|
I was just explaining to someone about the insanity in the 1891 English census, so I'll just copy that here.
What I really want to present, for a hoot, is not as relevant for most people, but funnier. So hold on and I'll post that next.
In various censuses kind of randomly, but absolutely religiously in 1891, Ancestry ignored all the personal details of women entered as "wife" whose husbands were not at home on census night.
Ancestry ignored their (and their children's) clear surname, the fact that they were separated from the previous household by a single or double line, the fact that they were on a different household schedule, and the fact that they were (usually) at a different address.
Ancestry assigned the woman to the nearest preceding male head of household, and gave her (and her children) that man's surname, and identified her as his wife (and her children as his children).
Think of port towns especially, when men were at sea, and imagine the mess this created.
My great-aunt's husband was a child in Southampton. His father was made a trigamist by this process.
My great-grandparents were in Wiltshire. He was assigned a spare wife and two kids to go with the wife he already had.
I had the good fortune in both cases that the real male head of household was the one I was looking for, not the pseudo-wives and children.
Oh, and lest we forget, another of my great-grandfathers was off visiting a married child in London, and his wife in Kent (recorded as "wife" because the real HOH, the man, of course, was not at home) was married off by Ancestry to the neighbour woman.
When I see this in the 1891 census, I always try to correct all the women and children on the page I am looking at. But the thousands and thousands this has been done to are beyond my capacity!
And yes, this has been pointed out to Ancestry, which doesn't give a darn.
In 1891, if you can't find someone, it is always a good idea to look for them by first name, location, date and place of birth, and parents' (especially mother's) name, if a child.
(As it generally is anyway, given Ancestry's sometimes weird and wonderful transcriptions of surnames.)
|
|
So this is the funny one.
In the 1911 Canadian census, the situation is far worse, as I recently discovered when doing a search for someone here who didn't have worldwide access.
Here we have ... the best I can make of the surname is that it is actually Dauber. And of course Ross, not Rosa. (Most of the census is semi-legible, granted.) His parents are the last people on the previous page, and he is the first on this page.
Name: Rosa Bonker
Marital Status: Single
Age: 8
Birth Date: Mar 1903
Birth Place: Ontario
Relation to Head of House: Son
Race or Tribe: English
And then comes the list of his spouses.
Reta Webb
[Alich Campion]
[Augusta Douglass]
[Jane Thompson]
[Annie Jackson]
[Rose Newrad]
[Rasbel Day]
[Ellen Danker]
[Sarah Agnes]
[Lillia Stapler]
[Matha Strathy]
[Mary David]
[Sarah McCock]
Okay, I am not making this up! He is married to every woman on the page identified in the relationship column as "wife" -- of her own husband, obviously.
So his spouse Sarah McCock is, of course, really Sarah Molock. That one is very clear on the page -- she is the 50th and last name.
Name: Sarah McCock
Gender: Female
Marital Status: Married
Age: 69
Birth Date: Aug 1841
Birth Place: Ontario
Relation to Head of House: Wife
Spouse's Name: Rosa Bonker
Race or Tribe: Negro (Black)
Her marital status actually says "W" for widowed, anyway, and her relationship to the HOH is "aunt".
Not making it up! Rosa Bonker, white boy aged 8, is married to Sarah McCock, black woman aged 69.
:-D :-D :-D
|
|
Joonie I have often come across two women down as husband and wife on census whilst looking on Ancestry. Your post now explains this for me.
Thank you Mel
|
|
Very frustrating for people involved, but not being personally affected, I think it's hilarious! :-D :-D :-D :-D
|
|
Well, Rosa Bonker & Sarah McCock certainly are entertaining. :-D
And yes, Mel, I was fortunate to have a trigamist, a bigamist, and a married lesbian in my very own tree!
|
