Hi All Les Darley's comments on 72 yr old scholars has prompted me to express my concern about the frequency with which errors occur in the 1901 transcriptions. Placename errors are numerous and many occupations should be just ignored - my favourite is a male relation employed as an "agricultural housemaid" (I am sure he would have been!). Our navy must have been the best dressed in the world considering the number tailors who would appear to have gone to sea. I am not criticising the hapless individuals on the Indian sub-continent who had the job of transcribing a handwritten foreign language but the UK people who gave them the job in the first place. I suppose it just reinforces the message that when it comes to genealogy you really must look at all original documents and treat transcriptions with a huge load of salt. I assume the indexing for the 1901 census has been based on the transcription and that will make searching for some people quite difficult - errors like birthplace "Norwich Birmingham" instead of "Warwicks Birmingham" spring to mind. I shudder to think what my relatives born in Narkspool Durham (should have been Hartlepool) would make of it all. Don Hudson