Actual 1881 Census Page Required ???

Hi Folks - me again

Still trying to solve the Family stories.

cerberus...

RG11=20

I have the 1881 Census cds and the Page 24 Folio 107 piece 3750 Pro Ref RG11
FHL Film 1341891 for
56B Back Tulketh St, North Meols, Lancs for the Family of John Sumner.

cerberus...

=20

This page after deliberations with many others and the 1891 Census seems
that it has possibly been transcribed wrongly

Hugh Watkins...

have you looked personally at the image ?

snip
errors made in 1891 are clerical errors not transcription errors

Hugh W

as we believe Francis listed as 1 years old and son is actually the
Granddaughter of John Sumner Bn in 1821,
The 1891 has him born in 1805 so again another error.

1881 thus states

John Sumner 60 yrs Bn in Scarisbrick - Head
Nancy Sumner 60 yrs Bn in Scarisbrick - Wife
Hannah Sumner 19 yrs Bn in Southport - Daughter
Louisa Sumner 9 yrs Bn in Southport - Daughter
James Sumner 13 yrs Bn Scarisbrick - Son
Lizzie Sumner 5 yrs Bn Southport - Daughter
Francis Sumner 1 yr Bn Southport - Daughter

Roger Mills \(aka Set Square\)...

Hopefully you now have access to the original image - from which the
transcript appears to be wrong in several respects.
Hannah is 29, not 19 - and there is another daughter, Mary who is 19 but not
listed.

Charani...

Tis very muddled and probably the only way to sort it out for sure
would be via certificates.

Francis is *male* - and would otherwise be Frances!

Charani...

Not necessarily!! :)) Spelling was more fluid then than now, so it's
perfectly possible that it is a female Francis.

Roger Mills \(aka Set Square\)...

Yes, I should have said "would otherwise *probably* be Frances".

However, in this particular case, the age of the said Francis is shown in
the *male* column, and it quite clearly says "Son" - which was what I was
referring to when stating that (this) Francis is male. I accept that what I
wrote could be interpreted as applying to the general case rather than just
to this specific case, and am sorry for any possible confusion caused.

Charani...

:))

The problems of the written word.

It gets fun when you have a son Francis and a dau Frances whose father
and grandfather are also Francis. The father and the grandfather were
both married to an Ann

It is fairly unlikely that a 60-year-old couple would have a 1-year-old
child.

It is usual to list offspring in a family in order of descending age - but
this list isn't like that. I would hazzard a guess that James(13), Lizzie(5)
and Francis(1) are all the children of unmarried daughter Hannah.

By the logic I have used, Louisa(9) would be a child of John and Nancy
rather than of Hannah - but I wouldn't like to guarantee that because *her*
parents would then have been about 51 when they had her.

In 1891 Frances is now listed as Granddaughter hence
I Ask is it possible someone has access to the actual page for 1881
and can confirm the above is as it states or it is transcribed wrongly.
Or if possible to send me a copy of that actual page please.

My funds are extremely limited due to Family Issues this month or
I would look at seeing if I can obtain a copy on line.

Thanks in advance for any help as it is appreciated.

Jill...

from a fellow Sumner !!
Image sent directly

cerberus...

Sent jpg copy by email to your addy in header.