Entering Ancestors on Lost Cousins website

[Tim]

I wouldn't call it weird, Tim. There can be a number of reasons. One is simply that you can't track them down in other years. (The 1841 census is far less user-friendly for our purposes than later years) Another is that 1881 census is freely available (in every sense). If people are Paying as they Go for a census record, they may not be as all-embracing in what records they obtain.

You are of course correct. I suppose I was also thinking about my latest contact where we matched on 2 out of the 4 family members in the 1881 census.

 

[Tim]

Some people may not have noticed they have that census info or they may not have noticed they have yet to look up that census.

You know come to think of it you would hope there would be some easy way to see who you have entered on a census or who you have missing. It would be even better if such a thing gave you an at a glance view of your tree and automatically searched the websites for you. If only such a thing existed!!!

You know, that's not such a bad idea. I have some ideas about some reports I'd like to see...

 

[Heather]

Pauline, you know we're all itching to track down your relatives - what can you tell us?

Yes come on Pauline give us the details let's see who can find them first!!!

 

[AndyMick]

You know come to think of it you would hope there would be some easy way to see who you have entered on a census or who you have missing. It would be even better if such a thing gave you an at a glance view of your tree and automatically searched the websites for you. If only such a thing existed!!!

One can but dream
And having found them on the census, could it help add them into the LC site?

Yes, Peter, I know it doesn't take *that* long manually for one or two - but having added 400+ War Memorial people recently, even with the refs already supplied, I know how long it does take (2 weeks elapsed). Anything to make it easier would be an enormous help to what I see as a big hurdle to getting more people entering their ancestors, especially those who do have a good number of ancestors already found. Just my twopenn'orth.

 

[Pauline]

Yes come on Pauline give us the details let's see who can find them first!!!

OK, here are the details - should I be offering a prize?

The 3 missing ancestors are my great grandfather Arthur SOLMAN and his parents George SOLMAN & Emma nee AINGE, who were probably not married.

Arthur SOLMAN was born 10 Jan 1865 in Somers Town, St Pancras MDX, and I am wondering if in 1881 he was the 16 year old Arthur SAHMORE at RG11 95 Fo: 41.

George SOLMAN was born 29 Oct 1838, also in Somers Town. Emma AINGE was born 30 Apr 1827 possibly in Holborn where she was baptised the following year. In 1861 I think the the two were living together using the surname STAFFORD (RG9 104 Fo: 34) and in 1871 they were together using George's surname misspelt as SOLOMONS (RG10 211 Fo: 26).

In 1891 George was given as a widower and was in Islington with his surname spelt SALMAN. There's more information on this complicated couple on their family page on my genealogy website. (There's also a link from that page to Arthur Solman's family page).

So in 1881 it seems likely George and Emma were living somewhere in the St Pancras/Islington area, but whether together or not is anyone's guess. I have yet to find Emma's death but if still alive in 1881 she could well have moved on to yet another man and be using his surname........

 

[Liberty]

Pauline
I just looked at the image of Arthur's census entry, and I think he is a definite possibility. What we 'clearly' have is a neatly written up version - and in this, the writer goes for one of those up and down styles (the sort that makes 'minimum look like one long zig-zag) In this script, 'lm' looks very like 'hm', unless you count your ups and downs carefully. As and Os can easily be misinterpreted - it's mostly a matter of where on the circle you take off to join onto the next letter. While the final census doesn't say 'Solman', I think it a very real possibility that the original did.

 

[Liberty]

Pauline
Any chance these are they? Source Citation: Class: RG11; Piece: 215; Folio: 49; Page: 91; GSU roll: 1341047

NameAge
George Stafford 45
Emma Stafford 43
George Stafford 18
Henry Stafford 16
Arthur Stafford 15
Frank Stafford 13
Walter Stafford 10
Adelaide Stafford 6
Minnie Stafford 3
Beatrice Stafford 1

 

[Pauline]

Pauline
Any chance these are they? Source Citation: Class: RG11; Piece: 215; Folio: 49; Page: 91; GSU roll: 1341047

Hmm - an interesting one, but it would seem probably not as in 1871 they appear at RG10 231 Fo: 16 p25, so not mine.

I have a feeling that I once obtained a certificate for one of their children in the hope it might relate to my George & Emma - I would need to fish out my envelope of red-herring certificates to check that.

Thanks!

 

[CarolB08]

Coming to this conversation a tad late, but just spent an hour adding ancestors I had missed off and made several new matches although all with contacts already made, but hey its a start.