1841 Census - I can find this family on Ancestry but not on FMP

[Sandra4]

I need to find this entry on FMP in order to enter the family on Lost Cousins
William Barton 20
Eliza Barton 20
Emma Barton 2
Clara 5 mths
Piece 1149 Book 3 Folio 25 page 3 Birmingham
Reg district Aston, sub district Duddeston Nechells
Details taken from handwritten 1841 census on Ancestry

I have used various different criteria search on FMP but just cannot find this family on 1841 FMP census.
Entering the piece, book, folio, page numbers produces nil results.
What am I doing wrong ?
Any guidance much appreciated
Sandra

 

[Tim]

Hi Sandra,

I found it straight way by just using Piece 1149 Book 3 Folio 25 page 3

They've been transcribed as Bacton, but don't tell Bob

Sometimes less info gets more results.

 

[Sandra4]

Hi Sandra,

I found it straight way by just using Piece 1149 Book 3 Folio 25 page 3

They've been transcribed as Bacton, but don't tell Bob

Sometimes less info gets more results.

Many thanks for this
Sandra

 

[peter]

I need to find this entry on FMP in order to enter the family on Lost Cousins

For future reference, no you don't.

 

[At home in NZ]

For future reference, no you don't.

That's a cryptic message if ever I saw one. I know what you mean because it's in the instructions but does Sandra know why you said that?

 

[peter]

That's a cryptic message if ever I saw one. I know what you mean because it's in the instructions but does Sandra know why you said that?

It might be brief and succinct, but cryptic? Surely there is only one possible meaning in the circumstances?

 

[At home in NZ]

Surely there is only one possible meaning in the circumstances?

'No you don't' without giving a reason is cryptic in my book.

 

[peter]

'No you don't' without giving a reason is cryptic in my book.

Sandra didn't give a reason why she needed to find the entry at Findmypast. Was her post also cryptic?

 

[Bob Spiers]

They've been transcribed as Bacton, but don't tell Bob

Well well a mis-transcription, how rare. Which reminds (as you knew it would) I am messaging back and forth with an elderly gentleman (more elderly than myself) who cannot understand why the Alice Slynn he seeks cannot be found, although he admits he came across an Alice Slin that fitted. When I said they were one and the same (after checking of course) he really could not see how ANYONE COULD GET IT WRONG. How does one answer that?

 

[At home in NZ]

he really could not see how ANYONE COULD GET IT WRONG. How does one answer that?

Like I would, with stifled but raucous laughter.
There's nought queerer than folk.

 

[peter]

How does one answer that?

I'd have explained that spelling wasn't considered important prior to the 19th century, and that spelling of names continued to vary up to the early 20th century.

 

[Bob Spiers]

I'd have explained that spelling wasn't considered important prior to the 19th century, and that spelling of names continued to vary up to the early 20th century.

I said something similar, explaining Clerks/Moderators writing what they heard -coping with his "couldn't the family be asked how to spell the name" - and learned she was the the Alice Slynn who had married a remote Spiers ancestor. But the person he really wanted to trace was her daughter Alice Spiers . He could only find an Alice Veronica Spiers with an RC baptism and said althought the date tallied (c1908), it could not be the right Alice because she had no middle name; was not Catholic...and to top it all her mother had been shown as 'Slin'

Now I have to admit up front that as the lady in question was shown in my Tribal Pages with the full name Alice Veronica Spiers all I had to do was refresh my memory, check my Ancestry Tree and provide my answer which went thus.

I confirmed her RC baptism and told him that some of my Spiers clan - and especially some who married into it - came from RC backgrounds - even if not practising members. I reminded I had a RC paternal grandmother of Irish descent, but my grandfather would not accept the faith and apart from their first child who was baptised RC neither he or his siblings were brought up as Catholics. In fact their first child -my Uncle Harry - was additionally baptised C of E and often boasted he was covered both ways.

I reminded also that had he been able to access my Ancestry Tree (he only subscribed to MyHeritage) he would have found her shown with her full name (and there were at least 3 other Trees all of whom I knew to be bona fide) showing her as such.

I explained that the most likely explanation for the middle name was to comply with RC church practice to have at least one baptismal name as that of a Saint. I told him there was indeed a Saint Veronica venerated by the RC church. The parents would go along with this and if they so chose (and they obviously did) could go their own way afterwards, as could Alice as an adult. This would explain the 1911 Census and a later marriage record without a middle name.

In the end he thanked me and said he was now happy he was on the right track and we exchanged pleasantries, like each of us was getting our second jab. There's more to life than genealogical mysteries.

 

[peter]

The names of the sponsors (godparents) can also be clues to the identity of the child. (Unfortunately they're rarely shown in CofE baptism registers.)