1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. If you're looking for the LostCousins site please click the logo in the top left corner - these forums are for existing LostCousins members only.
  3. This is the LostCousins Forum. If you were looking for the LostCousins website simply click the logo at the top left.
  4. Coronavirus Corner - a place to share your hopes, dreams, and frustrations.
  5. Only registered members can see all the forums - if you've received an invitation to join (it'll be on your My Summary page) please register NOW!

No piece # on 1911 census

Discussion in 'Search tips - discussion' started by canadianbeth, Nov 4, 2021.

  1. canadianbeth

    canadianbeth LostCousins Member

    I have a 2nd cousin twice removed who is listed on the 1911 census with his great aunt. He is just a little over a year old and the aunt is 70. She is listed as widowed and a relative with another family. I can see the schedule number up in the corner - 287 - but there is no piece number. What I see beside the form is this:
    "No record has been selected or there are no Suggested Records related to this record."

    This child's father and siblings are listed in a different census record, 3135/298. His mother is deceased in 1909 (childbirth?) and the father re-married in 1910. Since the 287 was close I tried using 3135 for the piece number but it was not correct. Is there another way to find the piece number?
     
  2. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    You don't mention which site you were using, but the census references are shown in the transcript at Findmypast and FamilySearch; Ancestry show the piece number in their transcript but not the schedule number.

    If you want me to look into this specific case please provide the name and age of your relative as shown in the census.
     
  3. canadianbeth

    canadianbeth LostCousins Member

    In the 1911 census, I see Emma Gilbert, widow, age 70, and Frederick Gilbert, age 1yr 6 months, living with a family named Madgwick. Emma is listed as a relative but I have no one named Madgwick in my tree, so I assume that it is on the Gilbert side and they took in the infant after his mother died. I was looking at the actual census form as seen from Jesse Frederick Gilbert's page that I linked to from his father Edward Gilbert's information as seen in the Matthews Family Tree. Emma (Clements) was my 3rd great aunt, married Edward Gilbert. Edward and his other children, and new wife, are on a different page, piece 3135, schedule #298. She is schedule 287.
     
  4. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    Both Ancestry and Findmypast give the piece number in their transcripts - do you not have a subscription to either?

    If not, FamilySearch show the CORRECT schedule number (which is always missing at Ancestry), but unfortunately what they identify in their transcript as the piece number is actually Findmypast's image number, not TNA's piece number. To get the correct piece number view the 'Document information' - it's the first part of the 'Household identifier', not the second part as FamilySearch have apparently assumed. For comparison view the FamilySearch transcript for your Gilbert family.

    I will contact Findmypast to let them know that FamilySearch have misinterpreted their data.
     
  5. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    I've done that, and they will let FamilySearch know. However it's unlikely to be resolved quickly so I've updated the FAQ for this census.
     
  6. canadianbeth

    canadianbeth LostCousins Member

    I have subscriptions to both Ancestry and FMP. Instead of looking for Jesse Frederick on the 1911 census I looked for Emma and found the same result, the sidebar stating no record has been selected. So I went back a few pages and discovered that what looked like a 287 was actually a 281. The 3135 for piece number was correct, entering 281 into LC got a correct result, (and no matches). I should add that I had trouble with the schedule number for the child's father as well; I could not tell if it was 218, 298, or 248. Going back a few pages determined that it was 298.

    I have never found Family Search to be of much use; the little blue box showed up beside Frederick Senior's name but when clicking on it saw nothing besides 1 Family Search hint found. I see no census records of any kind on that website.

    This particular search began with a hint in my e-mail for Edward Gilbert, Emma's husband. Since he was an in-law I was not particularly interested in him but did want to know about his family. I had the names incorrect in post #3, Edward Gilbert's son Frederick was the father of Jesse Frederick; it was he who had the two wives, and I assume the first died when Jesse Frederick was born. Emma Clements Gilbert was my 3rd great-aunt on my father's side.
     
  7. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    But they had the right schedule number, and you didn't! FamilySearch have almost exactly the same census transcripts as Findmypast (who supplied it), but the search is different - which sometimes will be advantageous.

    Although many FamilySearch records are also available through Ancestry and Findmypast (and vice versa) there are some important resources that you won't find at either site. If you don't use FamilySearch you're missing out - and it's free!
    Next time perhaps make use of your subscriptions rather than asking others for help when it really wasn't necessary?
     
  8. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Superstar

    John Madgwick (aged 27) married Emma Gilbert (aged 21) in 1894 in Haslemere, Surrey. The bride's father is given as Edward Gilbert, gardener. So there's your family connection.
     
    • Thanks! Thanks! x 1
  9. canadianbeth

    canadianbeth LostCousins Member

    I am sorry, but I went to Family Search and accessed the 1911 census. I could not find Emma or Frederick. So I looked for three others that I already have information on for that census and could not find them either. Obviously, I am doing something wrong regarding that website, which is why I have not found it of any use. But I will keep trying.
     
  10. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Superstar

    If you do a general search of the records for Frederick Gilbert, born 1909-1910 in Surrey, England, the first page of results includes the 1911 census with all the details shown as Peter describes.

    If you search just the 1911 England & Wales census, it comes up as 2nd hit (after a child of the same name in Croydon).
     
  11. canadianbeth

    canadianbeth LostCousins Member

    But my Jesse Frederick's mother was not Alice, it was Jane, who was deceased before 1911. He was living with his Madgwick relatives and great-aunt Emma, name just given as Frederick. His older siblings, living with their father and his new wife, were (Frederick) William and Dorothy. I found his birth registration index but not his baptism. The Frederick Gilbert in your link appears to be Edward's brother, born 1880; he would be my Frederick's uncle. Too many Frederick's. Edward's son Frederick seems to have had an ego problem; he named his sons Frederick William and Jesse Frederick.
    Edward and Emma had 7 children; Frederick was the youngest. I know a little about a couple of the others but I think I will follow the rest another time.
     
  12. Helen7

    Helen7 LostCousins Superstar

    Are you replying to my post about finding Frederick Gilbert in 1911? In the census I found, he is 1 yr 6 months, living with John and Emma Madgwick, their 4 daughters and Emma Gilbert (70, widow). I don't think anyone mentioned Jesse Frederick's mother's name. I certainly didn't. You seem to be referring to another Frederick Gilbert with mother Alice living in Croydon (the one I mentioned which came top of the hit list on the search, but is clearly not your Frederick).
     
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2021
  13. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    I can understand that you haven't developed a successful search strategy for the FamilySearch site (you're not the only one, so this would be a good topic for a future newsletter article), but that doesn't explain why you didn't use Findmypast.
     
  14. At home in NZ

    At home in NZ LostCousins Star

    The recent changes to FamilySearch do not make it any easier than it was beforehand.
    There is a tips for effective searches link on the home page which takes you to this page
    And there are tutorials in FamilySearch
    here
    and here
     
  15. peter

    peter Administrator Staff Member

    I haven't read the tutorials but, when you're looking for a record in a specific record set at any site, the best approach is to search that record set. Accordingly, when you click the FamilySearch link in the LostCousins FAQ it takes you straight to the 1911 England & Wales census - it really couldn't be simpler.
     

Share This Page