Archiver > WEST-RIDING > 2009-01 > 1232056584

From: "jean and terry" <>
Subject: Re: [WRY] 1901 census lookup
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:26:24 +1030
References: <77b37aa10901141214i44577f9dkb195ad7b95156bed@mail.gmail.com><BAY103-W3112E3DEE45A9FAB4581E6CBD70@phx.gbl><77b37aa10901150531j4e8f6b05l483e8ad8ce3e8887@mail.gmail.com><BAY103-W6F3854EF24CDA1BDB1E26CBD70@phx.gbl><77b37aa10901151236x35c9386an2747a51a7be65cc4@mail.gmail.com><BAY103-W5401D82B6C7CDCB96744AACBD70@phx.gbl><77b37aa10901151306q39551f16i64acf2bbb7ba7f96@mail.gmail.com><BAY103-W2646ACEE37144045DAB080CBD70@phx.gbl><77b37aa10901151318x58042c94qb45263f7cf377577@mail.gmail.com><BAY103-W52685B63D420F123044CDBCBD70@phx.gbl>

Hi, You have a good point here about it being only one night. I have a
family listed in 1891 Thomas LANE and wife Sarah E living at 116 Waterloo
Street Sculcoates with 8 children. In the 1901 census I have found the
eldest Ellen married to Richard PENROSE, Bertha, Alice and Lily all in
service at different addresses. Using the 1901 available through Ancestry.
I have yet to discover Sarah E LANE or children Gertrude, Thomas E or Edward
or Annie.

I think Thomas died in 1897, I haven't found a death or re-marriage for
Sarah E (although I could do better if I discovered the maiden name for
Sarah E.) I think they may all still be with Sarah and the surname
transcribed incorrectly or they could be listed under another surname. I
haven't actually looked for deaths for so many. I did find a marriage for
an Edward to Mary H BEECROFT in 1915 so I think he may still be alive.

The 1911 census is not likely to be of any help at the moment as they
haven't released East Yorkshire.

I am discovering how different the world was in terms of child care before
the adoption Act in 1928. I have discovered that all 5 children of Alice
ended up with other people and only the 2 youngest were adopted. Now I am
wondering if her mother being widowed had to foster her own children out.
My adopted grandmother also lost her mum quite young and the 3 children went
to different relatives to be raised.

I had problems for years trying to find a John HAIGH in 1891, I had him in
1901 and 1881, his wife and children can be found in 1891 and he clearly
came back because my husband's grandmother was born in 1892. I am pretty
sure I have found him but he is working as a coal labourer in Wales whereas
he was a Weaver.so clearly this family moved for work. Now we have so many
census available it really is a great tool but it does have its limitations

The 1911 census offers for many of us relatives we have heard of from our
parents so it is exciting. My mum was born in 1920 and I can't see how
releasing the census after 80 or even 90 years would harm anyone. I think
the 100 year rule is silly. In America they have the 1930 census available.

Jean in S. Australia.
----- Original Message -----
From: "sally roberts" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: [WRY] 1901 census lookup

> Okay, well first of all remember that this is a snap shot of one night.

This thread: