This was so interesting. I definitely learned some things I didn't know before. I actually went through the 1921 census looking at every entry for my village. I was amazed to find so many names that I knew whose descendents I went to school with.
Whilst the recorded ages should, as you say, correspond to the revised 19th June date there were nonetheless many households that followed the original printed rules to the letter and thus mistakenly worked out what their ages had been on 24th April. That also implies that in at least some instances those returns may potentially have included people who were alive on 24th April but had passed by 19th June, or may have failed to include a baby who was born after 24th April and before 19th June, or they may have missed off someone in the household who had been elsewhere on the 24th April but was actually there on the 19th June and thus not recorded anywhere else either. Basically it's something to have in the back of your mind if the household you are viewing on the 1921 census seems to be just a little bit off from what you expected in terms of their precise ages and/or exactly who is or isn't recorded.
Yes, you are absolutely correct - I have heard instances of people who had died in the interim being included too. There is so much to talk about regarding that census I could have made an hour-long video.
Thanks John - helpful consolidation of things that aren't so obvious. I especially appreciate the tips on interpreting the numeric codes. Regarding the deferred census date, I assume the enumerator would have given instructions upon delivery and collection, that it was June, not April. Your thoughts: how many might have followed the printed instructions anyway, recalling where they were in April?
Nice job, thank you. The bit about private schedules is useful. I found an entry where the confidentiality of a victim of serious crime was accidentally compromised by the Enumerator, so their training was not all that it could have been. I've have not been able to find the perpetrator that the victim feared, so I guess he had assumed a new name after release from prison.
A very interesting story - the schedules were supposed to be confidential for 100 years, so it sounds like someone dropped the ball. There are a lot of transcription errors in this census so it may be the perpetrator has been incorrectly transcribed
When I looked for the 1921 census I could not find it some searches I made said there was no 1921 census because of the aftermath of WW1. thanks for this information.
Thanks, that was really helpful, I’ve just started going through my family entries on Ancestry. I have had to correct so many transcription errors already but I suppose it’s easier to see what a place name or name is supposed to be if you already have background knowledge.
Thank you for this video. I've been a casual family tree "researcher" for some years, (about 2008 when my mother was still alive - I'm 71 now), building my tree only from what's on Ancestry. I'm not really interested in going way back (so with the 1841 census I guess back to 1800). I've been waiting for the 1921 census for some time, thanks to this video I understand why it's taken so long. It's a shame about the 1931 census, the 1941 having no census is understandable but I know some of that period on my mothers side (born 1927) from stories she'd tell us. My fathers side is less clear for he died in 1972 when I was 19, he was a merchant seaman and not home 6 weeks out of 8 so far less family stories. In 1931 he would have been in his apprenticeship as a shipwright, I do know some of the war years stuff from the ships he served on from his ships papers and some published articles of one of his ships. I think now I consider my family tree complete, or as complete as it is going to be and I need it for my satisfaction, but I continue to check Ancestry for hints, it's interesting to see connections to other trees.
Have you looked at the 1939 England schedule for father? Having said that due to privacy laws some records that are less than 100 years old are not accessible - good luck.
@@Beaumont-Genealogy From his seamans books I know he was on a ship (not got to hand right now) and was most likely at sea. In 1942 he was aboard the ship MV Llangibby Castle (commandeered as a troop carrier) when it spent time bobbing about in the Bay of Biscay dodging German planes and uboats after losing it's rudder to a torpedo. Made it home under it's own steam steering by the propellers (with the troops still on board). He was still on the Llangibby for the D-Day landings. My parents married in 1950 in Hartlepool (the ship visited for repairs) before they moved to Southampton where my father sailed from.
Yes the 1939 Register is very useful in that it has exact birthdates. With the onset of WW2 the UK needed to know citizen details for rationing and mobilization (and perhaps arrest if foreigners)
Thank you. That’s very helpful. I was wondering if there is any mention of men with disabilities or shell shock after the war. I’ve tried looking up a few but so far nothing come up to suggest it was affecting their lives
If you try typing "disabled" or "veteran" into occupation you will find some disabled war veterans but there is typically nowhere to include the awful injuries both physical and emotional that many of these men have
From my experience there have been far more transcription errors in the 1921 census than in any other census. It seems that many of those who did it had no knowledge of common English names, towns or occupations.
@ I tried every which way to find her, but with no success.. the age on her marriage certificate was given as being two years younger than she was. She had two children one born in 1919, he’s not showing either. So annoying.
Yes, it can be frustrating - try to imagine all the different ways her name could be mis transcribed and look at her FAN network (friends, associates and neighbors). I found one of my grandmothers (as a child) in London living at friend of her father's house while her father was at sea. The family had no association with London, and we have no idea why she was there and not with her mother in Yorkshire.
Great Question - I really need to make a second video: Ships in Territorial Waters: If a ship was within the territorial waters of England or Wales on the night of the census (June 19, 1921), its crew and passengers were included in the census. Ships in International Waters: Ships beyond territorial waters were not normally directly included in the census. Mariners who had a home address in England or Wales were often recorded with their families, noted as "at sea" or "away."
I guess these census actions are no different to the Dooms day book one. All about control & gathering information. Best thing is too egnore these forms when possible
I found an error in the 1861 census Wales, this was years ago and I tried to raise the issue with Ancestry without success, so annoying as the was information I needed.
@V.C.S69they cannot change the Census, particularly based on information provided over a hundred years later when everyone involved is long deceased so nothing can be verified…it is what it is, plus Ancestry has absolutely no power in relation to any official record but is merely a repository of existing information.
Brilliant information, Huge thanks.
Glad it was helpful!
Very interesting run through. Will check out more of your contributions. Slower mouse movement always helpful.
Thanks - I will try to slow down mouse. I try to do these videos live rather than scripted
Very informative. Many thanks
Glad it was helpful!
This was so interesting. I definitely learned some things I didn't know before. I actually went through the 1921 census looking at every entry for my village. I was amazed to find so many names that I knew whose descendents I went to school with.
Yes - many of the people in the 1921 census will have been alive in our lifetimes. The example census I was showing was of my maternal grandmother
@@Beaumont-Genealogy My father is on there. He was born in 1920.
That is wonderful.
Thank you - very useful.
You're welcome!
This was really helpful - thank you!
Thanks - I am glad you found it helpful
Thank you so much. Your information is very helpful, with context as well as details.
You're very welcome!
Thank you so much! Very interesting and helpful information and I actually learnt a lot! I have subscribed!!
Awesome, thank you!
Thank you, very useful
Glad it was helpful!
Informative episode, so interesting about the ships in port. Thanks!
Thank You
Whilst the recorded ages should, as you say, correspond to the revised 19th June date there were nonetheless many households that followed the original printed rules to the letter and thus mistakenly worked out what their ages had been on 24th April. That also implies that in at least some instances those returns may potentially have included people who were alive on 24th April but had passed by 19th June, or may have failed to include a baby who was born after 24th April and before 19th June, or they may have missed off someone in the household who had been elsewhere on the 24th April but was actually there on the 19th June and thus not recorded anywhere else either. Basically it's something to have in the back of your mind if the household you are viewing on the 1921 census seems to be just a little bit off from what you expected in terms of their precise ages and/or exactly who is or isn't recorded.
Yes, you are absolutely correct - I have heard instances of people who had died in the interim being included too. There is so much to talk about regarding that census I could have made an hour-long video.
Very interesting, indeed.
That might explain why a relative was shown to have died before the census but is apparently alive on the date of the census
Very good, I learnt a lot
Thank You
Really helpful. Been using the 1921 for ages but didnt know some of these things. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
Very I interesting information - thank you.
Thanks for view and leaving a comment
Thank you. Very helpful and well explained 😊
Thank you so much
Very interesting information. Thank you so much.❤❤
Glad it was helpful!
Thanks John - helpful consolidation of things that aren't so obvious. I especially appreciate the tips on interpreting the numeric codes. Regarding the deferred census date, I assume the enumerator would have given instructions upon delivery and collection, that it was June, not April. Your thoughts: how many might have followed the printed instructions anyway, recalling where they were in April?
That's a great question. It is likely that some people used the April date so it’s worth double checking. Thanks for the reply
The dates now make sense as many of the entries focusing on occupations and employers named but stated unemployed.
There was a lot of industrial action at the time
Nice job, thank you. The bit about private schedules is useful. I found an entry where the confidentiality of a victim of serious crime was accidentally compromised by the Enumerator, so their training was not all that it could have been. I've have not been able to find the perpetrator that the victim feared, so I guess he had assumed a new name after release from prison.
A very interesting story - the schedules were supposed to be confidential for 100 years, so it sounds like someone dropped the ball. There are a lot of transcription errors in this census so it may be the perpetrator has been incorrectly transcribed
When I looked for the 1921 census I could not find it some searches I made said there was no 1921 census because of the aftermath of WW1.
thanks for this information.
You're welcome, yes there can be a lot of disinformation about. It is the 1941 census that is missing due to WW2
Thanks, that was really helpful, I’ve just started going through my family entries on Ancestry. I have had to correct so many transcription errors already but I suppose it’s easier to see what a place name or name is supposed to be if you already have background knowledge.
Glad it was helpful! - I will be releasing the 1911 census review in the next few days
Thank you for this video. I've been a casual family tree "researcher" for some years, (about 2008 when my mother was still alive - I'm 71 now), building my tree only from what's on Ancestry. I'm not really interested in going way back (so with the 1841 census I guess back to 1800). I've been waiting for the 1921 census for some time, thanks to this video I understand why it's taken so long.
It's a shame about the 1931 census, the 1941 having no census is understandable but I know some of that period on my mothers side (born 1927) from stories she'd tell us. My fathers side is less clear for he died in 1972 when I was 19, he was a merchant seaman and not home 6 weeks out of 8 so far less family stories. In 1931 he would have been in his apprenticeship as a shipwright, I do know some of the war years stuff from the ships he served on from his ships papers and some published articles of one of his ships.
I think now I consider my family tree complete, or as complete as it is going to be and I need it for my satisfaction, but I continue to check Ancestry for hints, it's interesting to see connections to other trees.
Have you looked at the 1939 England schedule for father? Having said that due to privacy laws some records that are less than 100 years old are not accessible - good luck.
@@Beaumont-Genealogy From his seamans books I know he was on a ship (not got to hand right now) and was most likely at sea. In 1942 he was aboard the ship MV Llangibby Castle (commandeered as a troop carrier) when it spent time bobbing about in the Bay of Biscay dodging German planes and uboats after losing it's rudder to a torpedo. Made it home under it's own steam steering by the propellers (with the troops still on board).
He was still on the Llangibby for the D-Day landings. My parents married in 1950 in Hartlepool (the ship visited for repairs) before they moved to Southampton where my father sailed from.
Sounds like he was very lucky to come through unscathed
@@Beaumont-Genealogy There were a lot of lucky (and unlucky) people throughout the conflict
The 1931 census was destroyed and no 1941 census but there was the 1939 ID card info which is very useful.
Yes the 1939 Register is very useful in that it has exact birthdates. With the onset of WW2 the UK needed to know citizen details for rationing and mobilization (and perhaps arrest if foreigners)
Thank you. That’s very helpful. I was wondering if there is any mention of men with disabilities or shell shock after the war. I’ve tried looking up a few but so far nothing come up to suggest it was affecting their lives
If you try typing "disabled" or "veteran" into occupation you will find some disabled war veterans but there is typically nowhere to include the awful injuries both physical and emotional that many of these men have
From my experience there have been far more transcription errors in the 1921 census than in any other census. It seems that many of those who did it had no knowledge of common English names, towns or occupations.
Yes it certainly seems that way - it may have been the methodology used by FindMyPast who was responsible for the transcription.
I always look at the original as even on previous census transcriptions are also as bad.
I did not understand the reference to the 1926 General Strike at all. How did that impact the 1921 census even if it was delayed by 2 months?
Oh I just meant that period of the 1920s was rife with industrial action - sorry for the confusion
@@Beaumont-Genealogy No worries. Thanks for the info and the tip-off about the absence of 1931 and 1941 censuses.
My grandmother not on there as the address that she may have lived in, has no census listed.
Perhaps she could have been at a friend or family's house. I am not sure what they did with schedules for empty houses
@ I tried every which way to find her, but with no success.. the age on her marriage certificate was given as being two years younger than she was. She had two children one born in 1919, he’s not showing either. So annoying.
Yes, that can be so frustrating. There are a lot of mistakes on the census - are you using Ancestry or FindMyPast?
@ I have used both.
Yes, it can be frustrating - try to imagine all the different ways her name could be mis transcribed and look at her FAN network (friends, associates and neighbors). I found one of my grandmothers (as a child) in London living at friend of her father's house while her father was at sea. The family had no association with London, and we have no idea why she was there and not with her mother in Yorkshire.
What was meant to happen with those British Nationals who were at sea;
sailors/fisherman, passengers, on British ships or foreign registered.
Great Question - I really need to make a second video:
Ships in Territorial Waters: If a ship was within the territorial waters of England or Wales on the night of the census (June 19, 1921), its crew and passengers were included in the census.
Ships in International Waters: Ships beyond territorial waters were not normally directly included in the census.
Mariners who had a home address in England or Wales were often recorded with their families, noted as "at sea" or "away."
I guess these census actions are no different to the Dooms day book one. All about control & gathering information. Best thing is too egnore these forms when possible
I am just about to do the 1911 census and there was a mass "ignore the census" by suffragettes at the time
I found an error in the 1861 census Wales, this was years ago and I tried to raise the issue with Ancestry without success, so annoying as the was information I needed.
@V.C.S69they cannot change the Census, particularly based on information provided over a hundred years later when everyone involved is long deceased so nothing can be verified…it is what it is, plus Ancestry has absolutely no power in relation to any official record but is merely a repository of existing information.
Did respondents have to declare their ethnicity?
they had to declare their place of birth but not ethnicity