1921 census

[Britjan]

They might have warned me - but they didn't. I see that the Plus subscription is also going up, by £10 a year to £129.99

There could well be matching increases at other FMP sites - I haven't checked (yet).

Last year I paid £151.05 and to renew this year in October they are listing £159.99 paying from Canada . It's mainly worth it for the continuing additions to the Newspaper Archives and my WWI and WWII research.

 

[Helen7]

I've just been taking advantage of the 50% discount to download some more images from the 1921 census (using the Lost Cousins link). I found my husband's grandmother as a live-in servant, her age being given as 14 years 3 months. She was actually 13 years 10 months at the time of the census, and thus probably should have been at school, as I understand the school leaving age was raised to 14 in 1918. I wonder if her employer added a few months to her age so as not to be seen to be employing an under-age girl. Or perhaps her mother had told the employer she was a few months older than she was. Her mother was a working widow, so presumably it was convenient for her daughter to leave school early and go into service.

 

[Helen7]

A 2 x great aunt was obviously not Reginald Elizabeth.

My great aunt was housekeeper to a man whose forenames are transcribed as Mary Frank, but the image is clearly Harry Frank. I have reported the transcription error by email without purchasing the transcript (as previously mentioned by Pauline).

 

[peter]

I found my husband's grandmother as a live-in servant, her age being given as 14 years 3 months. She was actually 13 years 10 months at the time of the census, and thus probably should have been at school, as I understand the school leaving age was raised to 14 in 1918. I wonder if her employer added a few months to her age so as not to be seen to be employing an under-age girl. Or perhaps her mother had told the employer she was a few months older than she was. Her mother was a working widow, so presumably it was convenient for her daughter to leave school early and go into service.

It certainly happened a lot in the 19th century, although then it was usually a ploy to get a higher rate of pay.

 

[peter]

Last year I paid £151.05 and to renew this year in October they are listing £159.99 paying from Canada

The price for new subscribers is now £179.99, and the Loyalty Discount is still 15%, so I would expect you to be charged £155.99

 

[peter]

There is a half-price offer on the 1921 Census until 12.30pm Friday 10th June.

1921 Census half-price

 

[Helen7]

I've just taken advantage of the latest half-price offer for the 1921 census and come across a bit of an unusual schedule with a couple of apparently anomalous entries.

My relative's marital status is given as 'D' for Divorced. In fact, I know (from a newspaper report) that his first wife obtained a decree nisi on 1st June 1921 on the grounds of his desertion and adultery. So the divorce would not yet have been final at the time of the census. The woman with whom he's living (and has two children with) is described as his 'Wife' but also 'Single' (and under her maiden name). Also, he's filled in the section where married men, widowers and widows have to give the number and ages of their children. Does that also apply to divorced men, I wonder? Or did he consider himself married?

The cohabiting couple did marry early in 1922, after the man's divorce was finalised, and they went on to have a 3rd child 2 years later.

 

[Bob Spiers]

and come across a bit of an unusual schedule with a couple of apparently anomalous entries.

Perhaps a trifle anomalous Helen, but honest it has to be said. Having been through a divorce myself in the early 1970's a decree nisi was as good as an absolute without waiting for the tying of ribbons. If memory serves I think my nisi was c 1972 and absolute 73 and I remarried (and remain so) these many years later. Had the the nisi and absolute each been a year earlier, I would certainly have considered myself divorced at the time of the 1971 Census. I can also understand the 'wife' bit (I've lost count of the time I have found cohabitees labelled as both wife and married and know it not to be the case), so full marks for the honesty of a 'single' label.

As it happened I had two children from my first marriage, but they remained with their mother at that time and there were no children within my second marriage. If the 1971 Census required the same information as the 1921 (and it probably didn't) and -had it applied - I would almost certainly have owned to having two children.

 

[Helen7]

As it happened I had two children from my first marriage, but they remained with their mother at that time and there were no children within my second marriage. If the 1971 Census required the same information as the 1921 (and it probably didn't) and -had it applied - I would almost certainly have owned to having two children.

My relative had one daughter by his first marriage but she had died before her parents separated. The two children living with him in 1921 were those he had with his second wife before they married. If the newspaper reports are to be believed, his first marriage was very unhappy, with the first wife apparently making his life a misery. Interestingly, when searching for 'evidence' of his adultery (I gather in those days desertion or separation wasn't enough for a wife to sue for divorce), she went to the local registry office, examined the register of births and saw her husband named as the father of a child. The birth register gave his address, which enabled her to watch him going in and out of the house where another woman lived. Sounds very cloak and dagger! The newspaper headline was 'What Register of Births Revealed'!

 

[Stephen L]

(I gather in those days desertion or separation wasn't enough for a wife to sue for divorce),

In the August 2nd newsletter Peter reviewed Marriage Law for Genealogists. with links to Amazon to makes purchases that support Lost Cousins. He also mentioned Professor Probert's follow-up, Divorced, Bigamist, Bereaved This is the book to read to get all of the details of the relevant law at different dates and other issues such as changing numbers of divorces. It is excellent for putting what ancestors were doing into context.

 

[peter]

Interestingly, when searching for 'evidence' of his adultery (I gather in those days desertion or separation wasn't enough for a wife to sue for divorce), she went to the local registry office, examined the register of births and saw her husband named as the father of a child. The birth register gave his address, which enabled her to watch him going in and out of the house where another woman lived. Sounds very cloak and dagger! The newspaper headline was 'What Register of Births Revealed'!

I'm surprised she was allowed access to the register of births - these days you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

 

[Helen7]

I'm surprised she was allowed access to the register of births - these days you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell.

Yes, that surprised me too! The divorce case telling the story was reported in the Rochdale Times of 4 June 1921.

 

[Stephen L]

However many of the apparent transcription errors are not, in fact, errors by the transcriber but the result of misguesses by the data processing algorithms - hence the need to clean up the data

Do you think the algorithm applies the surname of the head to all in the household initially and then the transcriber should replace if different?
I have found two households with people with that surname incorrectly applied. The first case was a married daughter and her husband, so effectively they both had her maiden surname. The second case was the first servant in the household. I have submitted corrections for both but there could be many more similar cases in the census as a whole, so maybe a lot of data cleaning is needed.
The servant would be hard to find if someone was looking for her. The married daughter should be found by anyone looking for all relatives.
It seems to be taking much longer for errors to be corrected on the site now.

 

[peter]

In my experience it's not always clear when surnames should be 'carried down'. I've seen examples where the householder was inconsistent, so that no logical interpretation would arrive at the right answer.