Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ

Family TreesΒ  permalink

Omission on the 1901 Census

• Message 1.Β 

  Posted by TwoBitTwoBit (U1573417) on Friday, 23rd September 2005

  I have just traced a relative to the 1901 census. His name is George H Ball, a house painter living at 31 Bridge Street in Barnsley.
  
  One person in the household - Constance M Ball, aged 1 - is listed but the enumerator has omitted to enter a comment about the relationship of her to the head of the household. I presume it is his daughter.
  
  However, is there usually a reason for such an omission? Or is it simply something that was overlooked or an error?

  Link to this forum: Omission on the 1901 Census

  Report message1

• Message 2

  , in reply to message 1.

  Posted by loftyowl (U1774904) on Friday, 23rd September 2005

  Simply human error. Don't forget that the censuses were conducted during the days when pen and paper were the only means of recording. There were no 'pop up messages' or 'spell checks' which make our computerised lives easier.
  The way I understand things is that the enumerators collected the returns and then completed the manuscripts. If that was the case, this could have meant that enumerators were completing these forms under candlelight, tired and probably cold and hungry. It would be easy to make a mistake, overlook something or forget your train of thought through the monotony of it all. The enumerator, filling out your page, probably made a pit stop at that line, and forgot where he was on returning to complete the page.
  

  Link to this forum: Omission on the 1901 Census

  Report message2

Back to top