no matches resulted. I was not really expecting any so that was not too much of a disappoiment.

I do not normally investigate marriage partners extensively but this time the husband was born before 1881 so I wondered if I might be able to determine his parents from the 1881 UK Census, just to complete the picture. I found him easily enough with a father having the same forename, mother and sister. At this point I was not sure whether I should add this family to LC as the relationship to my family is only via marriage. However, I did add them because the son was already entered from the 1911 UK Census.

After all the 4 members of the household had been entered, I automatically clicked on the LC Search button and immediately wondered why I had bothered, only to be surprised when it came back with TWO member matches for this 1881 family! I wonder why matches did not occur with the 1911 family?

It just goes to show that matches can be found when one is least expecting them and that families should always be entered for all LC censuses if records have been found.

PS. If any forum members have a similar father/son combination with name of Peter in the 1881 UK Census, please check for the son's family in 1911 as that might produce further matches . . . and an extended undiscovered 'family'.

 

[peter]

After all the 4 members of the household had been entered, I automatically clicked on the LC Search button and immediately wondered why I had bothered, only to be surprised when it came back with TWO member matches for this 1881 family! I wonder why matches did not occur with the 1911 family?

5 times as many members have used the 1881 census compared with the 1911 census - so 80% of the matches won't be made until you enter your relatives from 1881.

It's the reason I recommend that members enter ALL of their blood relatives from 1881, no matter how distantly related they may seem, before turning their attention to 1841 or 1911.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

I take it Peter, that you specifically mean the England and Wales 1881 census. I suspect the percentage take up of the Scottish census is similar to the England & Wales 1841 or 1911. I'd love to be proved wrong however and learn the that Scottish 1881 has a similar percentage of entries to E&W 1881.

 

[Bryman]

It's the reason I recommend that members enter ALL of their blood relatives from 1881, no matter how distantly related they may seem, before turning their attention to 1841 or 1911.

Peter, all my known blood relatives from 1881 had been entered previously and no matches resulted.

The unexpected matches were with the blood relative's husband-to-be. The marriage did not take place until 1896.
The other LC members have added their relatives for 1881, hence the matches, but not (yet) for 1911.

 

[Tim]

It is weird when people don't add all the census years.

 

[Liberty]

It is weird when people don't add all the census years.

I wouldn't call it weird, Tim. There can be a number of reasons. One is simply that you can't track them down in other years. (The 1841 census is far less user-friendly for our purposes than later years) Another is that 1881 census is freely available (in every sense). If people are Paying as they Go for a census record, they may not be as all-embracing in what records they obtain.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

It is weird when people don't add all the census years.

Some people may not have noticed they have that census info or they may not have noticed they have yet to look up that census.

You know come to think of it you would hope there would be some easy way to see who you have entered on a census or who you have missing. It would be even better if such a thing gave you an at a glance view of your tree and automatically searched the websites for you. If only such a thing existed!!!

 

[Pauline]

I have 3 ancestors that I can't find in the 1881 census. I have found a possible entry for one of them, but if it is him, his surname is quite significantly misspelt - in both the index and the original - which makes his identity uncertain. The other two (who happen to be parents of the third) have eluded me for ages. British Origins have recently released a different index to the 1881 and I can't find them in that either.

 

[Alexander Bisset]

You will always get unlucky with some on the 1881 census the most common reason I've come across is the annoying teenagers aged 16-19 who have left the family home and are on their own in the house of random strangers as farm labourers or domestic servants, usually with usefully vague surnames like Smith. These are people who have managed to still be rebellious, annoying teens even a hundred years plus later.

 

[Liberty]

You will always get unlucky with some on the 1881 census the most common reason I've come across is the annoying teenagers aged 16-19 who have left the family home and are on their own in the house of random strangers as farm labourers or domestic servants, usually with usefully vague surnames like Smith. These are people who have managed to still be rebellious, annoying teens even a hundred years plus later.

The people who are away from home are, I agree, the hardest to find. Not necessarily teenagers, though. If they had to rely on employer/hotel owner/ similar other to put them down, anything can happen. One of my most untraceable relatives was staying in a hotel in London, had his name 'corrected' to a more common name , his place of birth put down as something similar-sounding but much more famous, and then the county added to go with the wrong town.

Pauline, you know we're all itching to track down your relatives - what can you tell us?