Ellison/Roberts - A family mystery ?

[dickiesam]

1911... The fertility census! Background....

The falling birth rate, large numbers of people emigrating, and the reportedly poor health of the nation gave the government cause for concern in 1911. A large healthy workforce was needed for Britain to continue to develop as an industrialised nation, and these concerns prompted the government to include questions on ‘fertility in marriage’ in the 1911 census. In the 1911 census women were asked to state the ‘years the present marriage has lasted’, the number of children born alive to the present marriage (not just those who were living in the house) and how many had died.

This is of particular interest to the family historian, because it can alert them to the existence of children who had died, as well as children who were away from the family home at the time of the census. It can also potentially point to earlier marriages, via the children who are listed on the census as ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ but who are not from the present marriage. Sometimes, these are easy to spot as the householders have helpfully listed them as ‘stepson’ or ‘stepdaughter’. In other cases it is possible to deduce which children are from previous marriages as the total number of children listed will exceed the number born to the present marriage, and their age will be more than the ‘years the present marriage has lasted’.

From Findmypast Help.

[VicMar1]

Thanks DS, that is how I saw it initially but its credibility is in question ?
For example, further back in this thread I posted details of the 1911 census for 2 Town View. On that return there is a "Davio", Ann (wife?) and 3 'children',
William (16)**,Annie F. ( ) and young George ( ) ?. I also know for a fact that Ann Sr had another daughter named Ellen Letitia in a Kirkdale workhouse school ! That makes four children,using the interpretation as outlined in FmP Help BUT ! (and bear in mind that the 3 older children were born legitimate as Ellisons !) Only William insisted that his name was Ellison and therefore was a "stepson" (relative to 'head' of house). The enumerator accpted that "total number of children born alive" was 2 and "Children still living" again is 2. He has just listed 3 children at the address and yet completes the form with 2 ??
The return is 'marked' with an 'x' so the enumerator themself filled it in ?
Puzzled ?
The return in question is for William Riley at 2in6 crt, Currie St (RG14_22137_0323_03), the signatory looks like the same handwriting as the enumerator so can't compare the signatures, previous examples of William Srs whereabouts are all symbolised by 'x' s anyway so I assume he was not very literate ?.

[dickiesam]

Hi Vic,
That 1911 Household Summary Form for the Riley household would not have been completed by the enumerator. The head of household was responsible for its completion. The enumerator then checked the information when he collected the form a few days after the census date.

Any changes by the enumerator would usually be in pencil. The green and red ink entries were done much later at the analysis stage of the census when codes were allotted to occupations and places of birth if outside the county.

If William was unable to complete the form a household member could have done it for him. It is known that in earlier censuses the Household form was often completed by children because they were the only literate persons in the family.

There is an error in the 'Years married' of 40 years if William's wife was indeed only 50 years old. Maybe her given age is wrong? And the 'Nil' entry appears to indicate there were no children born alive to this couple. Could be that the person in the household who completed the form misunderstood the questions given that they had originally written all the ages in the Male column and put 40 in William's Column 6 when the question was addressed to Married Women.

[VicMar1]

"The head of household was responsible for its completion"
That is very interesting DS, given our earlier discourse on "Davio = head" at 2 town court actually being Horatio C. Roberts ? The 1911 census appears to be the first year that a signature was required by the head of house ?
I agree with your observation re their given ages against length of marriage and agree also that there could be good reason by way of having had it completed by a proxy that didnt comprehend the questions any more than they themselves.
I had thought it to be this family from 1881 RG11_3631_P35 at 8in12crt Richmond Row but think now I am definitely mistaken.

[lynne99]

I have found this post late. I searched Lancs On line parish clerk
http://www.lan-opc.org.uk/cgi-bin/mkind ... ol+Central
and found 2 of the births . Hope this is useful to you.
It ia brilliant sit\e and credit to their hard work
Lynne

[VicMar1]

Thanks Lynne99, but unfortunately I am unable to follow the link directly (code 5100)and unfortunately the URL doesnt give me any specific clues.
Which 2 births do you refer to please and which church(es) ?
Thanks also for showing your interest.

[lynne99]

St John the Evangelist, Knotty Ash.
1) James Brown - [Child] of Alfred Brown & Ellen Letitia
Abode: 1 Summer Sq.
Occupation: Brewer's Employee
Baptised by: Frank J. Powell
2) Thomas Brown - [Child] of Alfred Brown & Ellen Letitia
Abode: 6 Black Horse Lane
Occupation: Brewery Employee
Baptised by: Frank J. Powell

the web site is
http://www.lan-opc.org.uk
I did a search with surname for child and parents first names.
Hope this is ok. Lynne

[VicMar1]

Aah yes, the Browns.
Thank you for that, I was initially confused by your suggestion as I had moved further back into discovering the Riley clans origins.
Yours is an interesting discovery that I will look into further ,much obliged.

I agree Lan-OPC is a very good resource and invaluable at times, although I usually arrive at it through searching "Forebears.co.uk."

[dickiesam]

Re:

The 1911 census appears to be the first year that a signature was required by the head of house ?

Hi Vic,
Unfortunately the Household Report Forms for previous censuses were destroyed after the information on them had been transferred to the Census Summary Pages we are used to seeing on our monitors. Once the transferred information had been checked, double-checked [all those black ticks and strokes that often obliterate the information] and tabulated, and occupations 'identified' and coded etc, they were considered a waste of space. The Household Forms were 'signed' by the alleged householder or by someone in the family who could write before being collected by the enumerator.

The 1911 is the only census where the actual Household Report Form is available and in most cases showing the signature of an ancestor.

[VicMar1]

Thats useful background knowledge DS,and quite enlightening.
I cant remember having filled in a census form for donkeys years now as I lived in Europe for a considerable time and these days vote on-line.

Back on topic and I have found my Rileys at last, or should I say REILLYS !!
and it looks like William Sr has possibly 'popped his clogs' or been worn out ?
[RG12/2928 p40]
PLUS my dear old GrandMa Martha Ann is living nearby and already calling herself after Robert E Ellison although they never married until almost a year later in Jan 1892 - [RG12/2928 p39].
I am now finding cases of them being listed as Rielys,Reilleys and Raileys (and it is not by any fault of the transcriptors.)
As you said Mary "it is not in any way straightforward at all"
(but happy to still be moving forward)

[VicMar1]

Can anyone help me make sense of the Mothers Maiden Name on this baptism record please.
It has been transcribed as 'Madury', McGee (?) and McFury but I cant get it at all,can anyone see something else please ?

[dickiesam]

While it looks like McFury I don't think it is. The Irish 1901 and 1911 didn't come up with a single hit on that surname. However a wildcard search for Mc*ury gave several hits on McLury and many more on McClury. Both seem to be Northern Ireland surnames.

[MaryA]

I would say not a d since it doesn't match either that in the middle of Edward's name, nor the Miss Coady beneath.

And do you know for sure that her first name is Anna? looking down other baptisms I wondered whether it was Emma? but her surname appears to be either Carren or Carroll.

[VicMar1]

Got it !! its MAJURY ! what a brainbender !
As you point out Mary the two 'd's in Edward have tails in opposing direction so is misleading, never contemplated it being a 'j' !
Not what I was expecting but subsequent records substantiate it fully.
As for "Ann", (Annae) I have had to guess what every generation has called themselves and there are lots of Ann's,Annies and Anna's added to which it has often been their secondary Christian name that they have used so frequently that it has become the name that they have used when registering official events.
This is on top of being called Rileys,Reilly,Rieley or even Rayley(?)in one instance.

Thanks Chaps.

[Hilary]

On the 1891 census Ann says she was married.

Before the 1911 census forms went out it was recognised that there was still a lot of illiteracy and so many people would struggle with the forms. To combat this schoolchildren in Standard 5 (11 year olds) were given lessons in how to fill in the form.

[MaryA]

Got it !! its MAJURY ! what a brainbender !

Success! and does that mean you have found this marriage?
Lancashire Marriage indexes for the years: 1867
Surname Forename(s) Surname Forename(s) Church / Register Office Registers At Reference
MAJURY Ann RILEY William Eccles Parish St Mary's Salford C1/21/148

That won't be an RC church.

[MaryA]

[MaryA]

Father is Hans Majury it reads to me - doesn't sound either English or Irish does it.

[VicMar1]

Yes...... Hans ? Not your typical Irish name at all, but searching through Co.Down records there are quite a few, and a considerable number of them emigrated to the USA.
From what I have found so far there was a Brother to Ann, needless to say he was also called Hans, but it looks like he died aged 18 in Ireland.
At least I can now say that the origins for the "Mountains of Mourne" family folklore has some element of truth in it, being that they all seem to originate from Co Down ?
What a surprise with Ann Majury though because from the birth record I have discovered (if I am right?)that she was only 16 or 17 at marriage ?
And yet they are both described as being "of full age"?
Still cant find their first (surviving) childs birth, [Martha Ann again] in 1869,supposedly Pendleton according to the 1881 census I posted a reference to in an earlier post!


Yes Hilary, Ann did declare herself married and also an "Ellison", however she never legitimately wed until Jan 1892 in Manchester at All Souls Church (as previously posted),her Husband being Robert Elgin Ellison, a sailor. She had lied !, and not for the first time I might add, at the time of this census [1891] she was on bail awaiting trial for receiving stolen whisky from her Brother John, in a joint enterprise with her Mother Ann (Majury) and was charged in the name of Martha Ann Ellison and eventually got 2 months hard labour. She married legitimately the following January (I believe) in order to appeal to the better judgement of the court after being charged with a further misdemeanour in December 1891 and not too long after being released from Prison ?
She was discharged and so it apparently worked ?
However it looks like Robert E took the rap for her.

[Hilary]

She's Reilly in the 1891 census I saw.

Good find of the marriage Mary.