ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2002-08 > 1030534870

From: "EddieS" <>
Subject: Re: TWICE in the 1881 census?
Date: Wed, 28 Aug 2002 12:41:10 +0100

Duplicate entries in a census is an interesting topic but I suspect it is
very rare. A bigger problem might be those who were 'illicitly' in a
household and gave a false name.

I can confirm the existence of a duplicate entry in the 1851 census in
Aveley. I transcribed both entries twice (by mistake and 9 months apart). I
found some of the entries difficult to read but here, to show the problem,
are my best efforts. It gives a good clue as to how people were known. The
second entry is clearly 'formal' and it is Walter, not Robert, who appears
in the GRO index. The ages are the same in both entries.

ref: 1773/83#118 - SPACKMAN (possibly SPECHAM)
Leonard (poss Lennard), Fran, Olif, Leonard (poss Lennard), Robert, Susan,
Wm and a lodger

ref: 1773/85#132 - SPECKM (or SPECHM)
Leonard (poss Lennard), Fanny, Olivia, Leonard, Walter, Susan, Will and a

I have several thoughts:
- 2 different people ennumerated the household
- the house might have been approached from a different direction and not
recognised as the same
- perhaps the house was visited twice and husband gave results on one
occasion and wife on the other
- the 1773/83#118 entry is next door to another SPACKMAN family who may have
provided the information for that entry
- the ennumerator got mixed up with his forms and did not recognise he had a
duplicate - especially as there were 4 SPACKMAN households in the same area

I had not thought of the possibility that the family might have moved.


----- Original Message -----
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2002 12:37 PM
Subject: Re: TWICE in the 1881 census?

Whilst searching through the NWKFHS 1851 census index for Deptford looking
for the MURPHY family, I found what seemed to be a complete family who
appear twice in the index. The ages and names of all of them (parents and
six children) tie up so closely that I'm convinced they are the same family.

My assumption went along the lines of:
the enumerator went round over several days around March 30th, probably
starting a day or so early. On the first visit, the enumerator and/or family
worked on the basis that the family would be resident in the house on the
due night (although the term 'resident' seems to have overtones of 'normally
living there'). By the time the enumerator had finished his rounds a few
days later, the family had moved house and happened to move to a property
that was further along the census route. The enumerator, not wishing to miss
out any property, just included them again.

But then we must never make assumptions!!

Dave Dobbin

This thread: