Hi Jenny What a wealth of theories! Some I can answer, some have given me great food for thought. I can't find Joseph in the 1841 census: he wasn't living with his parents who owned the farm next to Jane's family. He could out of necessity have been working and living elsewhere and only able to see Jane, his wife. As you say this would explain why he was written down as a visitor. Jane may not have been able to share Joseph's 'digs' and or maybe have preferred to be with her family for the birth of their first child. The baby, a girl, was born there in May. Your theory about younger children filling out the schedule doesn't hold water though! The enumerator always filled in the form and were chosen for their legible handwriting. I am beginning to think with all the information and ideas presented that the mistake may well have been that of the enumerator. Unmarried pregnant girls and their families went to great lengths to hide the pregnancy and the child was often presented to the outside world as the newest member of the family ie as her actual mother's new sister or brother. It therefore seems highly unlikely that Jane, obviously pregnant, would declare herself unmarried when she wasn't. Maybe the enumerator had had a long day. I don't suppose I'll ever know for sure but it has been fun trying to puzzle it out All the best Sue -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jenny De Angelis Sent: 16 January 2010 15:35 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Help, please! Maybe one of James Boothman's younger children was filling out the schedule on behalf of their father, if he could not read and write someone else would have to fill the form out. The information on the schedule could only be as good as the knowledge of the either the writer of it or of the person dictating what should be written down. If someone's knowledge was at fault you get errors, maybe the younger child just put Jane down as the eldest child of James and forgot to add her married surname of Lawson. perhaps too the marital status of Jane was left off or unreadable by the enumerator and as she was showm as a Bootman and the dau. of James the enumerator might have assumed she was unmarried. Maybe the enumerator filled out the schedule for James and only asked the names of James's children. James may not have realised it meant giving daughter Jane's married name. Joseph Lawson being put down as a visitor because he had been visiting on that day The 1851 census was taken on the 30th March, and as you say Jane's daughter Mary Anne was born in May 1851 she would have been expecting the baby soon after the census. Maybe Joseph Lawson was just visiting overnight, the 30th March that year was a Sunday. The census wanted to know who spent midnight on census night at what address, it did not ask who permanently lived there. It could be that Jane too was only there for a day a two and by the time the schedule was being filled out she and Joseph Lawson had gone to their own home, but had passed the night of Sunday 30th March at her father's farm. Maybe Jane went back to stay at her father's farm until the baby Mary Ann was born, Joseph might have visited on a Sunday because that was the one day of the week that he had some time off from his farm work. For all you can tell he may not have even spent the night of the census at the Boothman farm but whoever filled out the schedule put him down as having been at the Boothmn farm on the night there by mistake, simply because Joseph visited every Sunday. Perhaps the person filling out the form may not have realised it meant who slept the night there but just who had been present at that farm on 30th March. What is the fiche that you have? is it a fiche of the PRs or just a transcript or Index of them? If it a transcript of Index then you really do need the copy of the entry from the Register itself as the transcript could contain errors. You say the page you need is missing from the Fiche that you have. Would not the CRO holding the original PRs be able to help either by sending you the missing page as a photo copy or a copy of the marriage itself from the parish register, would it not be worth contactin them to ask? at worst they can only say no they can't do that. Otherwise you will have to order a copy of the marriage certificate from one or other of two places. If you go to the FreeBMD entry of that 1850 marriage and then click on the word Clitheroe you go forward to a page where you can click on the word "Here" in the information shown there, this this then brings up a page giving the areas covered at that time by Clitheroe District. Gisburn is amongst those places and to it's right it says that the Gisburn registers were transferred to Settle on 1st april 1937. You can click on the word Settle to go forward to the next page where at the bottom it tells you that the Settle registers. presumably including those for Gisburn, are now held by North Yorkshire District office. If you click on the words North Yorkshire you will get up a page of District office addresses, showing North Yorks to be at Harrogate. You could email them to ask if they can check the marriage to see that Jane's father was indeed James Boothman occ. Farmer. If they are willing to supply a copy of the entry so much the better, but they probably won't take card payment over the internet, only by letter or by telephone call. Otherwise you will need to order a copy from the GRO via their website. They have a space on their order form where you can add checking information, you could add jane's father's name and occupation to be checked against the entry. If the entry matches they will send you a copy at the usual fee. But if the entry does not agree with your info., they will not send a copy but will charge you a checking feem which I believe is about half the cost of a copy certificate. Getting a copy of the entry from one source or another will save you puzzlig for evermore about the 1851 entry, you can just put it down the an error on the part of the person filling out that household schedule back then. Nothing else you can do about it if you want to do a proper job of researching your roots then copy certificates are an important part of that research as proof that you are on the right line. Anyone coming after you who picks up where you left of can see how you came to your conclusions about the family and where they came from and need not go over ground you have covered already. Not sure if you have found this Christening in the IGI already so am mentioning it just in case. Jane Boothman 7th August 1825 Gisburn Yorkshire father James Boothman mother Jane. Batch number P007662 which shows this to be an extracted entry and not a patron submission. Use that batch number.region British Iles and add the parents names James Boothman and Jane in the appropriate boxes you should get up 4 children of these parents, including Jane in 1825. Taking out the batch number but adding the country as England and county as Lancashire brings up more baptism for children with these parents names but whether they are for the same James and Jane Boothman it is hard to tell. These Lancs bapts. are mostly in the Wesleyan Methodist at Clitheroe Lancs. With some at Liverpool which I would think can't possibly be yours. But the Clitheroe ones might belong to you as Gisburn and Clitheroe are close together.perhaps James and Jane changed to the Methodist persusaion, many people seem to have done so around that time. Something else you could maybe do is to order the LDS film of the PRs for Gisbsurn. Follow the Source Call No. link in the above IGI entry for Jane Boothman it will show you that the film contains Marriages for various year spans including one for marraiges 1813-1900 and Banns 1823-1899. There are also burials 1799-1899 and another film contains the baptisms 1558-1900 as well as Marriages and burials for earlier years. Could be worth hiring such film/s at your nearest LDS centre for the small hire fee they charge. You can find the address of your nearest LDS centre by making a search for centre addresses on the famiysearch home page. you would of course have to go to the centre to view the film but as the film will be kept for a month for you you can go there as many times as possible during that month to view your film. Regards Jenny DeAngelis Spain. <<I have been puzzling over an entry in the 1851 census (the actual image) for the two participants in a marriage, Jane Boothman and Joseph Lawson. Until I saw it, I had so much evidence as to the parentage of both Jane and Joseph that I had no doubt that I had identified the correct couple. According to Ancestry, Lancashire BMD and Free BMD the said Jane and Joseph were married in Gisburne Oct-Dec 1850 but of course the fathers are not given. I have the Gisburne microfiche for the period but would you believe, although Jane and Joseph are in the index under the same number, that page of 15 entries is missing...aargh! This is the 1851 entry: 1851 Gisburne Cotes Farm Boothman James Head,Widr, 60 Farmer of 80 acres Waddington Jane Dau, 26 unmarried Farmer's Daughter Downham Joseph Son, 7 Gisburne Lawson Joseph Visitor, 26 Farmer's Son Gargrave>> Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.145/2626 - Release Date: 01/16/10 07:35:00

HI Sue, you wrote:- <<Your theory about younger children filling out the schedule doesn't hold water though! The enumerator always filled in the form and were chosen for their legible handwriting.>> Can you imagine how long it would take an Enumerator to cover some of the EDs in large towns if he had to stop at every house in each one of his EDs., to fill out the schedule of each household? I agree he might help out with households where no one could read or write but it would be impossible to do the same in every single house he visited to collect information. I have cut and pasted this paragraph below from the National Archives pages on the subject of the Census for England & Wales, with regard to the Enumerator and the Schedules. It should explain my thinking. ""Each registrar's sub-district was divided into a number of enumeration districts, each of which was the responsibility of an enumerator. The enumerator delivered a form known as a schedule to each household a few days before census night, and collected the completed schedules the day after. The schedules were then sorted, and the details copied into the census enumerators' books. It is these books which have survived for 1841 to 1901 and which can be seen today online or on microform. The original householders' schedules were later destroyed with the exception of 1911. Special schedules were provided for vessels and institutions. "" The enumerator copied the information from the household schedules onto his own forms, which we know as Folios, and then made up each ED into a book by sewing them together. This is why I said in my message that maybe the handwriting was not clear on the household schedule and so the enumerator put Jane down as unmarried, because he thought that it was it said for her. Or else the person in the household filling out the schedule made the error. You know yourself how difficult some of the writing on the Census folios we view on line can be, and that is the handwriting of the Enumerators, chosen as you say for their legible handwriting! You can imagine how difficult some of the schedules must have been to read when people who didn't normally have to do much reading & writing, who were perhaps barely literate in some cases. This is why I suggested that perhaps one of the children filled out the schedule for their father, because he perhaps could not read and write. I know what you mean about illegitimate grandchildred being passed off as children of the grandparents, I have come across one of those in one of my lines. The mother married a year or two after the birth, I don't know if it was to the father or not. But the child stayed with the grandparents, he is down as grandson in each census, and gave his grandfather's name and occupation as his father on his marriage so probably never found out the truth of the matter. The grandmother was just young enough at the time to have had a late baby. In your Boothman 1851census entry that little boy Joseph aged 7 is shown as Grandson not son as you quoted, the Gran part of Grandson is written slightly to the left of the realtionship column. If Jane and Joseph Lawson did not marry until 1850 then that little boy Joseph, if he is the son of Jane, would be shown as Boothman and not Lawson on his birth certificate. There are 3 Joseph Boothman births between 1842 & 1851 at Clitheroe shown on freeBMD, 2 in March & Sept. Qtrs 1844 and 1 in March Qtr1845. Not one Joseph Lawson born in the same period in Clitheroe turned up. This if little Joseph was born at Gisburn as stated in the 1851. Regards Jenny DeAngelis Spain.

Well, it is true that you learn something new every day! I did think that the enumerator's filled out the forms themselves but as you point out it would have been impossible. I can understand too how the enumerator could have mistaken what was written in the marital status column. But I don't think he could confuse Boothman for Lawson. Maybe whoever filled the schedule in forgot that Jane was now married! And thanks of pointing out that Joseph is down as the grandson. I have in fact found the baptismal entry for Joseph and he is the illegitimate child of Jane. I don't know whether you have seen Brenda's message but it is now official that visited Joseph was indeed Jane's husband. What an amazing list this is: you're also helpful. Many thanks indeed Sue -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jenny De Angelis Sent: 19 January 2010 11:57 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [WRY] Strange or incorrect census entry? Help, please! HI Sue, you wrote:- <<Your theory about younger children filling out the schedule doesn't hold water though! The enumerator always filled in the form and were chosen for their legible handwriting.>> Can you imagine how long it would take an Enumerator to cover some of the EDs in large towns if he had to stop at every house in each one of his EDs., to fill out the schedule of each household? I agree he might help out with households where no one could read or write but it would be impossible to do the same in every single house he visited to collect information. I have cut and pasted this paragraph below from the National Archives pages on the subject of the Census for England & Wales, with regard to the Enumerator and the Schedules. It should explain my thinking. ""Each registrar's sub-district was divided into a number of enumeration districts, each of which was the responsibility of an enumerator. The enumerator delivered a form known as a schedule to each household a few days before census night, and collected the completed schedules the day after. The schedules were then sorted, and the details copied into the census enumerators' books. It is these books which have survived for 1841 to 1901 and which can be seen today online or on microform. The original householders' schedules were later destroyed with the exception of 1911. Special schedules were provided for vessels and institutions. "" The enumerator copied the information from the household schedules onto his own forms, which we know as Folios, and then made up each ED into a book by sewing them together. This is why I said in my message that maybe the handwriting was not clear on the household schedule and so the enumerator put Jane down as unmarried, because he thought that it was it said for her. Or else the person in the household filling out the schedule made the error. You know yourself how difficult some of the writing on the Census folios we view on line can be, and that is the handwriting of the Enumerators, chosen as you say for their legible handwriting! You can imagine how difficult some of the schedules must have been to read when people who didn't normally have to do much reading & writing, who were perhaps barely literate in some cases. This is why I suggested that perhaps one of the children filled out the schedule for their father, because he perhaps could not read and write. I know what you mean about illegitimate grandchildred being passed off as children of the grandparents, I have come across one of those in one of my lines. The mother married a year or two after the birth, I don't know if it was to the father or not. But the child stayed with the grandparents, he is down as grandson in each census, and gave his grandfather's name and occupation as his father on his marriage so probably never found out the truth of the matter. The grandmother was just young enough at the time to have had a late baby. In your Boothman 1851census entry that little boy Joseph aged 7 is shown as Grandson not son as you quoted, the Gran part of Grandson is written slightly to the left of the realtionship column. If Jane and Joseph Lawson did not marry until 1850 then that little boy Joseph, if he is the son of Jane, would be shown as Boothman and not Lawson on his birth certificate. There are 3 Joseph Boothman births between 1842 & 1851 at Clitheroe shown on freeBMD, 2 in March & Sept. Qtrs 1844 and 1 in March Qtr1845. Not one Joseph Lawson born in the same period in Clitheroe turned up. This if little Joseph was born at Gisburn as stated in the 1851. Regards Jenny DeAngelis Spain. Some useful websites - FREECEN - http://www.freecen.org.uk/ FREEBMD - http://freebmd.rootsweb.com/ Want to know where a place in Yorkshire is - Try Genuki http://www.genuki.org.uk/big/eng/YKS/ ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.432 / Virus Database: 270.14.149/2630 - Release Date: 01/19/10 17:49:00