1851 census Oxenbury

[michaelpipe]

Does anyone know if chunks of 1851 Dorset census are missing?

I am looking for an OXENBURY family in 1851. They are present (in 1861 in Symondsbury, later back in Chideock) but can I find them in 1851? No!!

Lawrence Oxenbury b 1817 in Chideock, Dorset
Mary A Oxenbury b abt 1824 in Chideock, Dorset
(ages vary in different census)


In 1851 they would have 2 children Ann b 1844 and Emily Jane b 1848, both born in Chideock.



Michael

[Jan1954]

Does anyone know if chunks of 1851 Dorset census are missing?
According to A******y, the following are missing from Dorset:

Bagbere
Bellchalwell
Child Okeford
Fifehead-Neville
Hammoon
Haselbury-Bryan
Hinton St Mary
IbbertonManston
Newton
Okeford-Fitzpaine
Shillingstone or Shilling-Okeford
Stoke-Wake
Sturminster-Newton-Castle
Woolland

Piece: 1852

[Mutley]

I entered Chideock and then Bridport (nearby) for 1851 into the National Archives Catalogue and nothing came up. I am not sure if that means they are not there.

I put in Dorset and these references showed.

HO107/1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860 and 1861.

but they are not giving me the parish that they refer to.

I put in Symondsbury and HO107/1861 Registration District 278 Bridport Registration Sub-District 3 Whitchurch Canonicorum ff.424-End Parish: Symondsbury. Presumably that means that one is available.

I am not sure what I am trying to do here Michael, I'll have a re-think on my theory and come back to you. :confused:

[michaelpipe]

Thanks, Jan, but all those parishes are around Sturminster which is some 35 - 40 miles away. No record of any Oxenburys in that area at any time - they weren't great travellers.

Michael

[michaelpipe]

I entered Chideock and then Bridport (nearby) for 1851 into the National Archives Catalogue and nothing came up. I am not sure if that means they are not there.

I put in Dorset and these references showed.

HO107/1851, 1853, 1854, 1855, 1856, 1857, 1858, 1859, 1860 and 1861.

but they are not giving me the parish that they refer to.

I put in Symondsbury and HO107/1861 Registration District 278 Bridport Registration Sub-District 3 Whitchurch Canonicorum ff.424-End Parish: Symondsbury. Presumably that means that one is available.

I am not sure what I am trying to do here Michael, I'll have a re-think on my theory and come back to you. :confused:

In the 1851 census I have other families in Symondsbury, so I surmise that they are not there. However if one searches in A*****y without putting in any name, but only residence as Chid*, then nothing. In fact the only way to find anything for Chideock is to search without names, but only enter birth county as Dorset and parish as Chid*, then one gets a list of all those born in Chideock and living elsewhere, but not anyone living in Chideock.

So it appears that Chideock itself has been missed out.

What do you think?

Michael

[Geoffers]

I entered Chideock and then Bridport (nearby) for 1851 into the National Archives Catalogue and nothing came up. I am not sure if that means they are not there.


Odd - I tried looking for Chid*, 1851-1851, HO107 and came up with this
hit (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=-1550207&CATLN=7&Highlight=%2CCHIDEOCK&accessmethod=0)...............

[Geoffers]

...........and then searched for Bridport and found these hits (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/searchresults.asp?fldResultMarker=1&fldSearchNumber=152114&SearchInit=1)

Any use??

[Mutley]

You are right Michael, though I can find many born in Chideock I cannot find anyone living there.

I searched with the above HO107/piece numbers for just those born in Chideock and found several living elsewhere but nothing like yours. I then tried under Emily, in case mum and dad were away somewhere but nada!

If you search in A* on 1851 census then wind down to Dorset, it list the parishes but Chideock and Symondsbury are not among them.

[Mutley]

Odd - I tried looking for Chid*, 1851-1851, HO107 and came up with this
hit (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/displaycataloguedetails.asp?CATID=-1550207&CATLN=7&Highlight=%2CCHIDEOCK&accessmethod=0)...............

Geoffers, I did not think to use a wild card but the above link you have given just takes me to the TNA front page and your next link (next post) gives me
http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/images/icons/formerror.gifSpecified InstanceReference BOSearch~152114 does not exist Please try again.

:confused:

EDIT UPDATE: The first link is now working and says:
HO 107/1861 Scope and content Registration District: 278. BRIDPORT Registration Sub-District: 3 Whitchurch Canonicorum ff.424-End Parish: Chideock
Covering dates 1851

So does that mean it is available somewhere?

[michaelpipe]

I just had a look at the census on Genes Reunited, and a search comes up with two Lawrence Oxenburys in Chideock, with correct ages for father and son - exactly the families that I am missing. However I don't have any credits on that site, but at least it shows that the census records exist, but the good people at A****y were out to lunch that day!

Thanks for all your searching.
Michael

[Geoffers]

Geoffers, I did not think to use a wild card but the above link you have given just takes me to the TNA front page and your next link (next post) gives me
.......EDIT UPDATE: The first link is now working and says:

Both the links still work for me. But if in doubt, using TNA's catalogue (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)enter

Word or phrase - Chideock
Year range - 1851 to 1851
Department of series code - HO107


Try the same for Bridport

Both work and give expected results, so these census returns should be available.

[Mutley]

Both the links still work for me. But if in doubt, using TNA's catalogue (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/catalogue/search.asp)enter

Word or phrase - Chideock
Year range - 1851 to 1851
Department of series code - HO107


Try the same for Bridport

Both work and give expected results, so these census returns should be available.

And so they did,
Must have had the wrong spelling, I'll copy and paste next time:)

Glad you found them Michael, I've not got GR sub either but someone might....

[Geoffers]

And so they did,
Must have had the wrong spelling, I'll copy and paste next time

I'll put it down to the Algarve wine and too much sun ;)

...........or should that be the other way around?????????

[michaelpipe]

I reported this missing area (Dorset 1851, Chideock & Symondsbury) to A******y and already received a reply saying that they were not aware of the gap, and will take steps to include these parishes as soon as possible - whatever that means!

Michael

[Mutley]

I'll put it down to the Algarve wine and too much sun ;)

...........or should that be the other way around?????????


Either way sounds good to me!
http://i235.photobucket.com/albums/ee193/nicdueree/wine-1.gif

[Dorset Girl]

Michael,
Your Oxenburys are in Chideock in 1851 in the Index of Dorset Census
Oxenbury Lawrence 30 Y1821 Farmers son Chideock Dorset England Chideock Piece 1861 Folio 474

Oxenbury Mary Ann 31 Y1820 Chideock Dorset England Chideock Piece 1861 Folio 474

Ann and Emily are there as well, Ann is shown as aged 7 and Emily aged 3, both noted as scholars.

There is also another Lawrence Oxenbury, aged 58, b 1793, a farmer, also b Chideock.

Don't know if this helps but I count at least 24 Oxenburys b in Chideock in the 1851 census and a lot more in Dorset itself!!!
Marion

[michaelpipe]

Hi Marion, all these Oxenburys are related and I have them mostly in a one name study - however I am missing a lot of data for 1851 as I only have access to that census through A******y.
Lawrence was one example, the other Lawrence is his father.

I thought at first that the parish was missing altogether from the census, but it turns out that it is only missing from A*****y, so I will have to subscribe elsewhere to get this info.

Thanks for the details that you gave.

Michael

[Dorset Girl]

Michael,
Have pm'd you with some details - they may be of help.
Marion

[michaelpipe]

Thanks Marion, that's great.

Looks as if they are all there, much appreciated.

Michael