• 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!

  • If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  • This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  • It's easier than ever before to check your entries from the 1881 Census - more details here

1911 institutions

Liberty

Liberty

LostCousins Megastar
An irritating number of my ancestors/cousins are in institutions in 1911. I have nurses, soldiers in barracks, pupils in boarding schools etc. and they seem not to have a number in the top right hand corner of the census page How can (indeed, can I?) enter them on my LC page without a household schedule number?
 
Alexander Bisset said:
Yes you can there is instructions on entering institutions on the Lost Cousins website. You can find that info here.
Click to expand...
Alexander, the article you referred me to seems to suggest that if I put some of the numbers (from the Ancestry search in my case) into a reference search on FMP it will give me the schedule number , which I can then enter on my LC page.

My first attempt to try this looks promising but not entirely succesful. A school containing a relative has as its ref: RG14; Piece: 4589, RD 65, ED 7-8. I entered Piece, RD and and ED of 7, but my relative was not there. ED of 8 apparently returns too many results for FMP to show them. HOWEVER using the fact that everyone in ED7 had a schedule number of 9999, I am taking the bold leap of assuming that this is true for my relative.

It's a bit clunky when compared the equivalent for ordinary households, but at least I can make an entry.
The simplest solution for relatives in institutions would seem to be to put two entries on LC, one with a schedule number of 1, the other with an SN of 9999. One of them ought to be correct, and you should achive the end of contacting a present day cousin.
 
It would be nice to get this sorted. My heart has been sinking every time I find a relative who is in an army barracks, a hospital nurse, etc. as I couldn't see how to enter them on LC.
 
There is no schedule number for institutions but findmypast use either 1 or 9999, and you can check which is correct in a given case by carrying out a free census reference search at findmypast. It doesn't matter if there are too many results to be displayed - if there are any results at all then you've guessed correctly (if you guess incorrectly you'll get no results.
 
I am not sure that there is an easy answer as I looked back through a good many images in Paddington Central, Registration district 1 scanned at Ancestry and collectively listed as Piece 68 and ED 27-33 in the main part of the citation. They include a hotel, a hospital, a boy's home and a workhouse where my great grandmother lived . Although as we know the forms were not designed to include a household number they appear to be meticulously filled in at least on the summary pages. By scrolling back from the image page for my grandmother I could easily find the ED which was 30. On the summary page I found that she was also one of about 1000 inhabitants so the chances of finding a lost cousin are almost non existent if only based on her residence at the time. There was however a great deal of satisfaction in closing a loop for her in terms of official records so I am pleased I took the trouble to look for her.
I spent 5 credits to see how FMP described the entry and the ED was not listed alone but as part of the citation RG 14PN68 RD1 SD2 ED 30 SN 1. I had entered 1 in the household number space on my LC ancestor page so I'll leave it until we solve the dilemma.
 
To add to the confusion I've just found out that for at least one military establishment Ancestry includes a household number in their 1911 census citation for a probable LC of mine. I checked the image page and of course the household number isn't there. :eek:
 
I have been following up on some of my 'institutionalised' ancestors in the 1911 census, and realise that the Royal Navy (at least) are pretty much lumped together.
I asked FMP for census reference: Piece 34971, RD 640, schedule 9999 (which all the identification I can offer) and it tells me that there are 12,617 results. I can add that two totally unconnected relatives have exactly this reference. Similalry, two naval relatives are at Piece 34973 (2 up), RD 640, schedule 9999, along with 6,901 others.
I fear we may get some mis-hits, as the chances are quite high that the RN did not consist of men with unique name/age combinations.
 
There may be others who, like me, were holding back from entering 1911 ancestors/relatives because of lack of SN for institutions. Is it worth saying in the NL that they can put them in with an SN of 9999? If we all use that, then we should make any matches that are going.
 
From an IT perspective Liberty that's a good idea. The fact that there is confusion and a manual process that is extra work is off putting to people. There is a high degree of likelihood they will enter the wrong thing or perhaps worse simply not bother. If the answer its its either 1 or 9999 and never both then your idea of always entering 9999 as a "it means an institution" is a good idea as that can be handled as a special case in the website code.
 
As I said before the schedule number should be entered as either 1 or 9999 and a FREE search at findmypast should tell you which is right. There is no need to spend credits as either you'll get results or you won't. If you would feel happier seeing your ancestor's name then you can use the 1911 census site instead (you can include the name and piece number in the same FREE search).

Liberty is quite right that there is a higher chance of there being two people with precisely the same forename, surname, and age - however I carried out extensive testing and didn't find any examples, even where there were thousands of people in the establishment.

Indeed so far there hasn't been a single example of such a systematic error in the almost 10 years that LostCousins has been in existence. It will happen one day, but it will be very rare indeed. Certainly nothing to worry about!
 
I hadn't entered any 1911 institutional relatives up till just now, because I got stuck at 'no schedule number, even if you look at the image'. I hadn't realised I could find out from FMP what number they had allocated until I asked the other day and Alexander pointed me in the right direction.

If Peter were to publicise the fact that they can be entered and the SN is either 1 or 9999, perhaps the numbers on LC will increase.

(And, if 12k+ of the Royal Navy are entered under the same piece/RD/SN I can't believe there won't be SOME duplication. However, an exchange of messages should establish if we are talking about the same person)
 
peter said:
As I said before the schedule number should be entered as either 1 or 9999 and a FREE search at findmypast should tell you which is right. There is no need to spend credits as either you'll get results or you won't. If you would feel happier seeing your ancestor's name then you can use the 1911 census site instead (you can include the name and piece number in the same FREE search).
Click to expand...

I think Liberties point was however: If it can only be 1 or 9999 and its random as to which one AND you need to do a search at findmypast (whether its free or not is irrelevant the fact that its extra work is the issue). What is actually achieved by finding out if its 1 or 9999? What is achieved that wouldn't also work just fine by saying if its a large institution then use 9999 regardless of what findmypast says.

The point is that if it cuts out an extra manual step that is confusing users and cutting out that step doesn't change anything then it seems logical to cut out that step and have a win-win-win situation.
 
Alexander Bisset said:
I think Liberties point was however: If it can only be 1 or 9999 and its random as to which one AND you need to do a search at findmypast (whether its free or not is irrelevant the fact that its extra work is the issue). What is actually achieved by finding out if its 1 or 9999? What is achieved that wouldn't also work just fine by saying if its a large institution then use 9999 regardless of what findmypast says.

The point is that if it cuts out an extra manual step that is confusing users and cutting out that step doesn't change anything then it seems logical to cut out that step and have a win-win-win situation.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Alexander; you have summarised my position.:)
 
I feel a bit as if I stumbled upon the Mad Hatters tea party at this part of the forum :) and find my attention wandering. Since I enter LC entries manually for now am I right in using 9999 to substitute for the HSN for any institution? I have spent several days wrestling a branch of my family into submission starting with parish records from the early 1700's and now finally arriving at the 1911 census. Naturally I have found one young lady working in an institution and since I have some new cousins from this branch :D that will hopefully contact me soon I am working towards completing what I can.
 
Britjan said:
...am I right in using 9999 to substitute for the HSN for any institution? .
Click to expand...
The situation as it stands is that you should check on FMP to see if the institution has been allocated the SN 1 or 9999. I suggested we could put 9999 for all institutions, to save the step of checking which of the two numbers was correct. As yet, this is only a suggestion, so you should still do the FMP check for the SN.
 
:D Contact from a new cousin, :( back to FMP, and o_O wondering what the 1921 census will bring us as a new challenge for entering relatives in institutions. Seriously though in the aftermath of "the war to end all wars" I hope to trace the fate of many who survived but probably at a terrible cost.
 
Liberty said:
As yet, this is only a suggestion, so you should still do the FMP check for the SN.
Click to expand...
I am glad I followed your advice because there was another young lady of the same last name and approximate age but quite different birthplace in the institution freely listed on FMP. I'll put her to one side for now but it's like keeping a little "treat" to savour later.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top