Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
It's not always the transcribers fault.
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Irene | Report | 30 Apr 2005 22:51 |
|
Well don't just blame anyone, in the last year my husband's Auntie died, her son and brother (our Uncle) all said her name was Constance Miriam as she was always called Connie, didn't believe me when I said no just Miriam. I now have her birth certiificate Miriam. What chance do our children have. Irene |
|||
|
moe | Report | 30 Apr 2005 18:52 |
|
My ancestor in the census was called Mabel born in india when i found her birth details on army records her name was Ethel Mabel. also when calulating age from census they could be having a birthday that same year so don't take it for granted that its correct, I have also seen people born in SOOTLAND so always check other letters on the page to see if error has occured. MOE! |
|||
|
Rosalind in Madeira | Report | 30 Apr 2005 18:34 |
|
But the transcribers don't always put what they see down. Found one index says place of birth United States. Image says America. typical American transcriber. |
|||
|
Jennifer | Report | 30 Apr 2005 18:16 |
|
Hi Margaret, I have just discovered today, that the enumerator when taking details of one of my husband's ancestors, has mixed up the entry for their birthplaces. SThe wife has her husband's birthplace and he has hers. Luckily this happened on 1861 census and not one of the later census, otherwise I would probably have spent a lot of time looking for people in completely the wrong place. I suppose we have to remember they were only human after all and we all make mistakes. Jenny |
|||
|
Lisa | Report | 30 Apr 2005 17:49 |
|
And sometimes its your own fault, like me, looking for Henry George Woodman (well, thats who he said he was on his sons birth cert.) when all the time I should have been looking for George Henry! Lisa |
|||
|
Twinkle | Report | 30 Apr 2005 17:11 |
|
Looking on Ancestry today, I viewed a badly-faded image and in the 'deaf, dumb, blind' column, someone has written a despairing 'YOU WOT?'. My thoughts exactly! |
|||
|
Unknown | Report | 30 Apr 2005 16:50 |
|
You are right there Margaret. I double check everything, ever since I spent weeks looking for a 'Carmon' family only to look at original census (armed with magnifying glass!) to find it was 'Curnow'!! Got sorted in the end!! |
|||
|
Margaret | Report | 30 Apr 2005 16:45 |
|
Having eaten an awful lot of humble pie recently, after incorrectly, blaming a particular transcriber for 'getting it wrong', today I started checking the 1861 Census on Ancestry. My Gt.Grandfather was a Saywell he married a Sewell - all O.K. until 1861. The enumerator has put them all down as Sewell. So!....... don't even trust the enumerators............ double check, treble check, every time. M. Steer |
|||