Errors in 1911 Census of England

[Bryman]

I believe that the 1911 census was the first UK census in which householders completed their own census forms. Hence the opportunity for the submitted information to be incomplete or incorrect, such as where pets have been included. However, most people completed their forms as truthfully as possible, which makes me wonder about the return for a family, in Surrey, to which I am related by marriage.

The head of household entered himself, his wife and six children, all of which I had determined from other records. However, looking at further details of the original hand written document revealed that there had been six live births and one child that had since died. This did not add up as I had found no evidence for a seventh child. I went looking for the one that had died and found that the second child listed (entered as age 8 years at time of census) had actually died and was buried at age 7 months.

A contact within that greater family suggested that there was another child born in the same quarter, in the same locality and having the same identical three names, Walter Henry Bashford, which I would not have expected to be particularly common! The Free BMD index seemed to confirm this possibilty with birth references of "Vol 2A, Page 198" and "Vol 2A, Page 179" but both were based on the same source image which only showed "Vol 2A, Page 198". This suggested that the second instance was a transcription error. However, my initial research had found this birth record via FMP (and subsequently Family Search) with reference "Vol 2A, Page 1133".

I can think of no reason why a child that had died before his first birthday should be included as an 8 year old in the census, or was there a seventh child where the registration was never recorded, was lost, or was too obscure for me to find easily? Would a still birth go unrecorded and account for this apparent inconsistency? But why would Free BMD have different references to FMP and Family Search?

Does any forum member have a similar situation or ideas to explain what went wrong in this case?

 

[Bob Spiers]

Quite fascinating Bryman, and although it may not be of great help, it has the echoes of something I discovered viewing a householder's 1911 Census entry. The head had listed 6 children of which 2 were crossed through by him, or perhaps the Invigilator (or by whatever name he was known) when he called to collect. Unlike your example I do not believe any age was shown against the two children, but in the live birth column there were 4 shown with 2 recorded in the 'died' column.

Now I only knew of 4 children and was lucky at the time to have an elderly uncle living who had known the family. He told me the additional two children (of which I knew nothing) were twins who had died a few weeks after birth. When I showed him the original sheet I had had printed out he said "perhaps they thought it was like a Bookkeeping Ledger, (my Uncle had been a Bookkeeper), 6 births entered in the credit column, with 4 and 2 as balancing debits". "Perhaps your great Uncle thought the same when he filled out the form?"

Thinking about it I conceded that may well have been the reason which is why I think it was likely the Invigilator who had crossed through the names, because they should not appear as persons living at the time of the Census. It's a thought anyway, but in your case entering an age for a child who did not survive to reach it, perhaps requires different reasoning.

 

[peter]

I can think of no reason why a child that had died before his first birthday should be included as an 8 year old in the census

I've seen other similar examples, including at least one in my own tree - the new questions confused people to such an extent that they made all sorts of mistakes, only some of which were picked up by the enumerators. Still births were not registered until 1927.

There was a Walter Henry Bashford whose birth is indexed on page 198, and a Walter Leonard whose birth is indexed on page 177 - both births were in Reigate RD (the Bashford surname seems to be quite common in Surrey), and this seems to have confused one of the FreeBMD transcribers who managed to mis-transcribe both of them.

Volume 2a page 1133 for Q1 of 1903 related to Elham, which is some distance away in east Kent - it's probably an OCR error (the print in the index is slightly distorted, which might confuse a computer). I've reported this transcription error to Findmypast.

 

[Bryman]

Volume 2a page 1133 for Q1 of 1903 related to Elham, which is some distance away in east Kent - it's probably an OCR error (the print in the index is slightly distorted, which might confuse a computer). I've reported this transcription error to Findmypast.

This surprised me. I thought that I had been so careful. How did you determine that this reference related to Elham rather than Reigate? What am I missing in the use of FMP?

 

[Bob Spiers]

This surprised me. I thought that I had been so careful. How did you determine that this reference related to Elham rather than Reigate? What am I missing in the use of FMP?

Yes a little mystified myself as I found the Volume 2a page 1133 reference applied to Reigate as well. View attachment 581

But see what Peter means in Free BMD where a reference search for 1903; Vol 2a/page 1133 does indeed relate to Elham in Kent (a stones throw from where I live and now comes under Folkestone/Ashford/& Dover).

I confirm FMP shows the birth for Walter Henry Bashford born 1903 as Vol 2a page 198 in Reigate. The reference 2a/179 in Free BMD is wrongly assigned and should relate to a Lily Bashford in Reigate, whilst 2a/177 as Peter says relates to a Walter Leonard Bashford.

A bit of a mix up all round but par for the course I'm afraid.

 

[peter]

Thanks, Bob - this underlines how important it is to know what searches you can use at different sites. I suspect there will be a newsletter article on this topic before long.....

 

[emjay]

I just love mistakes made by the householder which just have a line drawn through by the enumerator. Still legible,they can be so informative

 

[peter]

I just love mistakes made by the householder which just have a line drawn through by the enumerator. Still legible,they can be so informative

On the same subject in other census years you'll sometimes find that the enumerator has crossed out several entries (sometimes several pages), presumably because they have been duplicated elsewhere. Findmypast (correctly) don't transcribe/index the deleted entries but Ancestry usually do - which can be useful for us researchers.

 

[GrahamC]

The head of household entered himself, his wife and six children, all of which I had determined from other records. However, looking at further details of the original hand written document revealed that there had been six live births and one child that had since died. This did not add up as I had found no evidence for a seventh child. I went looking for the one that had died and found that the second child listed (entered as age 8 years at time of census) had actually died and was buried at age 7 months.

Could it be that a family member was having trouble accepting a death? I know of a case where only a few years ago a parent was still referring to a deceased child as if she was alive.

 

[Bob Spiers]

a parent was still referring to a deceased child as if she was alive.

This is a little macabre and sad but it is true. Shortly after meeting a girl who would eventually be my first wife I was taken to meet her parents. They lived in a village and unlike their daughter spoke with a heavy Northants dialect. It was difficult to understand conversations but I kept hearing her mother speak about 'our Edie' time and time again. She also spoke about 'young James' and how she needed to pay him a visit

Imagine my shock when I asked my girlfriend who was the Edie her mother kept referring to and was surprised to hear it was her dead elder sister who had been tragically killed in a road accident about 3 years previous. (I had not heard about this during our courtship as I suppose it was too difficult a subject for my girlfriend to broach). She confided her mother had not really got over the shock and although she knew only too well Edie was no longer there, she still brought up her name in conversations with things like - Edie will like that, or that is Edie's favourite colour.

I then brought up about young James and learned he had been her brother -her mother's first child - who had died within a few weeks of birth back in the 1930's -and the period I am speaking about took place in the late 1950's . I was told she goes 3 times a week to the village grave to see both Edie & James and put flowers on their graves.

I was to later learn all about the road accident and about the tragic loss of her first born and how the mother refused to speak of them in the past tense. A melancholy tale I know but it does illustrate what Graham said and in the case of James we have a mother still referring in the first person to her baby son some 20 years after he had died, and her grown up (and I forgot to mention married) daughter 3 years after she too died in a tragic accident.

I would just add a footnote to say in every other respect the mother was a lovely lady and of course in due time became my mother-in-law.