Boards.ie uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Click here to find out more x
Post Reply  
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
20-09-2018, 13:17   #16
kildarejohn
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meursault View Post
Jaysus, you have me worried now about the accuracy of the census! I wonder was there an indifferent attitude to all this back then, .
I have come across a case where a child (illegitimate) was recorded as "grand daughter" of the head of household in 1901, and "niece" of the same person in 1911. I suspect this had more to do with it being a different Enumerator than any change of attitude between 1901 and 1911. If the Enumerator knew the family, then he probably already knew the status of the child, if the Enumerator was a stranger then the family would tell him what seemed more acceptable.
kildarejohn is offline  
Advertisement
21-09-2018, 07:30   #17
pinkypinky
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 4,541
MOD HAT ON

There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread. I'm posting on mobile atm so can't give as full a response as I'd like or do links easily.
That said:
- Please read our sticky on tracing your ancestors, since both of you are new to genealogy.
- Please use the search function, there are many threads on not being able to find civil births and on adoption (also see the adoption forum)
- Very few people lied on the census to cause hassle - it's much more likely to be genuine ignorance. They did however take it seriously because people, being less well educated, were more likely to obey authority figures like the RIC constanstable doubling as census enumerator.
pinkypinky is offline  
(3) thanks from:
21-09-2018, 08:29   #18
jasonb
Registered User
 
jasonb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,529
Sorry, didn’t mean to cause any hassle!
jasonb is offline  
21-09-2018, 08:38   #19
Meursault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 332
Quote:
Originally Posted by pinkypinky View Post
MOD HAT ON

There's a lot of misconceptions in this thread. I'm posting on mobile atm so can't give as full a response as I'd like or do links easily.
That said:
- Please read our sticky on tracing your ancestors, since both of you are new to genealogy.
- Please use the search function, there are many threads on not being able to find civil births and on adoption (also see the adoption forum)
- Very few people lied on the census to cause hassle - it's much more likely to be genuine ignorance. They did however take it seriously because people, being less well educated, were more likely to obey authority figures like the RIC constanstable doubling as census enumerator.
No problem pinky, it was just idle speculation. Its a discussion board afterall. I take your points on board though. I'll take a look at the previous threads on the same topic.
Meursault is offline  
21-09-2018, 10:48   #20
murf96
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 3
Hi Jasonb
Sorry it's taken me a while to reply to your original query. I had a bit of trouble with the signup process - it's obviously not idiot-

proof!
First of all I investigated who were the neighbours of John Byrne in the 1901 census. This can be quickly ascertained by looking at

the Enumerators report (Form B1). Lo and behold living next door was James Byrne and his family. This looked promising,

seemingly too much of a coincidence.
So then I searched for a marriage for James and Mary A Byrne and found that James Byrne married Mary Anne Hart at

Blanchardstown on 13 Jul 1888. This seemed like a setback since the 1901 Census indicated that John was born circa 1882.
So I started looking for births of their children. First I found Bridget, born 16 Dec 1886 (actually registered on 7 Jan 1887) This was

two years before their marriage date, but they were both named on the birth registration. Next I found Bartholemew, born on 13 Jul

1888, ie on the same day as their marriage. So Bart gets into wedlock by the skin of his teeth!! (maybe that's the wrong turn of phrase

since he probably didn't have any teeth at that stage)
Anyway that prompts the question, was there a John before Bridget?
Sure enough, we find John, born 22 Jan 1884, at 65 Kirivan Street Cottages. His father James at that time was a police constable.
Once again both James and Mary Anne appear on the birth registration.
The adoption of John by the McAntees may have been an unofficial arrangement which was convenient for both families.

Regardless, at 26 years of age he was still living nextdoor to his birth parents.
Cheers murf
murf96 is offline  
Thanks from:
Advertisement
21-09-2018, 11:47   #21
jasonb
Registered User
 
jasonb's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Posts: 2,529
Quote:
Originally Posted by murf96 View Post
Hi Jasonb
Sorry it's taken me a while to reply to your original query. I had a bit of trouble with the signup process - it's obviously not idiot-

proof!
First of all I investigated who were the neighbours of John Byrne in the 1901 census. This can be quickly ascertained by looking at

the Enumerators report (Form B1). Lo and behold living next door was James Byrne and his family. This looked promising,

seemingly too much of a coincidence.
So then I searched for a marriage for James and Mary A Byrne and found that James Byrne married Mary Anne Hart at

Blanchardstown on 13 Jul 1888. This seemed like a setback since the 1901 Census indicated that John was born circa 1882.
So I started looking for births of their children. First I found Bridget, born 16 Dec 1886 (actually registered on 7 Jan 1887) This was

two years before their marriage date, but they were both named on the birth registration. Next I found Bartholemew, born on 13 Jul

1888, ie on the same day as their marriage. So Bart gets into wedlock by the skin of his teeth!! (maybe that's the wrong turn of phrase

since he probably didn't have any teeth at that stage)
Anyway that prompts the question, was there a John before Bridget?
Sure enough, we find John, born 22 Jan 1884, at 65 Kirivan Street Cottages. His father James at that time was a police constable.
Once again both James and Mary Anne appear on the birth registration.
The adoption of John by the McAntees may have been an unofficial arrangement which was convenient for both families.

Regardless, at 26 years of age he was still living nextdoor to his birth parents.
Cheers murf
Hi murf…

Thanks for your reply. And sorry Meursault for hijacking your thread!

I appreciate you taking the time to look into this, and I also spotted the Byrnes living next door and got my hopes up! However, on both Marriage Certs for my Grandad his father's name is listed, and it's not James. Of course, I'm assuming he used his real father's name on the cert, but who's to know really? Also, the same Byrne Family are still there in the 1911 census, along with 7 of their children, and that census says they had 12 kids and 7 are still alive, which would suggest that their son John, born in 1884, had died.

Thanks again for looking into it though...

Mods, would it be possible to move these two posts to my own thread so as not to complicate Meursaults? Thanks...

Last edited by jasonb; 21-09-2018 at 12:23.
jasonb is offline  
21-09-2018, 13:03   #22
Meursault
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 332

Quote:
Originally Posted by jasonb View Post
Hi murf…

Thanks for your reply. And sorry Meursault for hijacking your thread!

I appreciate you taking the time to look into this, and I also spotted the Byrnes living next door and got my hopes up! However, on both Marriage Certs for my Grandad his father's name is listed, and it's not James. Of course, I'm assuming he used his real father's name on the cert, but who's to know really? Also, the same Byrne Family are still there in the 1911 census, along with 7 of their children, and that census says they had 12 kids and 7 are still alive, which would suggest that their son John, born in 1884, had died.

Thanks again for looking into it though...

Mods, would it be possible to move these two posts to my own thread so as not to complicate Meursaults? Thanks...
Not at all JasonB! This is very interesting.

@ Murf - feel free to do the same investigating for me!
Meursault is offline  
Thanks from:
21-09-2018, 21:09   #23
spurious
Category Moderator
 
spurious's Avatar
Kirwan St. cottages.
spurious is online now  
21-09-2018, 23:08   #24
murf96
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Posts: 3
Quote:
Originally Posted by Meursault View Post
Not at all JasonB! This is very interesting.

@ Murf - feel free to do the same investigating for me!
No worries Meursault, and sorry you made me realise that I also got caught up in the crossover between threads. I'll watch out for that
murf96 is offline  
Post Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Remove Text Formatting
Bold
Italic
Underline

Insert Image
Wrap [QUOTE] tags around selected text
 
Decrease Size
Increase Size
Please sign up or log in to join the discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Share Tweet