Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11
  1. #1
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hampshire. Near Basingstoke
    Posts
    653

    Default Lying about county of birth on 1841 census?

    I have ancestors, husband and wife, who appear on the England & Wales 1841 census in the town of Uppingham, in the county of Rutland. I have good evidence that he was born in Northamptonshire and she in Leicestershire. They had 3 children by 1841, all born in Leicester.

    Against the census question "Whether born in same county" both parents had answered "Yes" but "No" for the children. Assuming that these were the answers they gave to the enumerator I wonder why they lied about where they came from but were truthful about their children.

    By way of background the husband was working as a sawyer and an older brother was also doing the same thing and living a few doors away so it seems likely that they were working together.They must have moved there from Leicester quite recently because their youngest son was born in Leicester and he was only 1.

    Could it have been something to do with Poor Law legislation and if not are there other likely reasons to lie to officialdom?
    "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.” Edmund Burke

  2. #2

    Default

    I wondered if it had anything to do with the Registration District of Uppingham embracing Rutland, Rutland & Leicestershire, Leicestershire and Northamptonshire in 1841
    https://ukbmd.org.uk/reg/districts/uppingham.html
    But these parishes do not extend to the PoB of the 2 brothers or the younger brother's wife.

    Interesting to note the elder brother declared he was not born in County. No doubt, living so close to each other and, possibly, working together, the Census would have been discussed at some point. It is odd.
    "dyfal donc a dyr y garreg"

  3. #3
    Knowledgeable and helpful stepives's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Ireland, but born Buckinghamshire.
    Posts
    684

    Default

    There is also a possibility that the information was given by someone else, who never knew where the whole family were from.

    Steve.
    Too many bones, too much sorrow, but until I am dead, there's always tomorrow.

  4. #4
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hampshire. Near Basingstoke
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Thank you both for your thoughts. I didn't know how many non-Rutland places were included in the Uppingham census district at the time or indeed that the information was available on UKBMD so I've learnt something new. As said, these "outside" places don't include the actual places that the parents were born in so it's still something of a mystery.

    I suppose that it is possible that someone else gave the information but given that there were three young children I would have thought that the family was at home on census day. Also the fact that the three children were correctly attributed might rule that out.

    My only idea was that having recently arrived in Uppingham the parents were trying to establish some kind of right to future poor relief by lying about their birthplaces. However, my sketchy knowledge of that side of things suggests that such relief was related to individual villages or towns and that census areas had no relevance to this kind of relief. The idea was prompted by knowledge that the father had serious heart problems, later dying in his 40s so he may not have been able to hold jobs down for long ( for which I have some evidence) and he may have guessed that poor relief might be necessary at some stage.
    "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.” Edmund Burke

  5. #5
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Wakefield, West Yorkshire
    Posts
    626

    Default

    It is very possible the return was not completed by the time the enumerator came back to collect the schedule. If that was the case he would fill in a schedule on the answers given by whoever was at home. If the husband was at work and the wife at home she possibly knew where her children had been born but did not know where her husband or even herself had been born (such facts were not in the mind in those days as they are today).
    Cheers
    Guy
    As we have gained from the past, we owe the future a debt, which we pay by sharing today.

  6. #6
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    There's also the possibility that they answered truthfully and correctly, but the enumerator transferred the data incorrectly. Remember that apart from 1911, what we see is not the original as completed by (or for) the householder, its what was copied from those - and errors will inevitably have been made.

    They would not obtain any right to poor relief, or anything else, from anything declared on the census.

  7. #7
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hampshire. Near Basingstoke
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Thanks Guy and Jomot1

    It is certainly the case that the family was shy of officialdom. Their first son was not baptised as far as I can tell (b.1832) and the births of their next two children, both born after 1837, were not registered. I know that the parents were both illiterate (from the wedding record) so they could not have completed a census form without help. Both parents did know where they were born however because they got it right in 1851 by which time they had moved back to Leicester.

    I agree that it could easily be errors made by the enumerator and I wasn't suggesting that poor relief was enabled by a census return, rather that potentially having started to concoct a story that they were locally born they would not be likely to admit otherwise to anyone official.

    I'm probably looking for something complicated that simply wasn't there and the answer is simply a mistake, probably by the enumerator.
    "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.” Edmund Burke

  8. #8
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    England
    Posts
    1,440

    Default

    Is it Charles & Elizabeth Vines nee Deacon?

    If so then I think Henry was baptised 3 Apr 1833 at St George, Leicester as Henry VINE, but with the parents wrongly recorded as Charles & Mary.

    Mary Ann I think was registered as Sarah Ann VINE:
    VINE, SARAH ANN mmn O DEACON GRO Reference: 1838 J Quarter in LEICESTER UNION Volume 15 Page 128

    And Joseph also as VINE
    VINE, JOSEPH mmn DEACON GRO Reference: 1840 M Quarter in LEICESTER UNION Volume 15 Page 140

    Sophia was then registered in Uppingham 1842 as VINES mmn Deacon

    EDIT: But I'm confused... the marriage was as Elizabeth Coton, witnessed by Ann Deacon, with William & Ann Deacon & son James with them in 1841. Sounds like a very confusing family!

  9. #9
    Knowledgeable and helpful
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Hampshire. Near Basingstoke
    Posts
    653

    Default

    Yes. All these years and I've never found the second two. I had found the 1833 baptism of Henry Vine and wondered if the priest had registered the mother's name incorrectly but wasn't sure whether he was the right one. But now that you've spotted the other two it all adds up to the correct family. Thank you so much.

    The father Charles was baptised as Vines in Collyweston Northants where he was born and his siblings were all baptised as Vines. Charles was illiterate but when he married Elizabeth Deacon he called himself Vines. A bit weird therefore to forget the s after his children were born. Interestingly the oldest son Henry was taken to court for theft as Henry Vine when just 12 but he later married as Henry Vines! Pretty mixed up family!

    cheers
    Tony
    "People will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors.” Edmund Burke

  10. #10
    Starting to feel at home
    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    82

    Default

    Weren’t there also charges for out of parish marriages etc? It was to do with the a poor Law, I think. They commonly fudged the truth there and maybe gave the same info for consistency?

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: