1921 census release

[Helen7]

you might inadvertently include someone in another household if you're not careful as the 'Other household member' boxes do NOT match on both forename and surname, only on one or the other.

If you put just a surname in 'Other household member' you get far more hits than if you put the forename as well. Likewise if you just put a forename and leave out the surname, you get far more hits than if you include both names. So it seems to me it is matching on both forename and surname, rather than either/or.

I agree that if the 'Other household member' has a common forename and surname, you could well get other households too, so caution is needed in such circumstances.

 

[peter]

If you put just a surname in 'Other household member' you get far more hits than if you put the forename as well. Likewise if you just put a forename and leave out the surname, you get far more hits than if you include both names. So it seems to me it is matching on both forename and surname, rather than either/or.

They may have changed the way it works - I hope so, as it would make it much more useful. When I was testing two separate households were returned, one of which had a completely different surname.

EDIT: no, there is still a problem. If you search in the parish of Ilford for households with an 'Other household member' called Harry Calver (allowing for variations of the forename only, which is the default) there are two different households returned. However if you search for Harry Calver (again allowing for variations in the forename) there is only one in Ilford parish, my grandfather.

 

[jbuchanangb]

I have checked between 40 and 50 entries so far, and actually paid for one. About 16 of the households are living at an address of which I was previously aware, either due to 1911 census, 1939 register or some other knowledge, such as address on a marriage certificate in 1920! Most of the others are living in the expected parish. Of 17 direct ancestors of myself or my wife, I have found 16. Only one proving elusive. Possibly away in army. Found his wife and both of her children by 2 previous relationships.

 

[canadianbeth]

In my previous post #125, I mentioned that the third image I purchased was a duplicate of the second. Exactly the same except for large 'x"s across the names. I sent a message to FMP informing them of this and received a reply today that they are refunding the amount I paid for it.

 

[Heather]

I've found that if I do a search for a relative and find they are living with (say) John, Mary and 2 others, I can easily find the details of all these 4 people by going to Advanced Search, putting nothing in the name field, but entering the parish and the full name of my relative in the 'Other household member' boxes at the bottom. It has come back with a list of my relative's housemates and no others. Perhaps I've just been lucky with smallish parishes and relatively uncommon surnames but it's worked like a dream for me. Useful for checking the people in a household (their full names, year and place of birth) of more distant relatives, where I can't justify paying for the image

Hi Helen, thank you so much for this information, I tried it and it worked a treat. I have only just started looking for my ancestors in the 1921 census, I found my father, where I was certain he was living but hovering over the details showed two Harrys? in the house. Using your method I worked out that the two Harrys were actually my grandmother Mary and my father's step-sister Mary, easily checked against their year and place of birth. Thanks again, now onto the next household.

 

[Tim]

Hi Helen, thank you so much for this information, I tried it and it worked a treat. I have only just started looking for my ancestors in the 1921 census, I found my father, where I was certain he was living but hovering over the details showed two Harrys? in the house. Using your method I worked out that the two Harrys were actually my grandmother Mary and my father's step-sister Mary, easily checked against their year and place of birth. Thanks again, now onto the next household.

This doesn't work for me, have you got screenshots?

 

[peter]

Hi Helen, thank you so much for this information, I tried it and it worked a treat. I have only just started looking for my ancestors in the 1921 census, I found my father, where I was certain he was living but hovering over the details showed two Harrys? in the house. Using your method I worked out that the two Harrys were actually my grandmother Mary and my father's step-sister Mary, easily checked against their year and place of birth. Thanks again, now onto the next household.

I was forced to use this technique when the census was first released because there was a glitch in the payment system which meant I couldn't view any images or transcripts - so I know that it works most of the time. However it doesn't work all of the time - which is why I haven't recommended it in the newsletter. (See earlier in this discussion for an example of a problem that I found.)

But if you know the address where the family were living (perhaps from a certificate or the electoral register, or guess that it's the same as in 1911 or 1939) you can find the schedule number, which greatly improves the accuracy of this type of search.

 

[Tim]

This doesn't work for me, have you got screenshots?

I got it working, thanks.

 

[Helen7]

I know that it works most of the time. However it doesn't work all of the time - which is why I haven't recommended it in the newsletter.

Many strategies don't work all of the time, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful to try. Of course, there are caveats (in this case, common names and large parishes might throw up unwanted hits) but it doesn't mean the approach won't be successful, as it has been for myself and Heather.

 

[peter]

Many strategies don't work all of the time

It's important to know whether a technique is reliable or not,. Someone who joined the discussion this month and didn't read the posts from January might have assumed that this particular technique always works, hence my reminder.

When I did briefly mention the technique in one of my newsletters, I explained that it didn't work every time, listed other techniques, and presented them all in the context of finding the right household, rather than as a substitute for purchasing the image. The latter is a higher risk activity since not everyone will update the information in their records if and when they eventually obtain the image.

 

[Stephen L]

Does anyone know anything about the maps we get with the 1921 census showing the registration districts? I am wondering if they were used in an earlier census, at least in the London area.
My ancestors and many relatives were living in flats at Wharncliffe Gardens in St John's Wood, Marylebone not far from Lord's Cricket Ground. Vacant land is shown on the 1921 map but the flats were built in the late 19th century and my family were there for the 1901 census. I have a Godfrey edition reproduction Ordnance Survey map of St John's Wood in 1913 that shows the flats.

 

[peter]

Does anyone know anything about the maps we get with the 1921 census showing the registration districts? I am wondering if they were used in an earlier census, at least in the London area.
My ancestors and many relatives were living in flats at Wharncliffe Gardens in St John's Wood, Marylebone not far from Lord's Cricket Ground. Vacant land is shown on the 1921 map but the flats were built in the late 19th century and my family were there for the 1901 census. I have a Godfrey edition reproduction Ordnance Survey map of St John's Wood in 1913 that shows the flats.

If they had maps from an earlier census then I'm sure they would have used them, provided the boundaries of the registration districts hadn't changed. But the fact that that the maps used in 1921 aren't up to date might also be because they were the latest maps available at that resolution. Also bear in mind that the date on the reproduction map you have might be the date of the survey, not the date of publication.

Have you checked against the maps at the National Library of Scotland?

 

[Stuart]

I've just found someone who's in the 1921 census twice, within half a mile. At least, as transcribed he is.

He's second engineer on the steam trawler Kittiwake, tied up in Waveny Dock, Lowestoft on the night of the 19th June. But he had obviously already been put down at 217 Raglan Street, with wife and kids, and had to be crossed out once it was clear he would be on the other form. But the transcribers still took his details down, though being crossed out made that hard - doubly so where he started writing Lowestoft then stopped and crossed it out as he (unlike the rest of them) was born in Wrentham. That "Lowest" came out as "Somerset"!

There is I guess a serious question underlying this: should everything be transcribed even if rightly crossed out? After all, it is all information, and potentially useful, and it is open to you to ignore it if you like once you know what's going on. And it you never do find the "correct" entry, at least now you've got something!

 

[peter]

There is I guess a serious question underlying this: should everything be transcribed even if rightly crossed out? After all, it is all information, and potentially useful, and it is open to you to ignore it if you like once you know what's going on. And it you never do find the "correct" entry, at least now you've got something!

Findmypast generally do not transcribe crossed-out entries, Ancestry usually do. I think there's a good case for transcribing them, though it would be helpful to also indicate that they have been deleted.

 

[Stuart]

Findmypast generally do not transcribe crossed-out entries, Ancestry usually do. I think there's a good case for transcribing them, though it would be helpful to also indicate that they have been deleted.

And it would also have helped if the reason for crossing it out was given on the form.

 

[peter]

And it would also have helped if the reason for crossing it out was given on the form.

The census wasn’t meant for us!

 

[Britjan]

Looking forward to getting back to grips with the 1921 UK census in 2022. Meanwhile I will try to pop in weekly and benefit from other member's experiences.