1921 census release

If you put just a surname in 'Other household member' you get far more hits than if you put the forename as well. Likewise if you just put a forename and leave out the surname, you get far more hits than if you include both names. So it seems to me it is matching on both forename and surname, rather than either/or.

I agree that if the 'Other household member' has a common forename and surname, you could well get other households too, so caution is needed in such circumstances.

 

I have checked between 40 and 50 entries so far, and actually paid for one. About 16 of the households are living at an address of which I was previously aware, either due to 1911 census, 1939 register or some other knowledge, such as address on a marriage certificate in 1920! Most of the others are living in the expected parish. Of 17 direct ancestors of myself or my wife, I have found 16. Only one proving elusive. Possibly away in army. Found his wife and both of her children by 2 previous relationships.

 

In my previous post #125, I mentioned that the third image I purchased was a duplicate of the second. Exactly the same except for large 'x"s across the names. I sent a message to FMP informing them of this and received a reply today that they are refunding the amount I paid for it.

 

Hi Helen, thank you so much for this information, I tried it and it worked a treat. I have only just started looking for my ancestors in the 1921 census, I found my father, where I was certain he was living but hovering over the details showed two Harrys? in the house. Using your method I worked out that the two Harrys were actually my grandmother Mary and my father's step-sister Mary, easily checked against their year and place of birth. Thanks again, now onto the next household.

 

Many strategies don't work all of the time, but that doesn't mean they aren't useful to try. Of course, there are caveats (in this case, common names and large parishes might throw up unwanted hits) but it doesn't mean the approach won't be successful, as it has been for myself and Heather.

 

Does anyone know anything about the maps we get with the 1921 census showing the registration districts? I am wondering if they were used in an earlier census, at least in the London area.
My ancestors and many relatives were living in flats at Wharncliffe Gardens in St John's Wood, Marylebone not far from Lord's Cricket Ground. Vacant land is shown on the 1921 map but the flats were built in the late 19th century and my family were there for the 1901 census. I have a Godfrey edition reproduction Ordnance Survey map of St John's Wood in 1913 that shows the flats.

 

I've just found someone who's in the 1921 census twice, within half a mile. At least, as transcribed he is.

He's second engineer on the steam trawler Kittiwake, tied up in Waveny Dock, Lowestoft on the night of the 19th June. But he had obviously already been put down at 217 Raglan Street, with wife and kids, and had to be crossed out once it was clear he would be on the other form. But the transcribers still took his details down, though being crossed out made that hard - doubly so where he started writing Lowestoft then stopped and crossed it out as he (unlike the rest of them) was born in Wrentham. That "Lowest" came out as "Somerset"!

There is I guess a serious question underlying this: should everything be transcribed even if rightly crossed out? After all, it is all information, and potentially useful, and it is open to you to ignore it if you like once you know what's going on. And it you never do find the "correct" entry, at least now you've got something!

 

And it would also have helped if the reason for crossing it out was given on the form.

 

Looking forward to getting back to grips with the 1921 UK census in 2022. Meanwhile I will try to pop in weekly and benefit from other member's experiences.