This was taken on the 31st March 1851. Schedules were issued then the enumerator transfer this information into the lists as we have them today. The question is, would they have been sorted before that listing in as much that one property would be listed after each other as they appeared in the street, or could then have been mixed up and therefore not follow in strict order? In the area of study no street names are identified only the general area. In the 1841 census there is a preamble as to the way the enumerator walked but there is no such entry for the 1851 I have. I have identified one listing to a property, could I assume that the next entry in the census return would be that of the property next door, or could it have been one further down the street. Thanks for a clear indication to this question. Richard Stoke-on-Trent

Hi I've just been working with this interesting question. One further complication to consider is the fact that a number of old buildings may have ceased to exist between the early censuses and others arrive especially if there was a marked change in the economy like the arrival of the railways for example. Also of course, as families changed size one building could have been divided into two to accomodate this and then revert to one later. What I discovered, by carefully noting the family name patterns and structures across 1841 - 1871 for the streets I was researching, is that the enumerator 'walked round' one way for the first two censuses and then reversed the route for the third. Fortunately there were enough identifiable 'fixed' buildings - pubs as it happens - although they too changed names according to changes in the economy with, for example the Miners Arms being replaced with the Skinners Arms and sometimes the inns were only identifiable by the occupation of the resident being recorded as 'Innkeeper'. I look forward to hearing what others say about this subject because in a rural village with no fixed buildings and varying periods of expansion it is difficult as there isn't always a handy static limekiln or grist mill. Best wishes Barbara ----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Talbot" <richard.talbot88@btinternet.com> To: <> Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 12:48 PM Subject: [OEL] 1851 census > This was taken on the 31st March 1851. Schedules were issued then the > enumerator transfer this information into the lists as we have them today. > The question is, would they have been sorted before that listing in as > much that one property would be listed after each other as they appeared > in the street, or could then have been mixed up and therefore not follow > in strict order? > In the area of study no street names are identified only the general area. > > In the 1841 census there is a preamble as to the way the enumerator walked > but there is no such entry for the 1851 I have. > > I have identified one listing to a property, could I assume that the next > entry in the census return would be that of the property next door, or > could it have been one further down the street. > > Thanks for a clear indication to this question. > > Richard > Stoke-on-Trent > > > ==================================== > WEB PAGE: http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~oel/ > ARCHIVES: http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/index?list=OLD-ENGLISH > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > OLD-ENGLISH-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message