Census

[lafrancaise]

On doing my family tree, I'd like to know if 'G son' with relation to head of house, could be godson and not grandson? This would clarify a lot of things if so.

Thanks in advance for any help.

[spudqueen]

Can you find the same person on more than one census as this may help to clarify things.

[lafrancaise]

No spudqueen he's only on one. If he's a grandson then of course there's a son to be found with the same surname. if he's a godson he could be the husband's nephew...

[shammydodger]

Lafrancaise.

If it stands for "grandson", don't rule out the possibility he's the illegitimate child of a daughter of the head of household. Illegitimacy in the 19th century was far more widespread than we might think. I've found a fair number of illegitimates in my research.

[lafrancaise]

Thanks Shammydodger. This 'grandson' has the same surname as his grandmother (who was married) but his age would mean she must have had a son to her husband before she had her second son who carried her maiden name and then a daughter to her husband. it's quite complicated. My question is; could G son be godson?

[dot.hawkes]

unlikely, you have to remember that the census enumerator actually visited the premises, not like in modern times when it is a written return, the information was collected verbally and written down by the enumerator in his book, as many people were illterate, the information may well have been given by someone who was OF THE IMPRESSION that the child was a grandson. there was no catagory for the godson relationship by the way.

[lafrancaise]

Thank you dot.hawkes, so god sons weren't classed as a 'relation' . so he probably was a grandson, just need to find the link now

[shammydodger]

I agree wholeheartedly with Dot.

Also keep an open mind as to the accuracy and veracity of census information. Again, my research has thrown up numerous instances of provable errors (on the enumerator's part, or otherwise) and/or economy with the truth on the part of the information provider.

For example, a boy might be described as a son of the head of household, when he was actually a stepson.

I would start with the most likely scenario, that he was indeed the grandson. Best of luck.

[dot.hawkes]

tell me the prob and I will give u some options, (i did this for a living at one time) genealogy I mean.

[lafrancaise]

This is really good of you dot.hawkes; there's a certain Frances Walton n�e Thirkell , married on the 1851 census but her husband isn't on it, she's then a widow on the 1861 census. She has a son called John Thirkell b. 1841 and a daughter called Ann Walton b; 1847. Now; in the 1871 census she has a 'G son' called Thomas Walton b; 1866 in a town quite a few miles away. She herself like the rest of the family hadn't moved so this seems strange. Could the daughter Ann have had this illegitimate child but the problem is, I can't find him in any other census after that.

[dot.hawkes]

on any census after that he will probably be recorded as the son of ann using her married name, who did ann eventually marry?the new hubby will have 'taken him on' as the term goes.

[dot.hawkes]

forget deed poll and name changes as we know it. they did then what they needed to do to protect reputations and keep their neighbours in the dark

[shammydodger]

dot.hawkes

Or he might have died, of course.

[dot.hawkes]

he may well have died in infancy, but if so, why would lafrancaise be lookin?

[shammydodger]

I've no idea. I suggested it as a possibility, that's all. What leads me to believe that the child was the illegitimate child of Ann Walton was the info that the place of birth (if accurate) was quite a distance from the census place. It was quite common for unmarried pregnant women to travel sometimes quite considerable distances to give birth, to aid in keeping the secret from the neighbours. It happened with one of my ancestors on 4 separate occasions. Yes, she had 4 illegitimate children, all born in different parishes before returning to the "home" parish. Just another possibility that Lafrancaise might wish to bear in mind.

[dot.hawkes]

that is quite acommon occurance granted, batisms are a good clue tho. the record often showed the known father that was the subject of a filiation order, a legal source of paternity.

[lafrancaise]

You're right he may have died. If he was Ann's illegitimate son he didn't go and live with her once she was married as I've got all her 9children. I'd more or less presumed he'd gone back to his father after his stay with his grandmother but as there's no trace of him nor his father, well the trail comes to an end.

Thanks everybody for all your help, I must say that doing the family tree is one of the most mind boglling things I've done and better than a crossword anyday!

[shammydodger]

Lafrancaise

Considering the possibility that he may have died, there are websites that now offer free searches of the ONS registers. Death registers started recording the age of the deceased circa 1865. If you conducted a search between 1871-1881, it may throw up some likely candidates based on age at death and the district where the death was recorded. It wouldn't be definitive proof and you might not find anything but, being an online search, it wouldn't be as time-consuming as a trip to the local records centre to plough through the microfilm.

[Peter Pedant]

there are a few in the family I was researching like this LaF

Dot H is good value - she is usually right

I think the record is of a grandson which La Walton has taken in or taken on. This is not strange and still occurs.

AS for child deaths - v common. Walter X in my family had in 1861 has Walter Alice and Beatrice aged one two and three and in 1871 Cedric Dottie and Edward aged two three and four, and the first three appear to have died. In fact he had three or four boys named Walter and none reached adulthood.