1901 British Census: More Comments #general


Ron Kathren <rkathren@...>
 

I share the frustration of David Kravitz with the 1901 British census.
Even though I have accurate knowledge of family living in Manchester in
1901, not a one appears in the census. Since his problem area also seems
to be centered on Manchester, perhaps this location is the problem. Then
again, a global search for the surname RUTSTEIN comes up negative. Yet
the family is there in the 1881 census, although they could have gone or
the surname disappeared by 1901. Methinks as does David Kravitz that the
1901 British census may be of very limited genealogical value.

Ron Kathren

Researching: KATERINSKY/KACERINSKAS (Lithuania)
RUTSTEIN (Vilkaviskis, Manchester)
COHEN (Manchester)
LECHINSKY and FORMAN (Porosovo, Belarus)
FINEMAN (Brzostowica, Grodno, Poland)


Kevin Bean <Kevin@...>
 

Ron,

The main problems with the 1901 Census are caused by errors by the
transcrbers and also the enumerators.

Unless your ancestors were out of the country at the time of the Census it
is likely they are on the Census but you cannot find them.

Have you tried a search using wildcards (e.g. Surname: 'Ru*', along with
age and place of birth) ?

Kevin.

"Ron Kathren" <rkathren@tricity.WSU.edu> wrote in message


I share the frustration of David Kravitz with the 1901 British census.
Even though I have accurate knowledge of family living in Manchester in
1901, not a one appears in the census. Since his problem area also seems
to be centered on Manchester, perhaps this location is the problem. Then
again, a global search for the surname RUTSTEIN comes up negative. Yet
the family is there in the 1881 census, although they could have gone or
the surname disappeared by 1901. Methinks as does David Kravitz that the
1901 British census may be of very limited genealogical value.

Ron Kathren


Michael Yaffey <myaffey@...>
 

Ron Kathren writes:>
I share the frustration of David Kravitz with the 1901 British census.
Even though I have accurate knowledge of family living in Manchester in
1901, not a one appears in the census. Since his problem area also seems
to be centered on Manchester, perhaps this location is the problem. Then
again, a global search for the surname RUTSTEIN comes up negative. Yet
the family is there in the 1881 census, although they could have gone or
the surname disappeared by 1901. Methinks as does David Kravitz that the
1901 British census may be of very limited genealogical value.
I think Ron and David are unduly harsh. I have found good results >from this
census myself. The problem would be that the census enumerator is faced
with a person who cannot spell his/her name. So they take the best stab
at it, in terms of their own Lancashire dialect's mapping of spelling to
sound. That is not strictly an *inaccuracy* and certainly not *garbage*.

With regard to RUTSTEIN, the census records 40 ROTHSTEINs of whom two are
in Manchester. Maybe that's the answer.

Best wishes

Michael Yaffey


Martin Miller <millerm@...>
 

Absolutely.

The RUTSTEIN family members who came >from Vilkaviskis, Lithuania to
Syracuse, NY can be found in the Ellis Island records with that name, but
with various spellings.

In the US the several brothers became ROTH! No RUTSTEINS here.

Martin Miller in Syracuse, New York
mailto:millerm@mailbox.syr.edu
http://web.syr.edu/~millerm/index.htm

sound. That is not strictly an *inaccuracy* and certainly not *garbage*.

With regard to RUTSTEIN, the census records 40 ROTHSTEINs of whom two are
in Manchester. Maybe that's the answer.