Hi Nivard I should have realised that the handwriting was that of my GGF, and I think now that he tried to alter his mistaken  'wife' to 'daughter' for Ethel, which fazed the transcriber; but why on earth would he claim that  Hearl was his nephew? He was born in wedlock (although that family had a history of jumping the gun, as it were). It just seems that certain people were not at their brightest, so maybe you're right about the 'Friday afternoon car.' A 1911 Census website I saw claims 98.5% accuracy in its transcription. Did I get the entire 5% thrown at me? I ask myself. So, the imposition still stands, Dear Transcriber. Thanks for your take on this problem, Nivard. Now, back to Phyllis Mary. Kind regards Joy > Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 15:16:41 +0100 > From: ovington.one@gmail.com > To: derbysgen@rootsweb.com > Subject: Re: [DBY] BIRCH/RODDIS and STOKES! > > Hi Joy > > Although the transcript does leave a great deal to be desired, a certain > amount of the blame can be levelled at Thomas STOKES whose writing you > see in the 1911, the enumerator had no part in it > > Thomas's flowery writing is part of the problem however the transcriber > is not blameless, I think this was the equivalent of the Friday > afternoon car <g> > > The Hearl appears to be correct > > Births Dec 1907 ROBINSON Hearl Belper 7b 693 > > As does the Willie Zenas > > England & Wales, FreeBMD Marriage Index, 1837-1915 about Willie Zenas > Robinson > Name: Willie Zenas Robinson > Date of Registration: Apr-May-Jun 1906 > Registration district: Belper > Inferred County: Derbyshire > Volume Number: 7b > Page Number: 1314 > > I didn't find a birth under that name though > > Did you resolve the parents of Phyllis yet ? > > Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) > > > > On 27/04/2013 14:26, Joy Hungerford wrote: > > I'd like to extend my thanks for help on this subject to Nivard Ovington and > > Kathy Orford-Perkins, who have each spent time and effort to help me find results. > > > > First of all, having tried Ancestry Yet Again, I find that I was already on the Old Search. > > Another go just now yielded no results, so I'll have to look into that. > > > > But - Kathy provided me with information which astonished me. > > She found my GGF, Thomas STOKES, at 9 Prospect Street, Alfreton. > > > > He was listed as Thomas SLOBES, thus:- > > Thomas Slobes 61 > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to DERBYSGEN-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

I would take the claims of 98.5% accuracy with a large pinch (shovel) of salt Clearly a claim they can't substantiate, as errors are legion on their site as they are on all sites Understandable in some case, not so in others We have a better chance when we look at them as we know what it should say, the people who transcribe do not have that luxury As to why people put what they did in the census or any other record, its impossible to say in most cases Misunderstood the form, wilfully wanted to mislead or had one to many down the Red Lion before filling in the schedule, its anyones guess at times I suspect there will be just as many in the last census we had in the UK Can you imagine how many immigrants would understand all the questions, and the native population will not be much better, I have no doubt Thankfully I will never need to consult that one <g> Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 27/04/2013 17:02, Joy Hungerford wrote: > Hi Nivard > > I should have realised that the handwriting was that of my GGF, and I think now that he tried to alter his mistaken > 'wife' to 'daughter' for Ethel, which fazed the transcriber; but why on earth would he claim that > Hearl was his nephew? He was born in wedlock (although that family had a history of jumping the gun, as it were). > > It just seems that certain people were not at their brightest, so maybe you're right about the 'Friday afternoon car.' > A 1911 Census website I saw claims 98.5% accuracy in its transcription. Did I get the entire 5% thrown at me? I ask myself. > > So, the imposition still stands, Dear Transcriber. > > Thanks for your take on this problem, Nivard. Now, back to Phyllis Mary. > > Kind regards > > Joy