Genealogy Chat

Must be, and over the road is the parish of St Glen Under The Table! Merry

Is that in the Chest of Drawers? LOL! Allie x

I haven't bothered counting up the numbers for this, but about 300 or so people who live in the civil parish of St Andrew by the Wardrobe are indexed as living in the civil parish of St Benet, St Peter and St Paul, which is actually ''nextdoor''! Merry

nudge for my records... thanks merry

Thanks for those Merry! I haven't seen such a funny thread for ages! Allie x

I'm beginning to wonder if they have any of it right, Ozi-female-bird! Merry

Even heard of Ciucolus Seur??? Me neither! It's Lincolns Inn!! Merry

LOLOLOLOLOL!!!!! St Mary Bolington???? Ever heard of it??? No neither have I - these 1,394 are actually living in St Mary Islington!!!!!! Merry

Anyone know why this would be?? There are 595 people recorded in 1881 as living in the Civil Parish of St Martin Orgur. As I had never heard of it (and nor, it seems, has Genuki) I thought I'd take a look.................. That's odd......all the pages I viewed (just a few at random) showed the civil parish to be St Dionis Backchurch, which I have heard of! Wos goin' on???? Merry

OC - my rellies were listed on the LDS version with just their names (no age, occupation or place of birth etc) and surprisingly for a very rich couple, they appeared to be living in their gardener's cottage along with the gardener his wife and children and a bunch of other adults. When I eventually saw the page, I found they were recorded in the following household to the gardener, at the ''big house''. They had no servants with them (surprising), but when I looked at the occupation column I found it said, ''Travelling Europe'' lol.....so they shouldn't have been recorded at all and the mystery adults living with the gardener were the servants from the Big House!!! Merry

Next statistic for 1881 County of London: There are 3,842,710 individuals recorded Of these roughly 35,000 people have no name transcribed at all (some, but nowhere near all, are illegible pages or those where one folio has partly covered the following one(s) when being filmed). Another 900+ have first name but no surname. Merry

Although this is a bit off-thread, it is relevant to Merry's findings in a way! ALWAYS look at the image for the 1881 - do NOT trust the transcriptions. I found a distant branch of my family on LDS 1881. Head was a Gentleman Farmer and I knew from other research that he was a local big wig. At home with him in 1881, were his wife, a Gentleman Farmer's wife (LOL) and ten adult, unmarried children. They had rather curious jobs I thought - the oldest male, described as brother to the Head (but 45 years younger) was a ladies milliner. One of the daughters was a Farmer. Another a washerwoman, another a charwoman, another a pauper. I thought this very odd and attempted to find their baptisms - nothing. Eventually it niggled me so much that I asked on here for a copy of the image. Ha! The brother (the hat maker) was described as 'OTHER - kinsman' not brother, in the relationship column. All the following entries had 'do' (for ditto) and the stupid transcriber thought this was short for daughter! All the occupations had slipped down a line and two even had different surnames to the head of the family! The penny dropped - he was the local Overseer for the Poor and had taken in various of his kinsmen, giving them a roof over their heads and sending them out to work. He had only one child of his own and that was the daughter described as a Farmer. OC

There are a lot of gender mistranscriptions as well. Just try searching for Sarah and Male, or see how many people there are with Father's Given Name as Sarah! Considering that the image has the age in different columns for different genders it is hardly a problem with reading the handwriting!

Kate.....I agree, so do I, but just thought I would point out what gross errors there are! I can accept the transcriptions of birth places being mis-spelled, but to mistranscribe the Civil Parish name for the whole enumeration district (and in the case of HaRmmersmith, many times over) is a disgrace!!! Val.......don't worry......you replied to my original post which was in the first box.....when I remembered it wasn't formatted, I shifted it down, by which time you have already posted!!! lol Merry

I usually put in only the first 3 letters of the name of the civil parish, followed by an asterisk, and that will allow for any spelling mistakes except in the first 3 letters. I usually do the same for the county name as well, as I don't really trust ancestry to get that right either. Kate.

how did that happen Merry how spooky,

lol Grampa! That was a typo!! I'm leaving it! Paul.....I take it you mean the workhouse at HaRmmersmith, not Hammersmith?!!I Also there is a ship in Postsmouth dock (from memory) with lots and lots of men on it, who are all also listed at their homes too!! Merry

One of my ancestor's brothers is in the workhouse in Hammersmith in 1881 and also listed at home in Hammersmith. On the same census sheet another nonexistent brother is listed and all the children of the family have the birthplace of the Minories in the East End, even though I know they were all born in Ireland. I don't know what was going on in Hammersmith but I suspect the enumerators met up in the Greyhound before going to knock on doors.

InTUTUtions? Are there any ballet dancers in there? Lol

In 1881 there is a county called Miscellaneous. This contains 1,245 peoples records. There are Vessels where the ship name wasn't filled in, or that page is missing/illegible and also many pages from numerous Workhouses and other intututions around the country where the name of the institution has gone missing! Merry