Desperately seeking Cornelia

The NFHM Blogging Challenge for the first week asked "What extraordinary things have you discovered about your family history in census records?"; but, as is so often the case, what we discover are more mysteries and challenges.

Mine seemed such a simple question: Where was Cornelia Wilkins (born Cornelia Medwell on 23 February 1877 in Glinton, Northants) on 2 April 1911? And the answer apparently flowing from the Census data was "Nowhere!"

In her 2014 book Vanishing for the Vote, Jill Liddington describes the campaign of civil disobedience advocated by some suffragettes who argued that if they were not permitted the vote, why should they submit to being counted. But the evidence that is revealed by the Census documents that I have located suggests that the reasons behind Cornelia's absence were more complex and more disturbing than political activism.

Cornelia Medwell had married Thomas Edward Wilkins in the second quarter of 1899 and they appear (as expected) in the 1901 Census¹ as a new household residing at 12 Russell Street Peterborough. On that return, neither of them list an occupation although we know (from 1891) that Thomas was a woodworker and Cornelia had been a dressmaker before her marriage.

Russell Street c.1905
Looking towards the distant junction with Lincoln Road with cabinet makers “Whittle” operating from premises on the mid-left.

From collection Peterborough Images.

Believed to be copyright expired.

The couple had two sons John Haydn Wilkins (born 21 October 1905) and Leslie Medwell Wilkins (born 6 December 1907). So the little family should not prove difficult to locate in the 1911 census.

• Thomas Wilkins was recorded as living with his mother and brother at 69 Russell Street².
• John Wilkins was living in the Farm Cottage of Thorpe Hall³ with his grandparents (Aurelius and Ann Medwell) and a female relative named Cornelia, not his mother but a cousin.
• Leslie Wilkins is recorded as a "nurse child" in the household of Wallace and Margaret Cattell at nearby Northborough⁴ where Cornelia Medwell was a boarder. This is not the boys' mother but a grand-aunt (the sister of Aurelius).

Of 34-year-old Cornelia born in Gilston, there is simply no trace. She is apparently not living in another town (or county) nor confined in an institution, unless it is under a totally different persona. And, of course, no record of her death.

What makes this puzzle so infuriating (and intriguing) is that we know Cornelia Wilkins died here in Queensland in 1952 while living in the home of her son John.

In 1924, when John applied to migrate to Queensland as a "farm lad" to boost our agricultural workforce, he was living at Fig Tree Cottage at Dogsthorpe. Approval for him to travel (since he was not yet 21) was given by his mother of the same address (once again). A little more than a year later, John remitted the £20 fare to bring his mother to join him in Australia. She was still living at Fig Tree Cottage, listed her occupation as "housekeeper to parents, recently deceased" and her marital status as "married (widowed)".

While it was certainly true that Aurelius and Ann had passed away, Cornelia was a little premature with respect to her husband Thomas. His death in Peterborough was not recorded until the first quarter of 1948. In fact, the 1939 Register shows he was resident at 69 Russell Street; the same address as recorded in the 1911 Census.

The 1939 Register also shows his son Leslie resident in Peterborough in the same household as Wallace Cattell, but by that time he is listed as Leslie M W Cattell. It was the Cattell surname that Leslie used when he married in the next year and until his death in 1972.

One can only conclude that something happened between 1907 and 1911 that shattered the family of Thomas and Cornelia Wilkins with long-lasting consequences. The documents preserved in the 1911 Census provide tantalising glimpses but no definitive answers as to what happened.

Our grandmother (a daughter of John) lived in the same house as her grandmother throughout her teenage years. Audrey and her siblings knew their Nan well. But whatever had happened all those years ago was not something to be discussed in front of the children.

So we must look for more documents that may cast light on new questions concerning the whereabouts of Cornelia. When did she return to Peterborough? Where was she on 19 June 1921? How many sleeps till I can access that next Census ?

Census references

1. (1901) RG13 Piece 1464 Folio 18 Page 27
2. (1911) RG14PN8686 RG78PN450 RD170 SD2 ED20 SN122
3. (1911) RG14PN8699 RG78PN450 RD170 SD2 ED33 SN9
4. (1911) RG14PN8710 RG78PN451 RD170 SD3 ED4 SN45

Demand to see it with your own eyes

In a recent post, I wrote that "Naturally, locating the relevant census records took a matter of moments with the correct names." That might have been a slight exaggeration.

There was no difficulty in finding the 1871 Census which showed Agnes Cameron (our 2xgreat grandmother), her parents (John and Sarah) and older sister (Isabella) all living at Rosendale Road, Eastwood (along with two brothers and an apparently-unrelated boarder).

The 1881 record was not quite so easy to interpret. The transcription offered by FindMyPast shows that all the expected children were living at Rossendale (sic) Road and the boarder's room seems to have been taken over by two more youngsters (Robert and Sarah). But their mother Sarah is missing and John is listed as a 44 year-old widowed female head of the house! Clearly there was something amiss.

There was no alternative but to pass a few more bawbees to ScotlandsPeople to be able to examine the image for myself. Once again, the expense was well justified.

The document shows that Sarah was alive and well. She had been widowed but chose to continue to describe herself as Mrs John Cameron. The modern indexer knew full well that prefixes such as Mrs have no place in a Census and omitted it without comment. It was a pity that the enumerator in 1881 was not so diligent in ensuring that each person was identified by their own given name.

So the 1881 Census confirmed that the annotation "dec" against the bride parents' names on the 1887 marriage register referred to her father John not Sarah. Although it does suggest that Sarah aged a little after his death. (She was 30 in 1871 but 44 in 1881, almost exactly John's age.) That expands the margin of error concerning her true date of birth but is less troubling than the uncertainty over its location. In 1871, John stated that his wife had been born in Ireland, but ten years later Sarah gave Lennoxtown in Stirlingshire as her place of origin.

Each new document diligently examined clears away a little of the mist obscuring our past and then throws up new questions requiring fresh evidence. Now where did I put my purse … ?

A strange census entry

At the 1911 Census, the form carried the following instruction under the heading Particulars as to Marriage:

State for each Married Woman entered on this Schedule the number of:-
Completed years the present marriage has lasted
Total children born alive to the present marriage
Children still living

The section of the form completed by our (possible) 2xgreat grandfather is shown here.

It indicates that a 20 year marriage had produced 5 children, 4 of whom are still living.

But there is NO married woman listed on the form; just Robert Snr and three sons.

He has placed the information about the length of the marriage and children against his own name.

How should we interpret this information?

Signing the Ulster Covenant

Today marks the one hundredth anniversary of the signing of the Ulster Covenant. Around the world on September 28th 1912, half a million people recorded their opposition to the prospect of a Dublin-based Home Rule parliament for all of Ireland. (Strictly speaking a quarter of a million signed the Covenant, and the rest (the females) signed a Declaration framed in similar terms.)

The centenary reminds us of the irony that a country with the least full-population data has two extensive sets collected just 18 months apart. Much can be learned by comparing the returns of the Census taken on Sunday 2 April 1911 (one of only two surviving) with the information provided by signatories to the Covenant or Declaration.

Take as an example our 2xgreat grandmother, Agnes BURTON. In 1911, she was one of seven people of that name recorded on the Census.

In the following year, just four Agnes Burtons signed the Declaration. Can they be matched to individuals in the Census?

The first address (in Tennent Street) seems to be in both data sets but the house numbers are different. Had Agnes moved from number 11 to number 235 in the intervening year? In fact, she did. Her daughters (Isabella and Mary Ann) included on the Census return also signed the Declaration and gave the same new address.

Lindsay Street is even more straight forward. The house number matches and apparently the family was still in residence. But Agnes was the only signatory from that household. Had Mary (aged 24 at Census time) married or left home for another reason? Of course, it is possible that Mary was still at home but declined to sign (which would have created some fascinating dinner conversations!).

The other address in Belfast South (Tassagh Cranmore Park) does not appear in the Census list but there was an Agnes living in the Windsor Ward at 109 Marlborough Park. She had three adult daughters—Winifred, Alicia and Mary. Each of them signed the Declaration and gave addresses in Cranmore Park, but only the youngest Mary was more specific listing the house name(?) Tassagh when she signed immediately under Agnes. Winifred and Alice appear to have signed at a different Meeting Hall.

All of which leaves just one signature to be reconciled; that of the resident of Finmore Street, Pottinger. Was she the other Agnes from Co Antrim, from Co Down, or Co Monaghan?

Agnes from Ballynure Street, Clifton in Antrim was the only one of the seven to list her religion on the census as Church of Ireland (the established Church) and so might be thought less likely to be a supporter of the Covenant than the non-conformists.

Lurganmore in Co Monaghan is a considerable distance (more than 90 minutes drive) from Belfast. If this Agnes was now resident in Pottinger, then it required a major relocation. When you consider that her son James (recorded on the same Census form in 1911) signed the Covenant at Drumgart Hall (in Monaghan), this seems unlikely.

You will note immediately that the two Agnes in Co Down lived at the same address, St Leonard's Street, in 1911. 19-year-old Agnes is our 2xgreat aunt, the daughter of 42-year-old Agnes.

The PRONI database shows that 3371 people signed one or other of the documents at Westbourne Presbyterian Church. Of those just six lived in Finmore Street. Agnes Burton resided with Sarah Nelson at number 6. If there were other adult residents in that household, they apparently were not signatories.

Although the area near the Belfast shipyards has been redeveloped after World War II bomb damage, there is a Finmore Court just two minutes walk from St Leonard's Crescent. Are these the addresses referred to in the century old records? Did Agnes (presumably the younger) move out of home (but not too far) soon after the Census?

It would be useful to be able to explain why Agnes (a member of the Salvation Army) chose to sign the Declaration at a Presbyterian Church. Was Sarah Nelson a member of that church? In 1911, there were four Presbyterians by that name aged between 18 and 28. One was a flax spinner and another a linen weaver, working in the same industry as "our" Agnes.

So the circumstantial evidence that our ancestor signed the Declaration is strong. Will the signatures provide the definitive evidence?

Clearly the person who 'signed' the 1911 Census is not the one who signed the Declaration.

But what about the person who 'completed' the Census?

In the absence of further evidence, I will assert that the younger Agnes filled in the form that was signed by our great great grandmother in 1911 and then signed the Declaration in her own right the following year.

What do you think?

A Bronx ancestor? Fuhgeddaboudit!

Sometimes a definitive negative finding concerning a possible ancestral connection can be as useful as a confirmation.

Our great grandfather Robert Joseph McALLISTER (b 1902) boarded the SS Regina at Belfast on 13 November 1926 and set sail for Canada. He arrived in Quebec on 21 November with the stated intention of joining his uncle (Mr J McAllister) in Mimico, Ontario. And there the trail goes cold.

But a (vanity) search run on the 1930 US Federal Census turned up an interesting possibility. Could the 27 year old Irish-born protestant railway welder living in a NY boarding house be our missing great grandfather?

Our ancestor's trade in Belfast had been as a fitter and his destination in Canada was a significant railway town near the border with New York state. The other resident with the same surname did need to be explained but it was easy to imagine that he could be Robert's cousin (son of Uncle J).

Unlike many idle speculations on possible links, this one could be tested. There would be a record of our two young McAllisters crossing the border from Canada and Family Search would have it. Unfortunately the immigration cards had been digitised but not indexed, so the test would require the visual inspection of up to 5964 images in the Soundex group. It was on the to-do list—but very close to the bottom.

Then the 1940 US Federal Census became available for searching. Would it provide any more information?

Our possible target Robert Joseph was still living in roughly the same neighbourhood, had married and started a family. He was now the "head of a household" so other residents were defined by their relationship to him and we learn that James was his younger brother. That ends the possibility of a connection.

At the 1911 Census of Ireland, our great grandfather had just one younger brother, William Henry, aged 6. James would then have been 4, so there was no possibility of a match to the NY family.

This is disappointing news for those descendants who were imagining a Green Card but for the dedicated family historian, it has enabled a major task to be crossed off the list.

And it opens up renewed areas of investigation in Canada. Now, where is that to-do list?

Footnote: For those puzzled by the title, see http://www.answers.com/topic/fuggedaboutit

Where was Bill?

Locating a new authoritative data source, such as a Census record, gives you the opportunity to cross-check what you already know (or assert) about your ancestors' approximate age, residence, occupation, religion and education. If you are lucky the new information confirms what you have been claiming.

If you are very lucky, the Census record contains an anomaly that challenges what you believe and opens up a new line of investigation.

That was the case with the 1911 Census of Ireland for the Burton household at 64 St Leonards Street, Victoria in Belfast.

It confirmed that Agnes was then a widow after the death of 2xgreat grandfather, Andrew and that her oldest daughter Sarah had left home. Those of working age were employed in flax-related industries and the five youngest children were in school — Andrew, Isa, Chrissie, baby Daisy (Susan), and … Bill was missing. William BURTON, aged 5, was not at home on census night 1911.

The records of the Belfast General Cemetery reveal that there was an horrific number of infant deaths between 1890 and 1910; but we have photographic evidence that William BURTON was not among them.

A number of suggestions were put forward as to where Bill might have been — in hospital, staying with his older sister, even the very modern possibility of a school camp. The challenge then was to use the census to find him.

Thanks to Agnes' practice of going "home" for each birth, he should be easy to track down. How many 5 year old boys called William born in Scotland and adherents to the Salvation Army could there be in County Down? In fact there were none recorded. Sometimes elegant searching needs to give way to brute force.

How many males aged 5±5 years named Burton were there? Just 15, of whom seven were 3 years old or younger and two were 8 years or older. Of six boys aged 4 to 7, three came from Presbyterian families and two were Church of Ireland.

Which left Willie aged 5 recorded as having been adopted into the Salvationist family of James and Mary Burton of 6 Gawn Street, Victoria.

Why do I think it is plausible that this is William the son of Andrew and Agnes Burton? The match of his name and age are not compelling evidence alone but, when you add the religion and the fact that the two houses are located just a few minutes apart, the case builds. Most significant is the fact that James' occupation "labourer" has been annotated "ship yard". I believe that Andrew was also working in the ship yards at the time of his death.

When Agnes was widowed, she was pregnant and had toddlers of 6, 4 and 2. If the family of her husband's workmate from the same Temple offered to look after one of the young boys, would she have accepted?

The case would be almost complete if I could demonstrate a family connection as well as occupational and religious links. Andrew Burton did have a brother James but he was born in 1870 and so would have been 41 years old in 1911 not 49.

However the damage to my argument is lessened somewhat by the observation that at the previous census (in 1901), James had claimed to be 45 years old. In the same ten year period, his wife Mary aged only 2 years and daughter Lizzie 7 years. The ages of the Irish on official documents need to be interpreted flexibly!

On balance, I am comfortable claiming that in 1911 Bill was living with his Uncle James and family just a few streets away. He was certainly reunited with his siblings in Queensland where they followed the same practice of village-like life — living with walking distance of each other's homes and being very flexible about whose children stayed where at any given time.

And that is where this story will stand, until I am lucky enough to find a piece of evidence that makes me search in a completely new direction.

Transcription challenges

The current buzz in some high-profile American blogs concerns the allegedly high error rate in the 1940 Census Indices published by Ancestry.

This reminded me of a puzzling aspect of the 1911 England Census for our 2xgreat grandfather Frederick THORPE. The transcript available on line listed the family's address as 300 New Sunnyside Worksop. But the neighbours appeared to live at numbers 16, 15, 14 and so on. Why the sudden jump in numbering?

At the time, I was more worried about what seemed a strange change of occupation. In 1901, Fred had been a Spindle Setter. How was it possible that in 1911 he was called a Naturalist?

When I saw an image of the 1911 form, I realised that my two concerns were one and the same. Fred had indeed become a naturalist and dealer in animals and, as a result, the locals regarded his home as being like those new "Zoological Gardens". What had been interpreted as a number (300) was actually a word written in script (Zoo).

As we move to on-line completion of census forms with built-in error checking, our descendents will be deprived of the thrill of making these wonderful little discoveries in our returns.

Ancestry, Birth and Culture

In the week that I have been reflecting on the knotty questions of who we think we are and why, the Australian Bureau of Statistics has released the preliminary findings of its 2011 National Census.

Last year, I wrote this piece about my difficulties with Question 18.

The report on its analysis entitled Cultural Diversity in Australia does little to reduce the concerns I expressed then.

The report reiterates the official view that Ancestry is not necessarily related to a person's place of birth but is an indication of the cultural group that they most closely identify with. It gives insight into the cultural background of both the Australian-born and overseas-born populations when ancestry differs from country of birth.

So how has this been interpreted by 20+ million Australians. The ABS states Just under a third (32%) of people who responded to the ancestry question reported two ancestries. Or to put it another way, more than 68% of people selected one option only. I was one of almost 4.7 million people who ticked "Australian" and moved on.

English was selected by almost 140,000 more people than Australian, but more than half of them made a second choice. Only 38.5% of those nominating Australian ancestry selected a second option. Of the top ten responses, the only groups with a lower multiple selection rate were Indian, Chinese and Greek.

What interpretations can be drawn from these data?

Garbage in - garbage out remains as true as ever it was in the world of data processing.

Unless you make some brave assumptions about how each and every respondent interpreted the instructions, you should take the conclusions with a hefty pinch of salt.

Context is everything.

In Cultural Diversity in Australia, the number of persons nominating Australian ancestry (7098.5 thousand) is said to represent 35.4% of total population (presumably the population of all responses, not people responding). In 2011 Census QuickStats, we read that the second most popular of Ancestry, top responses was [Australian 7,098,486 25.4%]. But, 25.4% of what? Never mind, the explanation under the table is that The most common ancestries in Australia were English 25.9%, Australian 25.4%, Irish 7.5%, Scottish 6.4% and Italian 3.3%. The fact that the percentage of Australian-ness has apparently declined from 29% in 2006 attracts no comment. Pass the salt please.

Pretty graphics can have very little underlying support.

The following screenshot from The Courier Mail of 23 June bears no relation to any number in the published ABS data.

But the fact that our Australian-ness on this measure has increased 6.7% since 2006 must be a good thing.

Perceptions of ancestry are highly individual. To some (including 2xgreat grandmothers, Jane and Agnes) it was a constant in times of great change. To others (like this writer) it is a subject for analysis against specific contextual variables.

Does it have any meaning when aggregated across a diverse population? Can it make a contribution to public policy development? I think that 4.7 million Australians expressed a view on that last August.