HI Geoff. Thanks for your insights into the census proceedings. My paternal grandfathers name was CANNELL. I have done a search on the 1881 National Index which searches all soundex spellings etc and they are not there. Perhaps, it is misspelt - like you said - maybe - Pannell. Dannell Back to the drawing board. At least I can search at my convenience at the computer. Cheers from Canada Donna King Tolpuddle List Manager Oldest Loveless ancestor - John Loveless - born circa 1731 in Tolpuddle, Dorset, England ----- Original Message ----- From: Geoff Riggs <[email protected]> To: D King <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, May 31, 1999 7:59 AM Subject: Re: [TOLPUDDLE-L] 1881 BRITISH CENSUS AND NATIONAL INDEX > Hi everyone, > > Donna said in her posting sent: 30 May 1999 22:04 > Subject: Re: [TOLPUDDLE-L] 1881 BRITISH CENSUS AND NATIONAL INDEX > > > My grandfather's family on my dad's side does not show up in the 1881 > > census. Perhaps they weren't home that day. > > Theoretically, if they were anywhere in Great Britain, the National Index should > include them. I say theoretically because, as you know, one or two were missed > on the enumerator's schedules or when he came to copy them up into his census > book. > > What's far more likely is that the surname has been wrongly read by the > transcriber. Without knowing what their surname was, I can't suggest what it > might appear under instead. but, with my RIGGS One-Name Study, I've found the > following errors in transcribing surnames. I've checked each of them back to > the microfilms of the original census books at the Family Records Centre - on my > infrequent 260-mile round trips to London - to confirm that they are errors):- > 33 BIGGS should be RIGGS > 9 BAGGS should be RIGGS * > 8 RIGGS should be PIGGS > 2 RIGGS should be TRIGGS > 1 RIGGS should be HIGGS > 53 in Total which might not normally be found, plus also > 8 RIGG should be RIGGS > 16 RIGGS should be RIGG(E) > 77 altogether that are wrongly transcribed, out of a total of 1,021 (over 7.5%) > [ *one family of RIGGS had been wrongly enumerated as RAGGS, > and that in turn had been wrongly transcribed as BAGGS.] > > So don't give up yet - use a bit of lateral thinking as to what the surname > might have been interpreted as { 8-) } > > Geoff > RIGGS One-Name Study - GOONS Member 2408 > Webmaster of > 1. http://welcome.to/Gwent.FHS > 2. http://welcome.to/AFHS.Wales > "Genealogists ... love to view their heirs and air their views" > from Humour page on > 3. http://relative-links.genealogy.org > > ______________________________ >