Genealogy Chat

Thanks mgnv - lovely shot of the station

Reggie - well, I did give a simple answer - very tongue in cheek of you there, eh.

I don't assume others haven't gone into things in the same detail as me.
Indeed, anyone who looks at the details of the 1891 Kent coverage at
http://www.freecen.org.uk/statistics.html
would easily infer much of what I have posted.
It's more accurate to say I assume there are some others who haven't gone into things in the same detail, and it's for them I'm giving the detail.


Maureen - Barham's 15km from Dover, almost on the Dover-Canterbury road.
You must be confusing Kent with NH - there Durham NH is abt 15km from Dover NH.
I've never been to Durham NH - it was too far off the hwy - but I did go to Dover NH abt 30y ago, but I only stopped there for gas. I was driving from Albany NY to Portsmouth NH via Concord NH in a gas-guzzling Chevy Impala wagon - 454 cu in V8 engine (7.5 litres) - it got abt 10m to the US gallon. It was July, and was pleasant going thru the New England towns, but the nicest bit was going up the Maine coast - instead of roadside fruit stands, they had sort of roadside hot-dog stands, except they didn't sell hot dogs, but sold crab dogs and lobster dogs at just 2-3 times the price of a hot dog.

Ian - FYI: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/3396983
(abt 4km NE of Barham)

You are right, of course mgnv, about the 1881, (I might have known you'd pull me up about it) but why can't you - just once in a while - give a simple answer.

I know that you mean well, but ...................

And you shouldn't assume that others haven't already gone into things in the same depth as you..............it smacks - just a touch - of condescension

Malcolm.....
Now to answer the $705 question...terminological

With a big smile and laugh.

Maureen ;-)
And the Reg District
Are we in Durham?
Tsk...I should not even be here.

jax - whilst I normally find omitting the "rubbish" bits is poor practice, here it was understandable as we weren't really after tracing the family, just one semi-known missing census page. However, here I did need to use those "rubbish" bits - I was only referring to your census postings as a convenient way of placing the bits I added, rather than having me repost your censuses with my bits added.

As for not understanding my post - well I know my posts are geeky, and they often take several rereadings to follow - hopefully this is more use to Ian, who I imagine is more motivated than you in learning a new techniques, seeing as you're quite capable of getting stuff out of your current techniques.

PS sorry abt the his/her typo - I've fixed it now.

Sorry mgnv that I omitted the folio bits of rubbish off the census's but I can honestly say I don't understand one bit of what you have just posted

But it only took me 10 minutes to find the missing census

Re: "All transcriptions are done by people working for either FMP - or Ancestry"
Reggie's not quite correct there. The 1881 transcription that Ancestry use was originally done by volunteers thru FS - similarly the 1881 Canadian and 1880 US.
FS have now replaced their 1881 UK transcription by FMP's; I haven't checked who did FS's current 1881 Scotland transcription.

However, Reggie's key point is that the GR and FMP transcriptions are identical.
The most damaging mistranscription is of names.
(Yes - I know it's a bit of a bummer if half your Rosehearty rellies turn out to be born in Roseheartie.)
However, how names are transcribed is often recoverable with free searches.

Here's the 1891 info jax omitted:
Registration District:BRIDGE
Registration Sub-District 2 Barham
Archive Reference:RG12 Piece Number:705 Folio:89 Page:1

Now it's not unreasonable to make a first guess that they're still in the same area in 1891.
For FMP area will mean Bridge RD - for Ancestry, area will mean Barham subdistrict.

Here's a free advanced person search in the 1891 census at FMP:
Person search
1891 census
Search criteria used:
First name(s): cyril
Year of Birth: 1881, plus or minus 2 years
Registration district: Bridge
Searching within: Households, Institutions, Vessels

Results:Your search has returned 1 result.
Type Name Birth Year Age Sex Registration District/Parish County
Household RAY, Cyril 1881 10 M Bridge Kent



Here's a free advanced search in the 1891 census at Ancestry:
Search criteria used:
First name(s): cyril
Piece #: 705
Hits:
Name Parent or spouse names Birth Year Birthplace Relation Residence
Cyril Ray name abt 1881 city, Kent, England relation city, Kent
Cyril W Sidders name,name abt 1886 city, Kent, England relation city, Kent

Now I don't see full details - at least, not for free - but it does suggest to me I should check out Cyril Ray on GR.


Now the search screens are difft - FMP lets me name another person in the h/h
Ancestry only lets me name the spouse or parent(s) (or any combination of these up to 3 relations).

Ancestry lets me use bits of the census ref mixed in with the nominal search (the 705 above).
FMP has a "census reference search" link in the lower right, but that only lets me input the entire ref (excl 1911), and lists all the names on that page in the census order.
This can be useful on the boards if someone's posted an Ancestry ref, and FMP has a difft transcription of the name(s).


The final point is how do I know I want piece # 705?

Well, a bit of background first.
Suppose I have a birth in Farnborough in the NE corner of Hampshire RD.
I don't need to drive the 60km to the head office in Winchester, I can just go 5km to my local subdistrict office in Aldershot.
So all RDs are divided into one or more subdistricts where I can rego a B or D.
Each subdistrict has a registrar plus maybe an assistant registrar, and the whole district is bossed by a superintendent registrar.
Come census time, the enumerators are hired, and each is assigned an ED (Enumeration District). They're supervized at the subdistrict level.
Each subdistrict is assigned one or more piece #s, and a group of contiguous EDs is assigned to that piece #.
This was the census structure in place 1851-1901.

The 1841 census is structurally quite chaotic - there was a structure, but it's still best described as chaotic.
In 1911, the structure's really the same as 1901, but there's a terminological change - now each normal residential type ED is assigned its own piece #, and only institutions of various sorts get their EDs clumped into one piece #.


Now to answer the $705 question:
An advanced search at:
http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/
for Barham in Dept code=rg12 (the 1891 census code) gets me 3 hits
1) rg12/1236 is Barham in Registration District 168.HUNTINGDON
2) rg12/1462 is Barham in Suffolk (Registration District 211.BOSMERE)
3) rg12/705 is Barham in Kent. This is both a "Civil Parish, Township or Place" and a "Registration Sub-District" in Registration District 56.BRIDGE

I can also do a basic search for rg12/705 etc. Here's the (numerically adjacent) piece # assignments to the subdistricts of various RDs:

1891 EAST ASHFORD RD
1 Brabourne 701-702
2 Wye 703

1891 BRIDGE RD
1 Chartham 704
2 Barham 705

1891 CANTERBURY RD
1 Canterbury 706-708

NB A search of rg12/705 with page#=4 at Ancestry with no other details specified gets 405 hits which, at 31 lines per page, probably corresponds to 13-14 p4's in the piece, i.e., 13-14 EDs.

Just a quick note re Cyril 'Hay' in Wandsworth - he is 'mine' - he is Cyril Lionel 'Kay'.
I have him in 1911 in the RAMC at Devonport. He is not a 'direct' - that is George's eldest son George Frederick, b1878, who signed up in 1900 to fight the Boers in SA and settled there after the war.
I'm still amazed I didn't pick up the 'Ray' in 1891. I have George's entire history, and his fathers - but was just missing the 1891 cen.
Given the great help you all have been, I might just post another query re Sarah Elizabeth Blott, George's wife from 1877 who died young in 1884 at Adisham, after giving birth to their dau Lilian Maria.
I'll think about how to frame the query but it relates to her pre-1877 situation which has me baffled. I'll come back on this one in the next few days.
Ian A-K

When I joined GR as a paying member in 2010 there was no way of searching for mistranscribed names in the census by using wildcard or first name only...so they lost my business pretty quickly

My maiden name (so one of the main names in my tree) 7 letters only 3 were correct (the last 2 and one in the middle)....there was no way of guessing how this was spelt, so had to go elsewhere to find them

Many thanks to all those who have posted such helpful replies.

I had ticked the 'Surname variations ' box and got other surnames but 'Ray' didn't come up.

Anyway - you live and learn - or rather I do !

I take back any criticism of GR - I have been using them for many years very satisfactorily.

Many thanks again to all those who have responded

I A-K

The same transcription as FMP is shown on GR.

Search for Cyril ?ay (variations ticked) for surname.
Birth 1881 +/- 2.
Optional Key works - Kent

Cyril Ray is the first listed result out of 6

Preview -
CYRIL RAY
1891 England, Wales & Scotland Census
Collections from Great Britain
Country ENGLAND
County Kent
Year 1891
Birth Year 1881
Age 10
Registration District BRIDGE

Out of interest, on the 1901 a Cyril born Adisham, is transcribed as HAY and a Baker in Wandsworth

GR's records are only taken from another site (FMP)

GR do no work on them - they merely post them on here for you to pay for

All transcriptions are done by people working for either FMP - or Ancestry.

And you must be a little more tolerant - look at some of the images and decide whether or not you would be able to transcribe all of them accurately.................some of them are virtually indecipherable

Be flexible in your approach to searching..............most people couldn't spell their names in those days, and the enumerator had to record what he heard.

Here's the interesting bits jax left off her 1881:

Registration District: Bridge
Sub-registration District: Barham
Piece: 956 Folio: 21 Page Number: 19

The image shows C.L. is 8 months old.

A search at http://www.freebmd.org.uk/ for a Kay birth in 1880 Bridge RD gets just:

Births Sep 1880 (>99%)
KAY Pyril Lional Bridge 2a 764

Freebmd's transcription is accurate - clearly the GRO indexer or the Bridge RD copyist made an error, as it's obvious Pyril s.b. Cyril.

I searched this site for Ethel (left surname blank) d.o.b 1883 +/- 2 Keyword Adisham

As George's age varied it was easier to search for a child and as I didn't know what the older childrens names were or the name of his wife, it looked like the best bet

Try this

Household transcription
1891 census

Printer friendly version Report transcription change Search criteria used
Person: RAY, George
Address: Station Road, Adisham, Canterbury

RAY, George Head Married M 42 1849 Railway Station Master
Faversham, Kent VIEW
RAY, George Fredk Son M 12 1879 Scholar
Sandon, Surrey VIEW
RAY, Cyril Son M 10 1881 Scholar
Adisham, Kent VIEW
RAY, Ethel Daughter F 7 1884 Scholar
Adisham, Kent VIEW
JULL, Phoebe Servant Single F 16 1875 Domestic Servant
Hythe, Kent VIEW


This was taken from Find my past but Ancestry also says Ray

I see you have been a member since 2002...are you saying this is the 1st time you have come across a mistranscribed census?

So this is them in 1881

Household transcription
1881 census

Printer friendly version Report transcription change Search criteria used
Person: KAY, George
Address: Adisham Station, Adisham

KAY, George Head Married M 29 1852 Railway Station Master
Faversham, Kent VIEW
KAY, E S Wife Married F 23 1858 Station Masters Wife
Goldington, Bedfordshire VIEW
KAY, G F Son Single M 2 1879
Southwark, Surrey VIEW
KAY, C L Son Single M 0 1881
Adisham, Kent VIEW

Welcome to the boards Ian

GR probably has them but they may be mistranscribed

I have been scouring 1891 census records for an ancestor George Kay and family. George was the stationmaster at Adisham, Kent. He is there in the 1881 census and the 1901 census (albeit moved to Penge by then) but there is no trace of him or his family members anywhere in the UK in the 1891 census.
Until, that is, I stumbled across an 1891census transcription for Adisham posted by one Mike Doyle on the Kent Archealogy website. There they are - the whole Kay family at Adisham station !

This has severely dented my faith in GR's census records.

I would like to understand how GR (and the other major genealogy firms) don't have this family in their 1891 census records. Can anyone explain ??

Ian Kemp