Hi Listers Many thanks to the following folks who replied very quickly to my request for assistance. Rod - for the image of the 1881 Census in question. Nivard Ovington - sorry to hear of all the bounce backs. Ruth, in Canberra - for all the details of all the Census returns she could find the family in, and last but not least of all, Dudley Diaper, for his interpretation of the listing. The 1881 Census image says the surname is WOPLIN, (don't know if it is possible to send a correction to FindMypast and/or Ancestry?) Werlesy, (but also looks like Werley) WOPLIN, [WOPLIN - there is a "dot" above the second last squiggle, which is the first part of the "N"., the first squiggle after the "L" is the "i") "She is certainly put down as Emma Woplin. He looks more like Werley but the writing isn't great - Lindsey is turned into Lyindsey. Frederick the baby, is also shown as 6 "Mts", which I have taken to mean 6 Months, (based upon his Birth Registration also). As Nivard Ovington said, "The enumerators writing is abysmal , ..". Again thanks to all, I have been able to run through another brick wall and proceed further with this family. For the benefit of other listers, and my wider family members on this list. Emma, is Emma FARTHING, daughter of Meshach Farthing and Eliza PARTRIDGE. Emma died during the quarter ending December 1898, in Billericay R.D., Essex. Westley WAPLING, AKA Wesley WOLPIN, etc, etc, went on to remarry to Elizabeth Cox, in the quarter ending December 1899, in West Ham R. R., Essex; and by 1911 Census had another three children by his second wife. It is also worth noting that the word, "LANC", short for "Lancaster" on the 1881 census, is not the Enumerator's hand but was added later by a second hand. This I know is an error, not being the correct place. Should have been ESSEX. regards to all eddie tricker

On 2011/01/11 05:55, Eddie Tricker wrote: > The 1881 Census image says the surname is WOPLIN, (don't know if it > is possible to send a correction to FindMypast and/or Ancestry?) You won't get a 'correction' included, because the transcription accurately(?) reflects what was written. However, it is possible, on Ancestry, to add an update which can be used to add your, personal information to the names. Note that you still won't get the updated name included in the index i.e. they'll still be 'missing'. One of my pet peeves with this facility is the way in which some people insist on entering a married woman's maiden name as an update - because it further confuses the picture represented by the census. -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg