Problem with 1841 census on SP .....

[annpa]

in August 2005 I had a reply from Jack which gave me information on my GGrandmother ELIZABETH FARQUHAR in the 1841 and 1851 censuses for ABBEY (Paisley).

Hi Annpa,

(snip)!
--
I dare say you'll have all these - sorry no more details on censuses.
Seems your G-GM Elizabeth was born abt 1840.

(snip)
--
1841 cens 559 Ed 26 p 3 (Abbey)
Silk St, Paisley.
John FARQUHAR 39, twister, b SCT
Mary 38, b SCT
Mary 15, draw girl, b SCT
James 11, b RFW
Janet 9, b RFW
Christina 4, b RFW
Elizabeth 1, b RFW
--
Jack

Jack had found this on microfilm at Park Circus, I believe, (he also found and quoted the 1851 census for me). My problem, now that I have come back to this part of my tree, is that I cannot find any of the family on Scotlandspeople census 1841. If Park Circus has it on Microfilm why does it not appear on SP? Are there any areas missing from the SP version, and if so, why haven't they managed to get copies of the microfilm from those places that have it?. My Farquhars appear on FREECEN as well, so I would have expected to see the images on SP.
Anybody any clues?? I would so like to have the printed copy of the entry for the family.
Cheers
Annpa

[IanS]

Hi Annpa, Most of the family appear to be there under Farqu* . Except Elizabeth who appears under ages range 0 -1 instead of 1-1. have no credits left so can't check it is right family, sorry. All other christian names and ages are getting a hit.

[JustJean]

Hi ann and Ian

Yup...they are there thanks to Ian's careful wildcarding! I'm embarrased to admit I had looked earlier and didn't consider wee Elizabeth might have been younger than 1 and didn't look on any other names! This is how she is indexed...and the whole family is with her...

1841 FARQUHUR ELISABETH F 0 ABBEY /RENFREW 559/00 026/00 009

Best wishes
Jean

[DavidWW]

Just had a look at the image, and it's a classic.

The enumerator sometimes closes his "a"s, sometimes not.

Looking only at the surname for the (assumed) Head of Household, John, the surname written is quite clearly FARQUHUR, but, looking further, that would make both his wife and eldest daughter "Mury" !! (Their surnames are dittoed.)

And then in Janet, Christina, and Elisabeth he completely closes the "a"s.

It's the same across the two pages.

I'm near certain that it's not variable fading, just variable penmanship

You pays your money and you takes your choice.

David

[annpa]

Thanks guys for checking for me. Yes, I had used wild cards, but FAR*AR, and there's the rub!!
I did the above because sometimes John's surname (as in his marriage) has been written as FARGUHAR, so I wasn't going to be caught out by that!. I never thought that it would be the AR that would be changed to UR.
Thanks again, all. I shall now go and have a good look.
Cheers
Annpa

[DavidWW]

Thanks guys for checking for me. Yes, I had used wild cards, but FAR*AR, and there's the rub!!
I did the above because sometimes John's surname (as in his marriage) has been written as FARGUHAR, so I wasn't going to be caught out by that!. I never thought that it would be the AR that would be changed to UR.
Thanks again, all. I shall now go and have a good look.
Cheers
Annpa

Annpa

Let that be a lesson

David

[annpa]

re the careless penmanship that led FARQUHAR to be indexed as FARQUHUR, in the 1841 census.

Is it possible for SP to correct the indexing, as it is obvious from viewing that "it was just the way he wrote it" rather than "just the way he spelt it".

If so, how would I go about it?

Cheers
Annpa

PS I shall never leave anything to chance again. Well I tell myself that each time!!

[DavidWW]

re the careless penmanship that led FARQUHAR to be indexed as FARQUHUR, in the 1841 census.

Is it possible for SP to correct the indexing, as it is obvious from viewing that "it was just the way he wrote it" rather than "just the way he spelt it".

If so, how would I go about it?

Cheers
Annpa

PS I shall never leave anything to chance again. Well I tell myself that each time!!

Simply put, - no !!, - as the perfectly understandable GROS reaction in this instance is likely to be that the indexer's interpretation of the census entry cannot be argued with, despite what evidence to the contrary "should" have been the name(s) involved, - in other words, I and many others would have indexed this household under the surname FARQUHUR purely on the basis of being faced with the task of indexing this page with no other info, - which is the task that faces indexers

You and I know full well from other research that it is most likely that the "real" surname is actually FARQUHAR, and, personally, on a detailed analysis of this enumerator's hand for these two pages, then I could very easily be convinced that the surname could equally be FARQUHAR, as opposed to FARQUHUR, witness the wife and dochter by the name of "Mury", but indexers used by GROS have neither the luxury in terms of time available for detailed consultation of other records on the same page, nor the interpretation by deduction that if the names of the wife and dochter should be Mary, then the surname should be adjusted accordingly; nor parallel family research.

The situation as regards statutory, civil BMD records in 1855 and later is a bit different, in that GROS can be open, depending on the particular circumstances, to consider an alteration or addition to the index.

David

[sporran]

Hello Annpa,


I am in broad agreement with David's comments except for the last paragraph.

BMD records themselves can be changed after being recorded by means of the RCE process, but census records can not. Indexes, however, should be the same for BMD and censuses: they are just interpretations of handwriting after the event and carry no legal significance.

A lot depends on the relative frequencies of Farquhar and Farquhur and other supporting evidence, such as marriages and deaths on the people mentioned. The indexing of Mary rather than Mury strengthens your case. You have nothing to lose by filling out a form (using the "Contact Us" link on every page of the SP site) and selecting "Index and Image don't match".


Regards,

John

[DavidWW]

Hello Annpa,

....snipped.....

A lot depends on the relative frequencies of Farquhar and Farquhur and other supporting evidence, such as marriages and deaths on the people mentioned. The indexing of Mary rather than Mury strengthens your case. You have nothing to lose by filling out a form (using the "Contact Us" link on every page of the SP site) and selecting "Index and Image don't match".


Regards,

John

Precisely what I meant.

In other words, in terms of BMD records, if GROS can be persuaded on the basis of evidence presented that a surname has been mis-interpreted, then they will consider at least an additional index entry under the alternative spelling.

David