The piece number and folio number bring up a completely different page at Findmypast.
-
Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!
-
It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here
Susan48
LostCousins Superstar
If you look at the images on Findmypast, the pages jump from folio 565 page 8 to folio 566 page 9.
There isn't a jump - each folio has two sides, so there are two pages per folio. In this case the numbering goes:
Folio 565 page 8
Folio 565 page 9
Folio 566 page 10
Folio 566 page 11
and so on
Last edited:
Susan48
LostCousins Superstar
So why are the images not the same on Ancestry and Findmypast?
It would appear that there was some confusion when the census was handed over to the Public Record Office and numbered - the same piece and folio numbers were used for different parts of the same census.
If you look for Findmypast's entries from folio 566 at Ancestry you will see that they have been renumbered as folio 690 and remicrofilmed.
A
At home in NZ
Guest
A search in Ancestry in the 1851 UK census for Pruyne gives 'zero good matches'.
Helen7
LostCousins Superstar
That's odd. I just did a search of 1851 UK Census Collection on Ancestry and got 20 matches, the top one being Capers Gattrnac Bying Pruyne - the only one from the Wales census, the other 19 being from the England census.
A
At home in NZ
Guest
Oops, I had drilled down to the England census, one of my more blonde moments!
Susan48
LostCousins Superstar
Ancestry's entries from folios 566 - 573, which cover the occupants of the District Fort Barracks in Pembroke Dock, don't seem to appear on Findmypast at all. I've scrolled through the images for Pembroke Dock on Findmypast and done random searches for some of the names in the Barracks on Ancestry, but none come up on Findmypast.
That's what I thought. They would have been dependent on the National Archives (TNA) to provide the microfilms and clearly they got a different set from Ancestry.
Ancestry's copy seems to be newer even though they launched their 1851 England & Wales census in 2005, when Findmypast was still 1837online. I remember the date because I was at the launch party at the Victoria & Albert Museum, and had the great pleasure of meeting and chatting to Tony Robinson (by contrast I couldn't even get the attention of Natalie Ceeney, the snooty head of TNA).
Susan48
LostCousins Superstar
That seems to be a good argument in favour of having subscriptions (or at least access) to both Findmypast and Ancestry, if funds allow
Does this sort of thing occur with other censuses? I'm thinking in particular of 1841, 1881 and 1911 where we use the census references to enter our ancestors on Lost Cousins. It would be awkward if different sites had different references for the same individuals.
I've never come across anything quite like this in other censuses.
Helen7
LostCousins Superstar
I have a family in the 1841 Wales census who appear on Ancestry but not on FMP. Ref. is 1440/3/18/28, but the FMP entries jump from book 2 to book 4 with no book 3. I notice that some 12 of the 35 pages of book 3 (including page 28) are crossed out - though clearly legible - with a comment that they are erroneous and have been placed elsewhere, but it seems odd to exclude the whole book. Ancestry don't index the crossed out pages, but you can get to them by stepping through the book.
EDIT: I've just had another search on FMP - not for my family of interest but for another family on the same page - and found my family. They are in book 2, ref 1440/2/16/25. I'll now go and amend the reference on the LC entry. One problem is that they mis-spelt the family surname in the book 2 entry whereas it was correct in the crossed-out book 3 one, which is why I couldn't find them previously.
EDIT: I've just had another search on FMP - not for my family of interest but for another family on the same page - and found my family. They are in book 2, ref 1440/2/16/25. I'll now go and amend the reference on the LC entry. One problem is that they mis-spelt the family surname in the book 2 entry whereas it was correct in the crossed-out book 3 one, which is why I couldn't find them previously.
Last edited:
Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
My interest in the matter was in following up on the corrective name supplied by an Ancestry subscriber of Captain Gallway Byng Payne (Royal Marines). Following this up I discovered a London Gazette announcement of his retirement viz:
"Captain and Brevet* Major Gallway Byng Payne to be Lieutenant-Colonel, vice Langford**, retired on full pay (date September 24 1858)
*Brevet being an honorary promotion (without any pay increase or substantive responsibility) to the next rank so he was further uplifted on retirement to the rank above substantive Major of Lieutenant Colonel.
**the term 'vice' and a surname (in this case Langford) means his final promotion was granted by a vacancy created by a Lieutenant Colonel 'Langford' (reason not given but could be death, a vacancy caused by promotion to a higher rank, or even by a financial arrangement).
A Military Historian explains :
..."at this time (early-mid 1800's) officers were promoted into vacancies left by others, and that the standard formula for such announcements (London Gazette) includes the surname of the officer creating the vacancy"
"Captain and Brevet* Major Gallway Byng Payne to be Lieutenant-Colonel, vice Langford**, retired on full pay (date September 24 1858)
*Brevet being an honorary promotion (without any pay increase or substantive responsibility) to the next rank so he was further uplifted on retirement to the rank above substantive Major of Lieutenant Colonel.
**the term 'vice' and a surname (in this case Langford) means his final promotion was granted by a vacancy created by a Lieutenant Colonel 'Langford' (reason not given but could be death, a vacancy caused by promotion to a higher rank, or even by a financial arrangement).
A Military Historian explains :
..."at this time (early-mid 1800's) officers were promoted into vacancies left by others, and that the standard formula for such announcements (London Gazette) includes the surname of the officer creating the vacancy"
Bob Spiers
LostCousins Superstar
Here he is again in 1861 on FMP but still with a middle initial mis-transcription which the original shows as 'P' (not 'B' for Byng) and is transcribed as 'C' but at least we know we have the right person as his rank Lt.Col. rank is shown on the original:
and the FMP transcription:
This time round Ancestry 1861 Census transcribe him as Galway P Payne which is a factual transcription. Just leaving us to ponder what on earth his middle name could have been if not Byng? * But an improvement all round from... Capers Gattrnac Bying Pruyne
Edit: * best guess the enumerator mis heard Galway B Payne as Galway P!
and the FMP transcription:
This time round Ancestry 1861 Census transcribe him as Galway P Payne which is a factual transcription. Just leaving us to ponder what on earth his middle name could have been if not Byng? * But an improvement all round from... Capers Gattrnac Bying Pruyne
Edit: * best guess the enumerator mis heard Galway B Payne as Galway P!
Last edited:
It's worth remembering that most householders filled in the own census schedule themselves, and middle class householders were especially likely to do so - so it may be that Capers had bad handwriting (which could also explain the 1841 confusion). Or it could simply be a copying error by the enumerator - from analysis of the 1841 Census we also know that enumerators made mistakes when copying information from the schedules into the summary book.
A
At home in NZ
Guest
It's in the Edinburgh Gazette April 6 1858, listed as a Brevet Major in the left hand column.
According to the House of Names website Byng was a surname from Kent.
Gallway's parents Samuel John Payne and his wife Anna Maria Trent had several children, they are in FamilySearch
A
At home in NZ
Guest
I looked at the first page of the 1851 census in Ancestry, it defines who is responsible for the gathering of the information in these establishments. I doubt Gallway himself wrote so may pages, more than likely delegated to a person of lower rank.