Census anomaly?

pedroeibar1

I’m trying to pin down a Lamont family, Catholics, Peter Lamont married to Sarah nee Mullan and have hit a bit of confusion. In the 1901 Irish Census– Peter (61) and Sarah Lamont (60) are listed at a house in Long Commons, Coleraine, with sons Joseph (20) & Frank (16), and daughters Lizzie (13) and Ellen (9). (Sarah giving birth at 47 & 51?) Residents form here

HOWEVER, the same Census year, at Waverly Terrace, Coleraine, we have ‘another’ Peter Lamont (61) married to Sarah (60) with sons Joseph (20), Frank (16), Lizzie (13) Ellen (9) along with four more - Jane, Mary Jane, John and James ranging in age from 8 down to 3 years, which is most unlikely/impossible, given Sarah’s age. Link here

So it might be a double count, with Waverly Terrace being part of Long Commons, both being in the NE Liberties of Coleraine? But that does not explain the additional / different children in the households. I suspect that an older Lamont son, might be the absent father of the younger children, some of the family worked in Scotland periodically. The 1911 Census has a Peter, a widower, age 71 living with a daughter Lizzie (age 23) at a different address.

Anyone got views on what might be happening?

shanew

handwriting is similar, but their spellings are different - one has 'read & rite', the other has 'Read & write'.

Wondering if maybe it's an extended family living in two house close to each other ?

L1011

With the old fashioned, regular naming schemes it wouldn't be impossible to have extremely similar sets of names in families, I've got a similar scenario in my own family although its nowhere near as precise as that.

The houses are on their building return forms with different landlords (Robert Taylor and I think James Kennedy) which suggests its not a doubling up. There could be any number of odd reasons I can think of though - someone could have been renting two houses and wanted to make sure both looked occupied to "the government".

pedroeibar1

shanew wrote: »

handwriting is similar, but their spellings are different - one has 'read & rite', the other has 'Read & write'.

Wondering if maybe it's an extended family living in two house close to each other ?

Thanks Shane - I did not want to confuse it further by mentioning that for the moment:o – there actually is yet another Lamont family a couple of doors away at No. 10 Long Commons, which could possibly be a son of Peter & Sarah’s, John (age 36) with wife and five more children: An 9; John 7; Elizabeth 5; Peter 3; Margret 1.

However, it is unlikely that the Waverly Terrace kids are theirs,(*) as the ages overlap (James & Peter aged 3, Elizabeth and John 5, etc.)

I believe the eldest child of Peter & Sarah (nee Mullan) to be a Mary, born 1865, - she is my interest, and I will be in Dub next week so will go to the GRO (if I have a chance) to get her cert. - i have what I consider to be fairly close 'Mary' so it will be worth the €4. I am trying to tie down the Lamonts and make sure I can tie Mary to them - she married in Glasgow and I got father's and mother's maiden name from that cert.

Searches for the marriage of her parents, Peter & Sarah on Scotland's People and on Familysearch do not locate one. (There is one in Limavady that I need to check...) The 1881 and 1891 Census on SP does not have a Peter and Sarah Lamont on the same return, so they were not together in Scotland on those dates...

(*)There are other male children of Peter & Sarah who could possibly be the parents, -a few Williams, Johns and Peters.)

pedroeibar1

MYOB wrote: »

With the old fashioned, regular naming schemes it wouldn't be impossible to have extremely similar sets of names in families, I've got a similar scenario in my own family although its nowhere near as precise as that.

Thanks MYOB but with two Peter Lamonts married to two Sarahs and four children aged the same and with identical names I think it is too coincidental..............

666irishguy

I think that could be a double count. Was there or is there not a rule on the census that you had to include anybody in the house on the night after a certain time, when you fill the census? Perhaps they were in the other residence which isn't normally their residence and were included twice for some reason.

shanew

other then the head of the house being Petter on one and Peter on the other, the first six members of the two households are not just close - they are a perfect match by name (including 'Lizzie'), and age... just the minor spelling differences - Labourer/Laberer, Scholars/Scholar etc

close matches due to naming pattern I'd expect, especially among relations, but what are the chances of perfect name & age matches in two families ?

I think that's the same family but someone else filled in the form..

shanew

look at the signature on the form for Long Commons - looks like Joseph signed it and then crossed out the first name and replaced it with 'Petter'

pedroeibar1

Thanks Shane, I should have paid more attention to that. The spelling throughout is interesting to say the least! Surmise for the moment :– It’s one family, the only Peter & Sarah Lamont marriage I can find that ‘fits’ the era. P & S possibly have grandchildren staying with them; (there is a strong Scottish connection, hence my Scotlandspeople research), so the kids parents might be away working? I have several certs to order from the GRO, will advise when I get a clearer picture.