On 31/12/2013 08:09, John Hanson wrote: > Stella > The answer to that one is no they are not the same as Ancestry. > If you look at an entry in FamilySearch for any of the censuses from 1841 to > 1901 you will see that there is a link to view the image on their partner > site. This will take you to findmypast but you will need an account with FMP > to look at them You can search on FMP free of charge, just as you can with Ancestry. You need an account to see the details or the image but it will give you the class, piece, folio and page numbers. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

Stella The answer to that one is no they are not the same as Ancestry. If you look at an entry in FamilySearch for any of the censuses from 1841 to 1901 you will see that there is a link to view the image on their partner site. This will take you to findmypast but you will need an account with FMP to look at them Regards John Hanson -----Original Message----- From: sussex-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sussex-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Stella Stanger Sent: 30 December 2013 19:18 To: Kevin Poile; List SUSSEX Subject: Re: [SXP] 1861 Census on Ancestry Hi Kevin, Is the 1861 Census - on Ancestry - the same as on Family Search Org online Can you search by name - or only by location - then search. https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1493747 If so - perhaps some pages had not been transcribed ? At 02:05 PM 29/12/2013, Kevin Poile wrote: >Has anybody else experienced problems with looking at images of the >1861 Census for the Brede/Northiam area of Sussex on Ancestry. To me >they appear to be out of step with the transcriptions by about 5 pages >- some I can scroll throught the pages and find the one I want others, >the ones towards the end of the area I simply run out of images. I keep >putting in problem reports. But was wondering if anybody else has the >same problem and if so do they have any tips on how to view the wrongly indexed pages. > >Cheers > >Kevin > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hi Louise, Could this be your man: 1851 Census of Udimore - Class: *HO107*; Piece: *1634*; Folio: *600*; Page: *18* Family is transcribed as: but member correction to GOLDING James Goland 50 - Head - Miller's lab - born: Fairlight, Sussex Ruth Goland 50 - Wife - - born: Brede Elener Goland 28 - Daughter - - born: Fairlight, Sussex Charles Goland 17 - Son - Age lab - born: Udimore, Sussex John G Goland 12 - Son - Scholar - born: Udimore, Sussex Stephen Goland 7 - Son - Scholar - born: Udimore, Sussex James Goland 2 - Grandson - - born: Udimore 1891 census - Eastbourne, Sussex - Class: *RG12*; Piece: *773*; Folio: *98* ; Page: *23* 1881 census - Eastbourne, Sussex - Ref: Class: *RG11*; Piece: *1038* ; Folio: *151*; Page: *40 (Birthplace: Udimer on Ancestry)* Regards Kevin On 30 December 2013 21:44, park louise <medionemeton@blueyonder.co.uk>wrote: > > > His father was James GOLDING b Q1 1849 Rye, Udimore, Sussex, ? d Q4 1897 > Eastbourne, Sussex, m Q4 1878 Eastbourne, Sussex to Ruth SNOOK b 1852 > Langport, South Somerset. > > I am trying to trace James' parents. > > I suspect that James' father is Robert GOLDING b 1821 or 1822 in Udimore, > Sussex, who is recorded in the 1851 census in Hastings, Sussex as a groom > at Bohemia St. However, there is no sign anywhere in the census (I have > searched the whole census, not just locally) of James or of any wife to > Robert. > > Anyone have any suggestions? I have even tried searching for them in the > Scottish census as there are family stories of links to Scotland. This is > my first time tackling the English system as almost all my own family are > Scottish. > > >

Hi all, New to the list and looking for some help piecing together my husband's family. I have Stephen GOLDING b 7 Oct 1891 Eastbourne, d 1961 Gilling West, Richmond, N Yorks. His father was James GOLDING b Q1 1849 Rye, Udimore, Sussex, ? d Q4 1897 Eastbourne, Sussex, m Q4 1878 Eastbourne, Sussex to Ruth SNOOK b 1852 Langport, South Somerset. I am trying to trace James' parents. I suspect that James' father is Robert GOLDING b 1821 or 1822 in Udimore, Sussex, who is recorded in the 1851 census in Hastings, Sussex as a groom at Bohemia St. However, there is no sign anywhere in the census (I have searched the whole census, not just locally) of James or of any wife to Robert. Anyone have any suggestions? I have even tried searching for them in the Scottish census as there are family stories of links to Scotland. This is my first time tackling the English system as almost all my own family are Scottish. TIA Louise (Researching Golding, Goldsbrough, Bell, Stockdale)

Hi Kevin I would say its an image linking problem rather than missed pages (as far as transcription goes anyway) The transcripts for the folios you mention are there on Ancestry but tied to the wrong image, keying error most likely The pages had to have been there for the transcriber to complete them, so they are very likely there but also tied to the wrong transcript I know its no recompense but given the size of the job of enabling access to the various census, its not surprising there are mistakes and problems At least on Ancestry you can work out what is missing, almost impossible on other sites The population count of Brede over 1851, 61 & 71 on Ancestry is 1851 1,058 1861 1,042 1871 1,006 So as far as I can see the transcripts are correct in count, its the images wrongly indexed that is the problem NB page 10 is the second page of folio 76, page 14 the second page of folio 78 Leaving page 11, 12 & 13 missing or wrongly linked And folio 84 p6, folios 85, 86 pages 7 to 10 also wrongly linked Where they are on Ancestry is another matter They are on findmypast Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 30/12/2013 12:21, Kevin Poile wrote: > Hi Lynne, > > Thanks for the tip. Have to scroll because the pages don't tally and there > are instances of pages missing, see below. > > I have just gone through the route of looking direct at the enumeration > districts, with the following results: > > For Brede, Sussex: > > - District: 9 & 10 appear to be correct no missing pages/images. > > - District: 8 is all wrong: > > Image 1 is Page 10 from Northiam, > Image 2 is Page 14 from Nortiam (not sure where pages 11 - 13 for > northiam are) > Image 3 - 6 is the description and totals for the Enumaration > district. > Image 7 is Page 1 (Household 1) and then everything seems ok until > you get to Page 5 then find Pages 6 through to 10 are missing completely > (households jump from 26 to 55) > > Have similar problems with other villages in this area of the country. > Report every time to ancestry but nothing seems to be happening. > > Regards > Kevin

I haven't noticed the Sussex ones but I did note a while ago now that a whole load of pages in the Hull area were all wrong. I contacted Ancestry, more than once and am still waiting for them to be put right. When I say a while ago, this was more than 3 years so don't hold your breath. Jacqui Freke footer is here http://www.tvadblocker.co.uk Jacqui Freke 01865 731124 or 07929 055978

Thank you, Kevin! Your problem made me take a second look at my ancestor, Richard Berry who lived at Petlands Farm in 1861. I knew from his will he left a number of cottages to his son, daughter, and grand daughter. I had a look at Findmypast for the 1861 census to see if it was different than the information on Ancestry, and found that his daughter, Elizabeth Berry Woollvin was born at Wivelsfield in Sussex. While in Salt Lake City last fall, I found in the Lewes Session records: “William Brigden, yeoman of Cuckfield refuses to maintain his family of three grandchildren, Frances Berry c11, Sarah Berry c7, and Richard Berry c5 all poor and impotent and unable to work and are now chargeable to Wivelsfield, he being of sufficient ability to maintain them; now ordered to pay 2s.6d per week from the present sessions so long as he said children are chargeable [Richard Berry, 24+, carpenter of Cuckfield married Sarah Brigden, 24+, 1776 at Hurstpierpoint].” I also found in the Minutes of a Court Baron, 6 Jul 1802: “Death of Sarah Berry the wife of Richard Berry of Wivelsfield, lath-cleaver, who held to her and her heirs 4 pieces of land called Merryfields contianing 8 ac. in Wivelfield late Vinals and before Scrase’s, rent 6d. And Admission of Richard Berry the only son of the said Sarah and customary heir to the premises. I know from the Marriage Settlement of Mary Pitt and Thomas Warden in March 1767 that William Brigden was occupying Petlands in Cuckfield at that time. I’m wondering where I would find a will for William Brigden? Can anyone point me in the right direction? Lynne in Tucson From: Kevin Poile Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 5:21 AM To: Lynne Ingalls Cc: List SUSSEX Subject: Re: [SXP] 1861 Census on Ancestry Hi Lynne, Thanks for the tip. Have to scroll because the pages don't tally and there are instances of pages missing, see below. I have just gone through the route of looking direct at the enumeration districts, with the following results: For Brede, Sussex: - District: 9 & 10 appear to be correct no missing pages/images. - District: 8 is all wrong: Image 1 is Page 10 from Northiam, Image 2 is Page 14 from Nortiam (not sure where pages 11 - 13 for northiam are) Image 3 - 6 is the description and totals for the Enumaration district. Image 7 is Page 1 (Household 1) and then everything seems ok until you get to Page 5 then find Pages 6 through to 10 are missing completely (households jump from 26 to 55) Have similar problems with other villages in this area of the country. Report every time to ancestry but nothing seems to be happening. Regards Kevin

Hi Lynne, Thanks for the tip. Have to scroll because the pages don't tally and there are instances of pages missing, see below. I have just gone through the route of looking direct at the enumeration districts, with the following results: For Brede, Sussex: - District: 9 & 10 appear to be correct no missing pages/images. - District: 8 is all wrong: Image 1 is Page 10 from Northiam, Image 2 is Page 14 from Nortiam (not sure where pages 11 - 13 for northiam are) Image 3 - 6 is the description and totals for the Enumaration district. Image 7 is Page 1 (Household 1) and then everything seems ok until you get to Page 5 then find Pages 6 through to 10 are missing completely (households jump from 26 to 55) Have similar problems with other villages in this area of the country. Report every time to ancestry but nothing seems to be happening. Regards Kevin On 29 December 2013 22:57, Lynne Ingalls <lynne.ingalls@comcast.net> wrote: > Kevin - > > I had a quick look at Ancestry for the 1861 of Brede in Sussex. There are > 3 Enumeration Districts listed. When you are on the search page for the > 1861 census, you will see on the right hand side of the page, "Browse this > collection." You can type in the County and the parish. The 3 enumeration > districts will pop up. You can click on any of them and be taken to the > images. At the bottom of each page of images is the page number. You can > type in the last page, or any page, and be taken to that page. You don't > have to scroll thru one at a time. > > Give that a try, and let me know if you are still having problems with the > images. Mine are coming out fine. > > Regards, > Lynne in Tucson > >

Hi Kevin, Is the 1861 Census - on Ancestry - the same as on Family Search Org online Can you search by name - or only by location - then search. https://familysearch.org/search/collection/1493747 If so - perhaps some pages had not been transcribed ? At 02:05 PM 29/12/2013, Kevin Poile wrote: >Has anybody else experienced problems with looking at images of the 1861 >Census for the Brede/Northiam area of Sussex on Ancestry. To me they >appear to be out of step with the transcriptions by about 5 pages - some I >can scroll throught the pages and find the one I want others, the ones >towards the end of the area I simply run out of images. I keep putting in >problem reports. But was wondering if anybody else has the same problem >and if so do they have any tips on how to view the wrongly indexed pages. > >Cheers > >Kevin > >------------------------------- >To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without >the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Kevin - I’m glad you’re there to correct them. I wouldn’t have known that there were missing pages as I’m not researching Brede. I wonder why Ancestry is not responding? Maybe people are off for the holidays? I’ll have a look at Cuckfield and see if I notice the same problems. Anyone else having problems with the Sussex images? Lynne in Tucson From: Kevin Poile Sent: Monday, December 30, 2013 5:21 AM To: Lynne Ingalls Cc: List SUSSEX Subject: Re: [SXP] 1861 Census on Ancestry Hi Lynne, Thanks for the tip. Have to scroll because the pages don't tally and there are instances of pages missing, see below. I have just gone through the route of looking direct at the enumeration districts, with the following results: For Brede, Sussex: - District: 9 & 10 appear to be correct no missing pages/images. - District: 8 is all wrong: Image 1 is Page 10 from Northiam, Image 2 is Page 14 from Nortiam (not sure where pages 11 - 13 for northiam are) Image 3 - 6 is the description and totals for the Enumaration district. Image 7 is Page 1 (Household 1) and then everything seems ok until you get to Page 5 then find Pages 6 through to 10 are missing completely (households jump from 26 to 55) Have similar problems with other villages in this area of the country. Report every time to ancestry but nothing seems to be happening. Regards Kevin On 29 December 2013 22:57, Lynne Ingalls <lynne.ingalls@comcast.net> wrote: Kevin - I had a quick look at Ancestry for the 1861 of Brede in Sussex. There are 3 Enumeration Districts listed. When you are on the search page for the 1861 census, you will see on the right hand side of the page, "Browse this collection." You can type in the County and the parish. The 3 enumeration districts will pop up. You can click on any of them and be taken to the images. At the bottom of each page of images is the page number. You can type in the last page, or any page, and be taken to that page. You don't have to scroll thru one at a time. Give that a try, and let me know if you are still having problems with the images. Mine are coming out fine. Regards, Lynne in Tucson

On 29/12/2013 22:05, Kevin Poile wrote: > Has anybody else experienced problems with looking at images of the 1861 > Census for the Brede/Northiam area of Sussex on Ancestry. To me they > appear to be out of step with the transcriptions by about 5 pages - some I > can scroll throught the pages and find the one I want others, the ones > towards the end of the area I simply run out of images. I keep putting in > problem reports. But was wondering if anybody else has the same problem > and if so do they have any tips on how to view the wrongly indexed pages. Report the wrong pages to Ancestry and ask them to correct them. It might take them a while but they usually do put the mistakes right. -- Connie http://oursalmons.wordpress.com/

Has anybody else experienced problems with looking at images of the 1861 Census for the Brede/Northiam area of Sussex on Ancestry. To me they appear to be out of step with the transcriptions by about 5 pages - some I can scroll throught the pages and find the one I want others, the ones towards the end of the area I simply run out of images. I keep putting in problem reports. But was wondering if anybody else has the same problem and if so do they have any tips on how to view the wrongly indexed pages. Cheers Kevin

Kevin - I had a quick look at Ancestry for the 1861 of Brede in Sussex. There are 3 Enumeration Districts listed. When you are on the search page for the 1861 census, you will see on the right hand side of the page, "Browse this collection." You can type in the County and the parish. The 3 enumeration districts will pop up. You can click on any of them and be taken to the images. At the bottom of each page of images is the page number. You can type in the last page, or any page, and be taken to that page. You don't have to scroll thru one at a time. Give that a try, and let me know if you are still having problems with the images. Mine are coming out fine. Regards, Lynne in Tucson -----Original Message----- From: Kevin Poile Sent: Sunday, December 29, 2013 3:05 PM To: List SUSSEX Subject: [SXP] 1861 Census on Ancestry Has anybody else experienced problems with looking at images of the 1861 Census for the Brede/Northiam area of Sussex on Ancestry. To me they appear to be out of step with the transcriptions by about 5 pages - some I can scroll throught the pages and find the one I want others, the ones towards the end of the area I simply run out of images. I keep putting in problem reports. But was wondering if anybody else has the same problem and if so do they have any tips on how to view the wrongly indexed pages. Cheers Kevin ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Thanks Tim. That is very helpful. It has led me to conclude that George H Adams is not part of the Adams family I am interested in. Far too complicated to explain why I thought he was. David -----Original Message----- From: sussex-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sussex-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Tim Powys-Lybbe Sent: 26 December 2013 13:11 To: SUSSEX-PLUS@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SXP] ADAMS - Eastbourne On 26 Dec at 12:11, "David Railton" <railton.david@btinternet.com> wrote: > The 1861 census shows George H ADAMS, age, 40, riding master, born > Eastbourne, living in Holborn London. With him is his wife Emma and a > niece, both born Marylebone London. > > > > The 1871 shows him living in Hampstead age 51 and described as a > coachman born Eastbourne. With him are his wife, Emma, and a son, > Arthur, both born Marylebone. > > > > In the 1891 he is still at Hampstead where he is now a lodging house > keeper, age 71 born Eastbourne. > > > > There are other records that show George having unmarried sisters some > with the surname Adams and others Kirch who sometimes went by the name > Kearche or Keith, all of them born in London. > > > > Does anyone know anything about George's connection with Eastbourne or > information about any members of his family there? His family are evident in Eastbourne in the 1841 and 1851 censuses: parents are Richard and Cherry, born 1774 and 1785 respectively. In 1841 he was a butcher, 1851 he was a flydriver, which nicely takes him to be a riding master in 1861. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 26 Dec at 12:11, "David Railton" <railton.david@btinternet.com> wrote: > The 1861 census shows George H ADAMS, age, 40, riding master, born > Eastbourne, living in Holborn London. With him is his wife Emma and a > niece, both born Marylebone London. > > > > The 1871 shows him living in Hampstead age 51 and described as a > coachman born Eastbourne. With him are his wife, Emma, and a son, > Arthur, both born Marylebone. > > > > In the 1891 he is still at Hampstead where he is now a lodging house > keeper, age 71 born Eastbourne. > > > > There are other records that show George having unmarried sisters some > with the surname Adams and others Kirch who sometimes went by the name > Kearche or Keith, all of them born in London. > > > > Does anyone know anything about George's connection with Eastbourne or > information about any members of his family there? His family are evident in Eastbourne in the 1841 and 1851 censuses: parents are Richard and Cherry, born 1774 and 1785 respectively. In 1841 he was a butcher, 1851 he was a flydriver, which nicely takes him to be a riding master in 1861. -- Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org for a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org/

The 1861 census shows George H ADAMS, age, 40, riding master, born Eastbourne, living in Holborn London. With him is his wife Emma and a niece, both born Marylebone London. The 1871 shows him living in Hampstead age 51 and described as a coachman born Eastbourne. With him are his wife, Emma, and a son, Arthur, both born Marylebone. In the 1891 he is still at Hampstead where he is now a lodging house keeper, age 71 born Eastbourne. There are other records that show George having unmarried sisters some with the surname Adams and others Kirch who sometimes went by the name Kearche or Keith, all of them born in London. Does anyone know anything about George's connection with Eastbourne or information about any members of his family there? David

Here in the US, we have similar: same family in same county on different dates (father while working in fields a couple miles from house and wife three days later; couple miles apart), same family in different states (Tennessee and Missouri about 500 miles apart-father obtained work and lodging just before census). This also does not take into account instances of state/county line irrigularities where they practically live on the line and enumerated on both localities. There are numerous instances of individuals particularly men in uniform where they are enumerated at home as well as their military base and even one who "missed the ship" (arrived late and ship had cleared harbor) but still enumerated on it. The most common complaint here in the US is "Transient" families/individuals not being counted because they did not "Live" in the area and did not show on any census. This is especially irritating when it is absolutely known someone is living a particular area and not even a sniff on the census; living out of a wagon waiting for wagon train to form/start or living out of wagon while waiting on land patent/purchase to complete. Sparkgapper On Dec 23, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Stephen Victor Oddy wrote: > Hello Steve > > Yes I have three times had people on Two census records > > Stephen > Hillarys Western Australia > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Steve Tusler" <tusler@optusnet.com.au> > To: <SUSSEX-PLUS@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 3:44 PM > Subject: [SXP] Two census records for the same person > > >> Hello Listers, >> >> I recall in the past a conversation where it was possible for one person >> to >> be on two census records in the same year. >> >> >> >> I know they are geographically close (Itchingfield & Ifield) but is it >> possible that somebody could be on the following two references If they >> were >> done on different days? >> >> >> >> HO 107/1096/1 page 13 >> >> HO 107/1095/13 page 24 >> >> >> >> I had originally only looked at the census from Ifield but recently >> started >> using the alternate Surname spelling (Trusler) that is more prevalent the >> further back you go in time and it fills in some gaps with others on the >> same page. >> >> Allen Trusler appears to be living with his future wife Martha Penfold who >> was 15 at the time, is it normal to show non married couples living >> together? >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Steve Tusler >> >> Sydney >> >> >> >> >> >> >> ------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the >> quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > --- > This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. > http://www.avast.com > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Steve Yes I have three times had people on Two census records Stephen Hillarys Western Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Tusler" <tusler@optusnet.com.au> To: <SUSSEX-PLUS@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 23, 2013 3:44 PM Subject: [SXP] Two census records for the same person > Hello Listers, > > I recall in the past a conversation where it was possible for one person > to > be on two census records in the same year. > > > > I know they are geographically close (Itchingfield & Ifield) but is it > possible that somebody could be on the following two references If they > were > done on different days? > > > > HO 107/1096/1 page 13 > > HO 107/1095/13 page 24 > > > > I had originally only looked at the census from Ifield but recently > started > using the alternate Surname spelling (Trusler) that is more prevalent the > further back you go in time and it fills in some gaps with others on the > same page. > > Allen Trusler appears to be living with his future wife Martha Penfold who > was 15 at the time, is it normal to show non married couples living > together? > > > > Regards > > Steve Tusler > > Sydney > > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Thanks Nivard, These were the two census I was looking at and only came across the Itchingfield record yesterday as from 1851 onwards only "Tus(s)ler" was being used. I knew that one of the spelling alternatives was Trusler and this is the first record where I can link directly to that spelling. I can find a place for all the other names on the census. George and Stephen are the children of Hannah age 20 with father unknown for both and Allen age 25 is living apart from his wife which is probably why the 1841 census was blank for this part of the family. Nivard, Stella and Jean Thanks for filling in more details in my further education to not take these census records too literally Regards Steve -----Original Message----- From: sussex-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com [mailto:sussex-plus-bounces@rootsweb.com] On Behalf Of Nivard Ovington Sent: Monday, 23 December 2013 8:10 PM To: sussex-plus@rootsweb.com Subject: Re: [SXP] Two census records for the same person Hi again You didn't mention the census year (1841 & 1851 are both HO107) and only a partial reference First two as transcribed on Ancestry Remembering also that ages should be rounded down to the nearest whole five for those above 15 in 1841 1841 England Census about Catherine Knight Name: Catherine Knight Age: 35 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1806 Gender: Female Where born: Sussex, England Civil Parish: Ifield Hundred: Burbeach County/Island: Sussex Country: England Registration District: Horsham Sub-registration District: North Neighbors: View others on page Piece: 1095 Book: 13 Folio: 24 Page Number: 2 Household Members: Name Age Catherine Knight 35 Ann Sayers 15 Allin Tusler 25 Isaac Jenkins 15 William Holdor 15 Benjamin Banks 15 Edward Penfold 13 Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 1095; Book: 13; Civil Parish: Ifield; County: Sussex; Enumeration District: 12; Folio: 24; Page: 2; Line: 13; GSU roll: 474672. ================= 1841 England Census about Allen Trusler Name: Allen Trusler Age: 25 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1816 Gender: Male Where born: Sussex, England Civil Parish: Itchingfield Hundred: East Easwrith County/Island: Sussex Country: England Registration District: Horsham Sub-registration District: South Neighbors: View others on page Piece: 1096 Book: 1 Folio: 9 Page Number: 13 Household Members: Name Age Allen Trusler 25 Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece: 1096; Book: 1; Civil Parish: Itchingfield; County: Sussex; Enumeration District: 9; Folio: 9; Page: 13; Line: 20; GSU roll: 474673. ==================== He is incorrectly enumerated on his own as above, whereas he is living with Hannah TRUSLER 55 (who may or may not be his mother as relationships are not recorded in 1841) The household in full is :- // Hannah TRUSLER 55 widow of Ag Lab Hannah TRUSLER 20 George TRUSLER 6 Stephen TRUSLER 4 Allen TRUSLER 25 Ag Lab / John HOLLOWAY 22 Ag Lab Martha PENFOLD 15 // All born in County where enumerated You will see from the above that John HOLLOWAY & Martha PENFOLD are in a separate part of the same building From the above I would say that Allen TUSLER or TRUSLER worked with the Catharine KNIGHT and others for William GARARD 65 farmer Like many farm labourers he would live in for part or all of the week So he has either been enumerated there as that is where he normally lived or with Hannah TUSLER as that was his home when not working Nivard Ovington in Cornwall (UK) On 23/12/2013 07:44, Steve Tusler wrote: > Hello Listers, > > I recall in the past a conversation where it was possible for one > person to be on two census records in the same year. > > > > I know they are geographically close (Itchingfield & Ifield) but is it > possible that somebody could be on the following two references If > they were done on different days? > > > > HO 107/1096/1 page 13 > > HO 107/1095/13 page 24 > > > > I had originally only looked at the census from Ifield but recently > started using the alternate Surname spelling (Trusler) that is more > prevalent the further back you go in time and it fills in some gaps > with others on the same page. > > Allen Trusler appears to be living with his future wife Martha Penfold > who was 15 at the time, is it normal to show non married couples > living together? > > > > Regards > > Steve Tusler > > Sydney ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SUSSEX-PLUS-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Hello Listers, I recall in the past a conversation where it was possible for one person to be on two census records in the same year. I know they are geographically close (Itchingfield & Ifield) but is it possible that somebody could be on the following two references If they were done on different days? HO 107/1096/1 page 13 HO 107/1095/13 page 24 I had originally only looked at the census from Ifield but recently started using the alternate Surname spelling (Trusler) that is more prevalent the further back you go in time and it fills in some gaps with others on the same page. Allen Trusler appears to be living with his future wife Martha Penfold who was 15 at the time, is it normal to show non married couples living together? Regards Steve Tusler Sydney