1911 Census - some sobering facts

[Rod Neep]

1. The 1911 census will not be released early. Period.

2. When it is released, there will be problems. HUGE problems.

The 1911 census is not like ANY other census you will have seen! All the censuses that you have seen so far are the census enumerator's books. The enumerator went round every house collecting pieces of paper called householder's "SCHEDULES", and then copied them into his book.

With the very rare exception those "schedules" are all gone. Not preserved. All that remain (from 1841 onwards to 1901, are the enumerator's books.

Those books have several households per page. Often as many as 5 to 8 households. You've seen what they look like.

***********************************************
* Take the following from someone who *knows* *
***********************************************

Now... in the case of the 1911 census - it is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
There are *NO* census enumerator's books! All that remains are the householder's SCHEDULES. A double sided piece
of paper for every household. Written in different handwriting by each head of household.

That means that there are millions more pieces of paper involved than in the older censuses, and they are going to be a real proverbial pain to read. They still need sorting and classifying.

[Rod Neep]

And as if that wasn't bad enough....Now for the bad news.

They are VERY incomplete. MANY are missing.
The ones that survive are: rotten and smelly (literally! - I mean it) screwed up and dog eared, a great number are incredibly damaged, parts of the pages missing, torn, ragged, water stained... literally rotten! People who work at The National Archives and have offices close to them know where they are...BY THE SMELL !!! They have never been microfilmed or digitised. The cost of filming them will be about 10 times the cost of the original filming of the 1901 enumerator's books. Many, many, many millions of pounds.

And when (if!) it is all completed and filmed... every genealogist will be complaining bitterly that they can't find their ancestors.

And before you go blaming The National Archives for not preserving them in better condition. It is not their fault! That's how the bundles of paper came to them. (By the way, have you any idea how much space is taken up by those millions of rotten pieces of paper!)

Will they be release before 2011 - not a cat in hell's chance folks! Will they be filmed in the near future? No way.
If and when they are released, will you complain. Absolutely YES! Will it make any difference complaining - No. They are what they are.

There you go. The facts of the matter.

[Mark]

Then the sooner they start filming/scanning them the better it would seem, even if they're not to be "released" to us until the pre-determined date. Rotten paper doesn't improve with age.

Wonder why they changed the system?

However, I've still got plenty of "work" to do with the existing seven already available Censuses in the next 6 years, so one more isn't going to make a great difference to me.

Mark

[Diane Grant-Salmon]

Thankyou Rod for giving more details about the 1911 Census, I read your earlier message about this being Schedules only.

I can't remember whether it's the year 1921 or 1931 ,where the whole lot was destroyed in a flood/fire, so with no census done at all in 1941 ..... things aren't as good for future researchers as they are at the moment for us are they?

[Mandie]

Why don't the NA organise a team of volunteers to begin transcribing them into some sort of enumerators books and then scan those books? Wouldn't that make it cheaper for them?

[Pam Downes]

Why don't the NA organise a team of volunteers to begin transcribing them into some sort of enumerators books and then scan those books? Wouldn't that make it cheaper for them?

To paraphrase Brucie -
What do transcribers make? Errors. :)

With absolutely no malice, slurs, defamation, whatever, intended to all transcribers, everywhere. I once typed a transcription of a census entry for someone and in spite of allegedly checking for typos still managed to type an incorrect age - 52 instead of 62. And that's without having to decipher illegible writing.

Pam Downes

[Mandie]

To paraphrase Brucie - What do transcribers make? Errors. :)

Aah, but weren't enumerators just fancy transcribers who made errors too?

[Rod Neep]

Why don't the NA organise a team of volunteers to begin transcribing them into some sort of enumerators books and then scan those books? Wouldn't that make it cheaper for them?
It is the remit of The National Archives to conserve those documents. (Note that the word "conserve" is different from the terms "preserve" or "renovate").

If the documents were put into the hands of well meaning volunteers for transcribing, then they would not be being conserved. Any handling of them would need to be done by professionals qualified to do so.

Regards
Rod

[robdurk]

Hi Rod

Well, as a man who knows someone with their nose to the grapevine (so to speak) do you know what they actually ARE doing about this?

I did know they weren't releasing early, having asked, but had no idea of the state it was in.

As for conservation, if they've been damp for nearly a century I doubt much more can be done than conserving what's left of the information, assuming pages can still be separated.

[Guy Etchells]

Yes certainly, and in some cases their work was checked and amended.
see my Bottesford 1871 transcripts at
http://freepages.history.rootsweb.com/~framland/census/censusindex.htm
where the enumerator's work was amended four months later.
Cheers
Guy

[Linda]

Thank you Rod for letting us know the condition of the 1911 census.

When you mentioned in a previous thread that they were actual schedules, I thought that it would be interesting to actually see the schedules written in the hands of our own ancestors, but this recent information is very bad news.

I guess I will be |banghead| to my grave then, trying to find my paternal grandfather's line!:(

Linda

[Rod Neep]

Hi Rod

Well, as a man who knows someone with their nose to the grapevine (so to speak) do you know what they actually ARE doing about this?


Good question.

At this moment in time.... nothing. In their present storage conditions they are not becoming worse, and that is the object of the exercise.

Rod

[Lindad]

Well, no wonder 'they' weren't keen to release it early! 'They' obviously knew the implications. And there I was hoping that some clever legal eagle could come up with some 'Freedom of Information' reason why they should just let us have it NOW, within 20 days etc.

Seems to me we need to give some 'encouragement' to whoever is responsible for making the final decision about what, if anything, is going to be done with all those bits of smelly paper. Simply waiting until December 31st 2010 isn't going to help us, and certainly won't do anything for all those bits of paper.

[robdurk]

My thoughts precisely, Lindad.

I've been all for lobbying for an early release, there being no real reason not to, but now it seems the practicalities are behind the stonewall, not necessarily any sort of principle.

If they were officially up front about that I think there would be less annoyance around.

I'm happy to be encouraging but not sure what the next step would be, really.

[Brian]

Looks like I'll never find my grandfather then. I think this ought to be a job for the National Lottery Heritage Fund or whoever the body was that put up the money to buy Churchills papers for the nation. Here are papers that relate to just about everyone in the country, what better use for National Lottery money?
Brian

[Paul W. H]

Hi Rod

Do you know the condition of the 1921,41 & onward Census's or will there be more surprises to come in later years.

Paul W. H

[Peter Goodey]

"Do you know the condition of the 1921,41 & onward Census's (sic)"

The condition of the 1941 census is pretty accurately known.

There wasn't one! :D :D :D

[Paul W. H]

My error, I mistyped 41 for 51.

Paul W. H

[ChrisK]

It is the remit of The National Archives to conserve those documents. (Note that the word "conserve" is different from the terms "preserve" or "renovate").


I always thought that conserve was something to do with jam!

[Julie Tyrell]

Does anybody actually know if the 1921, 1931 or 1941 census were made or will eventually be available.

I had heard that 1921 was destroyed in a fire and the 1941 was not made due to the war.

How true are these rumours??

Julie

[Terry]

As far as I know the 1921 does exist, the 1931 was destroyed by fire in WW2, and as you say there wasn't a 1941 census. Only another 16 years before the 1921 is available

[Sharron]

I remember doing a bit of whinging on here before about various census returns, and Rod said, "There's more to genealogy than the census, you know!"

Pooh, he wasn't kidding, was he?

[Julie Tyrell]

For me at the moment the 1921 census is the only hope of tracing my nan's parents, all other methods have been exhausted, I suppose I could try a clairvoyant!!

[Ken Boyce]

For me at the moment the 1921 census is the only hope of tracing my nan's parents, all other methods have been exhausted, I suppose I could try a clairvoyant!!

Funny because last year I bought into 1837 online and for approx 45ukp and over 4-5 days located the B&M's of many of my post 1901 relatives by browsing thro the surnames Many of the post 1901 pre 1968 Deaths I got from the free Ancestry site. I really don't see why everything should stop at 1901 or the latest batch on FreeBMD

PS one of my relies was a rumoured notorious 1940/50’s London clairvoyant and yes I found her marriage thus her married name hence confirmed her notoriety

Regards

[Clive Blackaby]

According to GenUKI:-

2 April 1911 100 year closure - will be opened 1st January 2012
19 June 1921 100 year closure
26 April 1931 Destroyed during WW2
29 September 1939 WW2 National Registration - 100 year closure
8 April 1951 100 year closure

[Julie Tyrell]

I have also sucessfully obtained birth, marriage and death certificates using a range of resources to trace my nan's family. Though each document raised hopes of knocking down a small bit of the wall, none did (see my previous thread on the HOWSE family), just created more frustration.

If I could establish who was actually living (and their ages) in 17 York Street, Ramsgate in 1921 (a long time to wait I know) then it 'may' just may be the one clue I need.

Julie

[Julie Tyrell]

Clive, thank you on the Census release situation,

Julie

[Geo.]

On 11 May 06 The National Archives said here;
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/stories/110.htm?homelink=news (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/news/stories/110.htm?homelink=news)

that "The 1911 census is a huge document – more than 12 times the size of the 1901 census, with 35,000 volumes containing the details of our 35 million ancestors and occupying some 2 kilometres of shelving. They are in good condition and suitable for scanning, with less than 5 per cent requiring more extensive conservation work to be scanned safely. In addition there are also 38,000 volumes of enumerators´ summary books that are in excellent condition. These are likely to be included in the online project as they contain useful and unique information that supports the census information. However, they do not provide the level of personal details that can be found in the actual census schedules."

They also say it will be released on-line at the beginning of 2012.

TNA appear to directly contradict most of what Rod said at the beginning of this thread. So, was Rod given misleading info. or are TNA lying to us?

Rod, is it possible to re-check your source to verify whether that earlier dismal assessment still prevails?

Interesting that they say it's 12 times the size of the 1901 that's a huge increase in 10 years. I guess you will have to re-think using DVD's for some places, Rod <g>

Geo.

[drailton]

I have been told a few times recently that the National Archives have categorically denied that there is a problem with the 1911 census and that it is in great condition. I do not have this directly from the National Archives and would be interested to see an actual reference to their response or further information on this topic from Rod.