Missing bits of censuses

[Peter Goodey]

There have been one or two posts recently which touched on the problem of bits of censuses being missing.

For those who didn't know about it, the National Archives catalogue can help to identify many missing chunks.

The general method is -

1. On TNA search page, enter 'missing OR wanting' as the search term. Enter the year as the year range (eg 1871 to 1871). Enter the appropriate series code (eg 'RG 10'). Search.

2. Because TNA cataloguing isn't consistent, the search now has to be repeated by calling up the Advanced Search tab. Tick all the catalogue levels and enter the series code (eg 'RG 10'). Leave everything else unchanged except for the Notes field. Enter 'missing OR wanting'. Search.

This method is not comprehensive - they haven't catalogued everything that missing eg where half an enumeration book has been chewed by a dog.

By the way, 'Wanting' means TNA never received it. 'Missing' means TNA think they received it but can't lay their hands on it just at the moment.

[marymog]

Hi peter,

This is very interesting, I understand all except:- what is TNA page and how does one find it??

I find the NA very difficult to use, as a matter of fact I've never found anything on a search there, but I'm determined to master it.

mm

[Peter Goodey]

This is TNA catalogue search page:


http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp

[marymog]

mm

[busyglen]

Thanks for that Peter...I didn't know about this. I have two pieces that `appear' to be missing one in Kent and one in London, so I will have a bash and see what TNA has to say.

Glenys

[Terry]

You may like to have a look at this web page if the pieces you think are missing are from the census:-

Go to findmypast.co.uk and click on Census, then on Learn About Missing Records (Right hand side)

[busyglen]

I hadn't spotted that Terry, thanks.

Strange it doesn't mention the portion that includes St. George Hanover Sq. that Myth, mentions in another post. That's a piece I'm stuck with too. My other piece is Deal in the 1901....but, I can manage without it.
Glenys

[Julie Tyrell]

Thank Terry

That explains a lot, I didn't know that list existed.

Busyglen, I am after the Deal 1901 one too?? Small world!!

Julie

[ET in the USA]

Thanks for the census news & links. That is why we have forums!
United we stand, divided we just keep treading water

[Mythology]

"Strange it doesn't mention the portion that includes St. George Hanover Sq. that Myth, mentions in another post."

It's not "the portion that *includes* St George Hanover Sq", it is the Belgravia (as I call it, it's actually "Belgrave" according to the street index) sub-district *of* St George Hanover Square.

1837online have probably missed it in their 1861 list because this sub-district is not mentioned in the National Archives Catalogue in the first place.
If you stick "Hanover Square" and "RG9" into the search facility, it comes up with listings for RG9/40 to 43 (sub-district 1), and RG9/44 to 46 (sub-district 2), but does not mention sub-district 3, the Belgravia/Belgrave chunk.
The intro to the street index lists it (with an asterisk against it and "* This sub-district is Wanting") but not the catalogue.

Edit:
And I see from the street index that my estimated roughly 45,000 missing people, which I based on a 10% increase on the 1851 figure of just over 40,000 plus a bit for luck, is way too low.
I hadn't noticed it before, but the street index gives the missing population figure - 55,113.