Census Transcripts and handwriting

bloodbrotheruk · Post by **bloodbrotheruk** » 11 Apr 2012 23:30

hi
hope i dont sound too much like a 'newbie' - apologies if this is a bit basic...

the problem i am having at the moment is in finding one of my family members on the 1841 census.

i have a John Cole born c1833 in South Luffenham, Rutland. From 1861 census onwards i can see him, with his spouse Fanny Blades, and from this I have discovered via marriage cerificate that his father was also called John.

Using thegenealogist.co.uk the closes i can find is a John CALE. his age ties in with the c1833 date and his father s also called John.

Looking at the actual census image (HO107/0898/F) the surname could indeed be CALE or COLE

my question is, how do other forum members decipher old handwriting, and how much reliance should i place in the transcribed index's?

curiously i cannot find the family as either COLE or CALE in the 1951 census

any advice would be appreciated
Phil

ID:6133

johnmorrisoniom · Post by **johnmorrisoniom** » 12 Apr 2012 00:05

There are quite a few 'Missing' areas in the 1851 census, especially in the Northwest. These were water damaged and have been transcribed by various organisations.

Any transcription is the personal opinion of the peson who did it. Cale and Cole could be very difficult to differentiate, unless you know the family involved.

sdl180 · Post by **sdl180** » 12 Apr 2012 08:29

Hi Phil,

The problem with incorrect transcriptions (in my case on Ancestry) is one that everyone comes across. Some are easy enough to find, one of our family names is BLUCK, whick can sometimes be mis-transcribed as BLACK. Some are not so simple, I have people called INCE mistranscribed as PRICE (because of the fancy I). Some of the transcriptions are even more obscure. Sometimes it is not the transciption that is wrong, but the original record, as some of the people couldn't read or write and the spelling was down to the person doing the census.

I think we are all extremely grateful for the people that do the transcriptions, and I doubt that I would do as well as they do. It is easier to see the mistake if you are looking for an individual than if you are transcribing page after page. The transcribed index is extremely useful, but you have to judge for yourself what the names actually are. I don't know about thegenealogist, but ancestry allows you to add your own alternative names if you see one that you believe is wrong.

For myself, when trying to transcribe handwriting on a census, I look at other writing on the same page, or adjacent pages and look for similar letters where the word is obvious. Once you have been doing it for a while it becomes much easier to decipher.

Best of luck

Steve

Merenwen · Post by **Merenwen** » 12 Apr 2012 10:33

The transcribed index is usefull as a guide. Don't put blind faith in it, as others have said, it's a judgement call on the transcribers part and they are human after all.

It's worth checking different spellings, including unexpected ones. I'm researching Hay and have come across them as Hay, Haye, Hey, Hayl. Kitson has been recorded on the census itself (not just the index) as Kitchen before, whereas the baptism records clearly say Kitson. Elisabeth on a marriage certificate often becomes Betty on the early censuses. James and Jonas used interchangably. That's just a few of the expamples. Don't be put off by it though, there does seem to be a logic (ie Jonas on all census, James in church)

PaulGB · Post by **PaulGB** » 12 Apr 2012 11:26

I find from 1841 to 1871 they have been transcribed as COLE on FMP

Post by **tatewise** » 12 Apr 2012 11:48

Similarly, I had no problem finding 3 generations of John Cole b.1802, b.1833, b.1859 in Rutland in FMP.

1841 Piece: 898 Book/Folio: 8/5 Page: 7 District: Uppingham (Luffenham)

1851 Piece: 2093 Folio: 383 Page: 37 District: Uppingham (Morcott)

1861 Piece: 2308 Folio: 62 Page: 19 District: Uppingham (Belton)

sdl180 · Post by **sdl180** » 12 Apr 2012 12:37

I think on Ancestry John Cole has been transcribed as John Cale in 1841 and John Cote in 1851 (and age 13 instead of 18).

bloodbrotheruk · Post by **bloodbrotheruk** » 12 Apr 2012 18:49

Wow!

thank you ALL very much for taking time to reply and research via your own methods.

I had been worried the more experienced members may have seen this as too basic, but I am genuinely humbled by the time and effort you have all taken to help me.

extremely grateful
Phil

Berni · Post by **Berni** » 12 Apr 2012 20:02

As others have said spellings do vary. I always try to see the original census pages. I then try to find the original parish register or any other documents near to the time.
Having a whole batch of Enefers in the family with all the combinations of single and double letters as well as v for f I soon became aware of the extent of the problem. Letitia as a first name can also exist in many forms. The only way I have found is to persevere and flag up individuals to be kept in reserve until you can collect enough evidence to verify that you have the right person. Checking census returns by address can in some cases tie down the person you are looking for. It works well in a small village but might not be as good in a large town.
Berni

Merenwen · Post by **Merenwen** » 12 Apr 2012 21:35

Berni said:
Checking census returns by address can in some cases tie down the person you are looking for. It works well in a small village but might not be as good in a large town.
Berni

Actually, I have found people in Bradford using that method before! That's how I found the Kitson spelled as Kitchen, so even in large towns it can work.

Family Historian User Group