1871 census help

[limeyrr]

Thanks Rebecca, that helps to fill in some gaps and open some new avenues.

Gerald

[limeyrr]

I've just started searching the St. George Subdistricts, and have come across the images for district 17. There are 66 images that are extremely faint. It is quite possible the family is in here and were not transcribed by Ancestry, as there's lots of blanks on their transcription of this district.

[pippycat]

Gerald

Canadian Passenger Lists:

Charles Simmons 1842
Rhoda 1844
Charles 1864
Harry 1866
Annette 1868

Depart London and arrive Quebec 29 May 1871 on "Niger"
There's no departure date but the passenger summary was dated 11 May 1871 so thats probably near enough.

Considering the 1871 census was taken 2 April and they were going to Canada about 6 weeks later, maybe Charles thought the census not worth bothering with.

That could explain why the family cannot be found in 1871...but it doesn't explain why they are listed on FamilySearch.

Rebecca

[Coromandel]

Considering the 1871 census was taken 2 April and they were going to Canada about 6 weeks later, maybe Charles thought the census not worth bothering with.

That could explain why the family cannot be found in 1871...but it doesn't explain why they are listed on FamilySearch.

Oh, that's a very interesting find, pippycat. I wonder if maybe they appear in the census enumerators' book but have been crossed out: for this to happen they must have been there the first time the enumerator called to deliver the forms, and perhaps he took their details then, or they went away leaving the completed form behind. So the data might be there in Findmypast, but somehow tagged as being struck through, so not visible in the search results.

Having said that, I've no idea how the transcribers deal with deleted entries. I recently saw a page of canal folk on Ancestry whose details had been transcribed even though their names had been crossed out in the census enumerator's book. But there may not be a consistent rule from one transcriber to another or one census year to another.

[malcolm99]

For what it’s worth, there are at least 5 other families who appear on Family Search in St Giles Camberwell as being in the 1871 Census but aren’t. You’ll see I found them just by altering the last letter in the Simmons family FamilySearch URL. The Heads of these families are:

Willm [sic] Higson, M, 29, Walworth, Surrey
https://
familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VRNS-2MT

Edmund Ward, M 34, Bermondsey, Surrey
https://
familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VRNS-2MC

James Halt, M, 27, Camberwell, Surrey
https://
familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VRNS-2MN

John Pilbrow, M, 35, Newington, Surrey
https://
familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VRNS-2ML

Walter Barber, M, 32, Beccles Suffolk
https://
familysearch.org/pal:/MM9.1.1/VRNS-2MJ


It’s interesting that in the case of Edmund Ward and Walter Barber, people other than the immediate family are ‘enumerated’. It’s hard to believe that this information could come from anywhere but an enumerator’s book.

[Coromandel]

For what it’s worth, there are at least 5 other families who appear on Family Search in St Giles Camberwell as being in the 1871 Census but aren’t. You’ll see I found them just by altering the last letter in the Simmons family FamilySearch URL.

Coo, that's clever, Malcolm! I hadn't thought of trying that.

With neighbours going AWOL too, my theory about one household being struck through in the census enumerator's book
bites the dust. Back to square 1.

[pippycat]

I read on Familysearch the 1871 census is only 55% complete - also a lot of district numbers seem to be missing from Ancestry for Camberwell St George/St Giles.

Would it be worth Gerald emailing the FamilySearch "Research Assistance" to ask where they got the 1871 census info from? - seeing as they are the only ones to have it!!

Rebecca

[malcolm99]

That seems a jolly good idea - before we all go bananas!

[pippycat]

Already too late for some of us Malcolm