Hello and welcome to Family Tree Talk.

This is the last podcast of 2025, so that's quite exciting.

Yeah, it's pretty exciting, isn't it?

Who am I talking to?

Who are you?

I'm Nathan Ward.

I am a lowly traveller on the journey through my family history.

Oh, you're not lonely.

You're surrounded by loads and loads of ancestors.

My name is Helen Tovey and I'm editor of Family Tree.

And we do our lovely weekly podcast, which is the highlight of our working week.

Don't you see?

100%.

I love doing it.

I love it as well.

You know what I love?

I love it when we get interaction from our podcast listeners.

And we've got this brilliant email I'm going to read out now.

OK, you ready?

Go for it.

Okay, so this is from lovely podcast listener, Kath.

And she says she's still absolutely loving her weekly listening to the Family Tree podcast.

And she's even started again right from the beginning, but this time stopping it and making notes of any useful tics that we've given.

Oh, wow.

I'm surprised.

I'm glad it's useful.

That's one thing.

And I'm so impressed by that dedication.

Maybe it's more I'm writing down what not to do.

Could be that.

Could be.

Anyway, she says she's very happy listening to it.

It's definitely improving her family history research skills, which is exactly what we're about, isn't it?

That's our reason for being.

It is.

Yeah, that's lovely.

That's really nice to hear.

That's a really cute message.

Yeah, really, really lovely.

I can't believe someone's listening again.

That's cool.

No, I know.

And then Virginia emailed in and she said that she...

was sure she wouldn't be the first listener to make a suggestion for you nathan and in fact she is the first and only listener to make this suggestion so in scrolling back when you're talking about um wills and national probate calendar entries and things like that and she virginia says i'm sure i won't be the first listener to suggest that nathan could find out a great deal of information about the will and beneficiaries from the death duty records at the national archives consulting the records is free of charge but must be done in person what a great learning opportunity for nathan to branch out from online research to a real life archive that sounds exciting doesn't it Okay, yeah.

And what is that?

Death duty archive?

Is that what you said?

Yes, death duty records.

So with the records of death, there's obviously lots of different kinds of records of death.

And so death certificate would be the first most obvious one we go to.

And then the next port of call we might find is those national probate calendar entries, which basically is a list of people's...

That's really basically you can find on Ancestry, maybe on other places as well.

And I think they have them for England and Wales.

I think they do have them for England and Wales.

I think they have them for Scotland too.

Don't quote me on the Scotland bit.

That might be worth something to correct for a future episode.

And it has a very brief summary saying date of death, date of probate, name of person who died, registry, whether probate was granted, name of the executors.

home address, what the will was worth.

It's a whole bunch of information.

So even that little, they call it a calendar, but it's like an index.

Even that little index entry is super, super useful.

And then the next thing, these things Virginia mentions are death duty records.

So this is different again.

So this is obviously the duty that got paid on somebody's estate when they died.

And David Annell has written about these in Family Tree, but off the top of my head, I can't remember which.

article he wrote on but we can find that out and then we can share that in a future issue or if anyone is a member of Family Tree Plus if they go and search in their Family Tree Plus library then we should be able to it's got such a good search system in there on our back issues and we've got about quite a few years of back issues here now you should be able to find Dave's article and then you can learn all about death duty registers and literally they have so many weird nuggets of information that they they're definitely worth a look and they Sometimes it can be decades before somebody's estate and their duty and things gets worked out properly.

So what it means is you get lots of different family members, really quirky connections all recorded on this record.

It's fantastic.

But it's one of those records you have to, first of all, you have to be brainy enough to Virginia, like Virginia, to remember the records exist.

And then you have to be brainy enough to comprehend what you're looking at when you look at it.

And you have to get yourself down to the National Archives at Kew.

Thank you.

That was going to be our question.

Where are these dogs?

Right, okay.

There's a few obstacles there, but as she says, I'm in a really great research adventure.

Yeah, that sounds good.

Put on the archive visit wish list.

Definitely.

A trip to London.

Yeah, yeah.

So what we're trying to do, we are, like Cass says, we are trying to be helpful and useful.

So we have actually got a bit of a topic for today, which, knowing us, we will loosely cover.

And today's topic is one of those favourite, I was going to say, what's your favourite family history record, Nathan?

I feel like you're putting me on the spot.

It's the census.

Yes, that's the topic for today because it's a great topic, isn't it?

And I don't think you could ever get bored of the census, could you?

No, I love the census, especially because there's multiple different ones as well.

It's great, isn't it?

Cross -referencing them, lovely.

I love them too.

And it's also like, so we have access, if you're an English, Welsh, Scottish researcher, you've got kind of 80 years of census.

So that sounds pretty good, doesn't it?

Like 1841 to 1921.

Pretty good.

But it's better than that, isn't it?

Because imagine you've got an old person on the 1841.

You could be back to like 1750.

The push.

An old year old.

Yeah.

And then if you have a very young person in the 1921, that could give you another, even up to 100 years, couldn't it?

Yeah, somebody lived for 100 years.

So you could nearly get three centuries of ancestors.

Yeah, it's brilliant.

I love it.

I'm sort of teetering at the edge of that 1841 census at the moment.

That's where my research is at.

But I haven't done what you've just said.

That's an interesting thing.

But you will naturally do it because if you find your ancestor and then their old grandpa's living with them, bingo, you've got one of those old people, haven't you?

Yeah, definitely.

I think I'm at the point where I'm the generation before that.

And I know that I've got people on the 1841, but I haven't officially gone back to look at that because I think it'd be my fourth generation back on that tree, on that branch.

Yeah.

It's exciting.

I'm terrified of the 1841 and I don't know why.

I think it's because it's so handwritten.

And I know the other ones are handwritten, but it feels really handwritten, that one.

I think it's going to present me with lots of challenges.

But I like all the other ones in between.

It's my comfort zone.

I've said many times, just cross -referencing where somebody is a particular day and who they're with.

It just gives you so many options and you're learning about when people suddenly disappear.

It's like, okay, they've disappeared from that one.

Have they died?

Or have they been married off?

Or have they moved abroad?

It just helps you ask loads of questions, doesn't it?

Love it.

Definitely.

And you're not alone with that.

So the 1841, it is a little bit, you have to have your wits about you a little bit more to use it.

And the main thing is because that relationship to head of household column isn't on it.

Yeah.

So 1851 onwards says relationship to head of household.

So there's a five -year -old living in the house with a couple of adults.

You'll know whether it's the son, nephew, grandson or whatever, won't you, from the census entry.

1841, got a couple of adults and a five -year -old.

It'd be very easy just to assume it's their son, but it may or may not be.

And the record is not giving you any clues.

So it's just like, don't jump to any conclusions.

Just think, these people are all living under the same roof.

They might even have the same surname.

But is this child really their child?

Right, okay.

It's not a drama.

It's just you need to do a little double check.

It's making me feel a bit sweaty already.

It's fine.

It's fine.

Oh boy.

And then also what you said about...

Getting back to 1841, then it does feel like it's kind of like a bit of a drop -off point because, let's see, it's easy to get someone who's 50 in the 1841 census, isn't it?

Yeah.

Perfectly plausible to live till you're 50.

Yeah.

Even then.

So then you've got an ancestor who's born in 1791 and you're like, I'm pretty clever, I'll go back to the 1700s.

But then it is like this massive drop -off point because we've all kind of...

Worked back through the census, putting all our tree together.

It's all looking good.

We've got lots of things to check, loads of points of interest to follow up.

Maps to consult with the addresses we found.

Lovely burgeoning tree with all these side branches because all the kids are included on the census.

It's not like lots of records which will only include the homeowner or the person who's earning the money or whatever.

The census is fantastic, isn't it?

It's got everybody there.

All walks of life.

Anyway, so you got your person back to 1791 and then suddenly you're like, what?

am I going to do now because you don't have that lovely census to keep helping us along building things out and also we got back to the 1700s so we didn't have the civil birth marriage and death records um for UK ancestors and Irish ancestors maybe in some other parts of the world I think in France they might start in the I think they do start in the 1790s why do I do this why do I ad lib and then talk off the top of my head but I'm pretty sure it's because when Napoleon came along he set up civil registration.

But I don't actually know what year.

Anyway, it was earlier than us.

So it varies across the world.

But in the British Isles, we haven't got civil registration.

So making that further research skills jump, like what you said, from 1851 census to 1841 is harder.

From civil registration to parish registers is harder, isn't it?

It's got a bit less information on it.

Not such nationally available coverage in one place.

So we have to hunt around to find our locations registers.

All of it.

It's harder, but more worthwhile.

And in the meantime, you've got more match fit, haven't you?

All that research you've been doing through the 1800s, you've got fit.

You know what you're doing now with your family history.

Yes, yes.

I'm excited to stay there for some time now because you're terrifying me, but yes.

But you could stay there for such a long time.

Yeah.

Well, I can, and that's why I realise I don't need to progress so rapidly to the next generation.

That's why I want to fill out the line of my third time's removed.

Because I guess it's comfortable and nice and it's cold outside and it's better than getting stuck, isn't it?

But also, what you're doing is building a really solid tree.

It's great.

It's a fantastic idea.

It's not a cop -out idea.

It's a really, really good idea.

to build a solid tree and get all those three times greats.

I guess so.

And I do agree with you, but I've also got that trepidation of going further back and then it's making me feel the way I feel about DNA.

So it's like, okay, 1841 and DNA.

We'll just push them to one side and they don't exist.

It's fine.

I've been mucking around in the late 1800s, just recently, with my family tree because I'm doing my plan.

Trying to be organized like you stick with one plan.

And I am doing that.

It's really nice.

So my plan is my, I have all my three times great grandparents, but I'm trying to build out their children and their children's children and build these lines forwards to help me with my DNA research.

And so I've got, found this family.

The dad is the, he's an uncle.

He's a great, great uncle or whatever on my line.

So I was going off on this side branch and his daughter.

I was born in 1887 and she's got a couple of younger brothers born in the 1890s.

And I got them in 1901.

Eventually, that was a white palaver.

Managed to find them by their little son, who's called Elias or Elias.

But to even get him, I was hunting around.

I thought I literally couldn't find them anywhere.

And then I thought they must have moved to Ireland.

I think their mum's Irish or Scotland.

No sign.

And I was like, I'm going to go back again.

Search on other family members.

Don't just stick with it.

main event, my Frederick, think, I can't find Frederick, let's try and look for the kids, found Elias, helped my family there.

Then I moved forward to 1911 and I couldn't find Frederick again.

And I thought, I'm just going to, I knew Frederick's job was a flagger and a pavier.

And I mentioned that before, I didn't know what it was.

And I think I mentioned that I did have a sneaky peek and I found out what it was.

It's someone who works in paving.

So I was like, right, if he's working in paving in those days, he's going to be hacking up stones and he's going to have horrible stone dust, which is a massive carcinogen, isn't it?

And bad for your lungs.

I wonder if he died young.

So I stopped searching for him in the 1911, found his widow and two of their children in the 1911.

And then because the 1911 is that wonderful fertility census where it mentions how many children you've had.

And how many are still alive?

It mentioned she'd had six children.

By 1911, only two of them are alive.

The little, the Margaret born in 1887 I'd found, she'd died.

And then there were three other children who I never would have even thought to look for between, you know, because they just died, were born and died between the census years and never made it to a census.

On a calculating cold front, it doesn't really matter because...

I'm looking for descendants to see who my DNA matches.

They're not going to have any descendants, are they?

No.

DNA project.

But on a human point of view, you're just like, partly you feel really sad for them and partly I feel really pleased to have found them and now I've got to find them all, even though they're not relevant to the project of the DNA, but I've got to find them all and get them on the family tree, not get them forgotten.

Yeah.

Oh, that's really sad.

It's really sad, isn't it?

But that's why the census is never boring because it just packs so much stuff.

It's literally like, you know when you watch a movie and there's a trailer and it has like a bit of a story and you're like, I've got to watch the whole movie now.

And that's what the census is like.

You have this little snippet of your family and you're like, I've got to find out the whole story now.

Don't you think?

Yeah, definitely.

It just gives you questions and not the answers.

It's like when you see a lodger appear, it's like, who is this person and how did they get here?

Backtrack a little, though.

Am I getting this wrong?

You're saying that on that census it tells you how many children they had?

Mm.

Whereabouts is that information?

Because I don't think I've seen that.

You will have seen it.

So it's only on the 1911.

And so its nickname was the Fertility Census.

And what they did, it's quite precise, the information they said that should be recorded.

And it was for, I'm going to say this wrong, I could open up a copy of the census, I can read it correctly.

But it's effectively, for married women, the census wished married women to record how many years they'd been married to their current spouse.

And of that marriage, how many children they'd had.

And of those...

after those children, how many were still alive and how many had died.

So it's very, very precise information.

And lots and lots of people read the census form wrong.

So my indirect ancestors did read it wrong.

So let me read it particularly.

So it says, particulars as to marriage state, for each married woman entered on this schedule, the number of completed years the present marriage has lasted.

If less than one year, write under one.

Also, for each married woman, children born alive to the present marriage and children still living, children who've died.

So on this census form that I found for my how many times great uncle's wife, she's recorded there as a widow.

She was married to him for 27 years, which is actually another bit of census gold dust for me because I only know he died before 1911.

I haven't found his death date yet, but I can now, that 27 years, I haven't even found their marriage date yet, but I now know that they were married for 27 years, so that's going to help me.

If I find his death date, I'll know their marriage was 27 years before.

If I find their marriage date, I'll know his death was 27 years after, won't I?

I love the sense of sight.

And then, total number of children born alive.

six children, two living, four died.

And the enumerator has actually put a red line, or the person doing the statistics put a red line to it because...

As the census is so nitpicky, the census said for each married woman enter these details.

So she has entered these details.

But of course, by the time of the 1911, she's not actually a married woman anymore.

She's a widow.

So just for purposes, they don't want this information.

But luckily, they just put a red line through it and I can read it clear as day.

So I can get those family history details.

So even when they do it, and sometimes you'll get men who will include how many children they've had.

How many alive and dead?

How many years have you married?

And again, the statistician or the numerator, whoever it is, will cross it through going, oh, you're a married man.

We don't want these details for you because it's only for the married women.

But it doesn't matter because from our point of view, we're like, we want the info.

So thanks, buddy, for mis -including it.

Those details will help.

Let's have a quick nip in to look at this.

And I've gone to James Maxwell McKay and his wife.

Jane had four children, two living, two died.

So that's literally something brand new for me.

I didn't know that.

So I don't think I have details of four kids on that tree.

I've only got two, which is Phyllis and Alexander.

So that's amazing.

That's giving me more information straight away.

It's amazing, isn't it?

I'm pretty upset by it as well, but yes.

I mean, that's like a thing to add to your to -do list to find James Alexander's two other kids, isn't it?

It is.

So let's say I can't find them on the 1901, these two other kids.

How am I going to find them?

I don't know the names.

It's fine.

Keep talking.

I don't know the names.

I don't know when they were born.

I don't know the age of death.

I know nothing.

I'm just looking for a birth certificate with the parents' names.

Is that the...

Yes.

...brought in that date range?

Yes.

And so how are you going to establish a date range?

Well, it's...

Well, it's pre -1911.

Yeah, that's true.

It's not a silly point.

That's a useful point.

And more than likely after their marriage date, but not necessarily.

Perfect.

Yeah.

Yeah.

So let's say, as you say, there's two children you don't know.

Let's say they married in 1885.

So those two little missing children could have died between 1885 and 1901.

Yeah?

Yeah.

And so not have made the 1901, or they could have been born between 1901 and 1911 and so not made either census.

Yeah.

Wow.

Or they could have been born in 1888, made the 1901 census, but have been staying with their grandparents because their mum is giving birth to another baby or something.

You know, so you've got to...

don't just assume because they're not on the census that they've definitely died you have to do a bit of broad searching and then one last piece of waffle is I'm going to say this wrong and I always just I do it and then I'm not necessarily right so with the I think it's for EBMD not yeah with the GRO website that's right the GRO online indexes then that would be helpful for you if you've got the mum's surname because you'll be able to include that Maybe you can be as well.

I should know off the top of my head.

I think it's a bit like driving, you know, when you just rummage around and fill in things.

But between 3BMD and GRO, search them both.

And if anyone gives you capacity to add in the mum's maiden name, do that because it's such a super quick filter to filter down on precisely that marital couple.

There are going to be a few you might get confused with, but it's going to be much more helpful than just searching on the dad's name.

That's just, it's really blown my mind that, just that little bit of information.

I've just gone into my notes, you know, like I do, like I say, I do the cross -referencing for the censuses, place everybody in this timeline.

I've just gone to my James McClure McKay stuff.

It only mentions the birth of two children.

So I've gone through all these censuses and done my quote -unquote meticulousness and I've missed two people that I didn't know exist.

That's awesome.

It's cool, but it's like, wow, who else have I missed?

I'm going to have to go back and look at the 1911 for everybody now.

Yes, you are.

Yeah.

Wow.

So why did they only do it in 1911?

So partly every, not every, but pretty much every census year that happened from 1841 onwards, they improved or changed the data fields to make them more precise and detailed.

So by the time they got to 1911, they included this.

because they thought it'd be really, really useful.

And there will be a proper reason why they wanted to include it.

And I don't know whether it's something broad like the state of the health of the nation.

They want to know to be able to forecast the future population growth and health of the nation, aren't they?

It's going to be something broad like that.

I don't know the answer off the top of my head.

Somebody like David Annell would be able to tell you the precise reason why that question was added.

What I do know is that although it was on that census form, people were very, they felt it was very impertinent to have included it because by saying the number of years married and the number of children born to that marriage and things like that, then obviously all through history there have always been illegitimate births.

But if you go into the Victorian period and first half of the 20th century, having an illegitimate child is a massive, massive...

source of shame and scandal.

We can't underestimate how cruel family, neighbours, communities, societal judgment was against people for having illicit children.

So women would go to quite a lot of lengths to hide the fact they had an illicit child.

Their husband, in quote marks, would have deceased, be working at sea.

It'd just be entirely fictitious names.

So by having this question, though, on the census, it's clear as day stating what kids they've had inside that marriage and what ones they haven't had as well.

If there's other kids on there and they're not part of that marriage, then it leaves the woman in the hot seat trying to say which one's a legitimate, isn't it?

So let's say you have two legitimate children.

Would it appear like something like total children born, six, living two, died two, and then there'd be two missing?

Simply speaking, it should be.

But I suspect that'd be a really interesting survey.

I don't know the proper answer.

This is the episode of I don't know the proper answer.

Well, I'm upset you're not making up the answers, Helen.

That's a really good question.

And strictly speaking, I think it should have been.

If you were going to read the census form, let's dig it up again so we can actually read what it says.

If you're going to read it like a robot, then that's what you should do, shouldn't you?

Let's say you've had, what you've just said, six children.

Is that what you said?

Anyway, unless you had six children, four were born to that marriage and two were born either to outside any marriage or to a different husband, they should be recorded differently.

Yes.

But I guess what you've just said about the whole shame thing, it wouldn't want to appear, would it?

Unless you were a widow.

And lots of them were to say they were widows.

You're trying to hide it.

So how would that be recorded?

If you are a widow, if you actually were a widow in your second marriage?

Obviously, tracing back the previous census, I guess that widow would have had the children appearing.

It's hypothetical.

In the previous census, she's married to her other husband and they've got two children.

So they appear on that census.

He dies in between censuses.

She remarries before that census.

It's a very fast 10 years for her.

And then she has another child.

How does that appear?

That'll be okay.

So even...

Even if the children, even if the woman had had, let's say, two or a child, one or two children, however many children, had children illegitimately or legitimately with a previous husband, get to the next census, she's either remarried or she's married for the first time and she's had some children with her legitimate spouse.

The previous children should be just recorded as stepchildren to the husband.

Her current husband?

Yes.

But they shouldn't be in her children of the current marriage.

So on the count, the count wouldn't count them?

No, shouldn't count them.

So that's something to be a little bit cautious about, I guess.

Maybe you could potentially get confused and see the numbers and think the people below are those numbers, but actually no, it could be other children.

Definitely.

And so many...

I haven't got statistics, but I've come across so many instances where the details the family have recorded have been crossed through.

It's not that they're wrong.

It's just they're not.

Lady Anne, who I've just been talking about, who had the six children, only two of whom were alive by 1911, and four of them had died.

It's got crossed through.

It's not wrong information.

It's just not filled in according to the form.

So you just need to take the information and think it's a starting point to build out from.

Yes.

Just because it's crossed out doesn't mean it's wrong.

Just because it's not crossed out doesn't mean it's right.

No.

Intriguing.

That's why the census is intriguing, isn't it?

Yeah, you've got to ask all the questions, don't you?

Yeah.

Yeah.

It just opens you up to a world of everything.

Mmm.

Shall we go over a quick Census 101?

Shall I give you a census test off the top of my head?

Oh my God.

Yeah, go on then.

Because we're trying to be helpful to everybody.

Okay, so Census 101.

You have an ancestor in England and Wales.

What's the earliest census that you can usefully find, looking to find your ancestors?

Well, I mean, I can't usefully use it, but the 1841.

Tick.

Okay, you've got ancestors in England and Wales.

What's the latest census you can use publicly available online?

That's the 1921.

Perfect.

What about for Scotland?

What's your earliest and latest date?

I don't know.

Same as England and Wales.

1841, 1921.

Every single 10 years it happens.

Okay, Ireland.

So for the whole of Ireland, the island of Ireland, then which two censuses can you currently search for the whole country online and free?

I have no clue.

You do know.

The 1941 and...

Don't know.

1901 and 1911.

Okay.

And then Ireland actually got some...

They were right at the tail end of this year, but coming up to the next year, 2026, then Ireland's got such exciting census information because...

for the Republic of Ireland, then the 1926 census is going to get made available on the 18th of April, 2026.

And I'm excited.

Yeah, so if you've got any Irish relatives, now's the time to get ready to...

Yes, I'll look at that.

So if you wanted to find free census information, which website would you use?

This is your test, continuing Nathan, the 101 test.

Yeah, I'm going to fail again.

A free website with the census.

I don't know.

It's just called FreeSEN.

Yeah.

I've never used that.

No, because you've got your ancestry subscription and you don't need to.

But it's just FreeSEN .org .uk.

But let's say somebody didn't have a subscription to a website that gives you the census and it's really useful to know about.

And it's a work in progress.

It doesn't have the images.

It just has.

the, you know, the transcripts.

But it's still super useful, isn't it?

That's really good, yeah.

I mean, as somebody who struggles to read the handwriting, transcripts are always good.

And that's a really good point.

It's not just you who struggles to read the handwriting.

The people doing the transcriptions can struggle as well.

And so if you can't find somebody on one website, people often say try another one because you've got different transcribers.

Okay, cool.

Yeah, no, I've never heard of that.

I'll have a look.

I think that's the end of my test.

Those are the key things people need to know.

I've dramatically failed, I feel.

You haven't failed at all.

I got two questions right, which you'd actually asked me as my Christmas quiz, so I can't proclaim that.

What about me?

How many times have I said I don't actually know the answer to this one, Nathan?

I've said it about five times already.

We're only a few minutes into the podcast.

Yeah.

Make up a statistic.

Do you know what?

I'm learning lots.

Again, I've got the 1911 censors open on my screen now for James Maxwell McKay.

His wife was English.

I didn't know that.

But I clearly must have known that.

I'm actually doing some live research while we're having this podcast.

This is good.

It's really good.

Your comments and your realisations when you're looking at...

Just one little census page.

That's all you've got open in front of you, I imagine.

But that shows you, one, the value of revisiting your research, which I think we touched on the other week.

Because when you're in the first data gathering thing and you're finding a new person to add to your tree or a bit of new information about them, you get kind of the headline information, don't you, and you add it into your tree.

And your poor little brain can't work on it.

in so many different wavelengths at the same time.

So it inevitably skips over loads of other stuff.

Whereas when you revisit a document, it just gives you a chance to view it from a completely different standpoint.

And even though for each person for the census, there's only however many columns, I don't know how many columns there are, five or ten columns, there's only a few little bits of data for each person across that column.

Obviously, you get a broader picture by looking at the other people in the household.

But you can understand it better by revisiting it.

And the other thing that you're doing is you've been reading the column headings so you know what the heck's happening on the page.

Because we all forget to do that, whereas the document is telling us what it does.

It's like that's the instruction manual at the top.

I 100 % haven't looked at any of these headings.

You just take the names, the number's been there ages, and that's it.

It really is.

It's embarrassing you skirt over it.

Like I've said, I've just found out she's English.

There's a section that just says the nationality.

And I guess my first glance, that wasn't important at all.

I didn't need to know whether she was English or Scottish.

What difference did it make?

But now I'm like, oh, she's English.

So if I'm chatting her back and I'm getting stuck, I shouldn't be really looking in Scotland where he's come from.

I should be looking elsewhere.

It's cool.

So it's not embarrassing.

It's just a really, it's really exciting.

How sometimes we're always on the thing that we want to find more documents, more ancestors.

And that's not a bad thing to do at all.

It's a lovely thing to do.

But equally, just sticking with the same documents and the same ancestors, we could still have a brilliant time finding out more.

Yeah.

Quite like the text in the headings.

This is embarrassing.

I actually just haven't read any of it.

But it says about the name and surname of every person where the member of family, visitor, border or servant who won.

passed the night of Sunday, April 2nd, 1911, in this dwelling and was alive at midnight.

It's really, really cool, isn't it?

Yeah.

Or arrive in the dwelling on the morning of Monday, April 3rd, not having been enumerated elsewhere.

That's cool.

It's very, very cool.

But equally, that's the first time I've ever read that.

I just literally look, that's the name column.

So is this a 1911 census for England and Wales that you're looking at just to get from?

So that's really interesting as well that her nationality has been stated as English because that is a fantastic insight to use you just outlined because you know to look for her earlier years potentially in English records rather than Scottish ones.

But if you go down the bottom right hand side of the bottom right hand corner, who's the name of the person who signed the form?

The husband, James Maxwell McKay.

James.

Perfect.

Yeah.

So that's an insight that he's put her nationality down as English.

Whereas on an English census, you wouldn't normally state English.

You might state like British subject or it's just, it's unusual, I think, to write English like that.

Well, he's put himself down as Scotch.

Yes.

So that's, so because that's because he's filled it in.

So you've got his perspective on it.

He's getting proud of his nationality, isn't he?

Yeah.

So have they got any kids there and what nationality are they down as?

They have two children, but he hasn't put the nationality down.

He must be embarrassed that the British are English.

Phyllis and Alexander are ages eight and four.

There's no other details other than that, really.

So that's interesting.

They're eight and four.

So on the Sophie Kay School of Research methodology, she would say that you should expect to have children born every couple of years.

And so you're looking for those two mystery children, eight and four, because straight away you don't want to rule options out, but you wouldn't do wrong to look in those gaps like between four and eight.

Expecting somebody at the age of six or should have been the age of six.

And even a two year old.

So that could be a potential first avenue to research.

Yeah, I mean, it's sad, but actually it's exciting.

Like, it's a different kind of research, isn't it?

Like I've been saying, I enjoy the sensors because I like the structure of it.

I can track people and chase them here and there and everywhere.

But it's what happens in the gaps, isn't it?

That's the tricky part.

And this is actually quite exciting.

So I've got two unknown children to whittle out.

I mean, it's not exciting, it's sad, but it's...

And from a research point of view, it's interesting, definitely.

It is.

It's blown my mind that I haven't even noticed I've seen this.

It's terrifying.

It's like, wow.

There goes my tree score.

Whatever.

So I've got, following on from this, I've got some more census questions.

In the, I'm again still looking at this 1911, birthplace for everyone.

It just has James's birth...

What?

It says birthplace for everyone and it says...

James was born in Bradford, which is interesting if he's still identifying as Scottish.

And then I think she was born in Normanton.

I can't quite read that.

I think it's Normanton.

Anyway, beside that, there's some red writing, some red numbers.

There's like 030 and then there's 0X and a funny line.

Is there any significance of that?

Yes, there will be.

Continuing with today's theme, I don't know the answers of Howard.

So that number wouldn't have been written by James.

That would have been written by the person doing the statistics.

So I don't know what it means.

Yeah?

Okay, cool.

So that's not helpful.

We will be able to find out.

Let's press pause on the recording and we're going to have a little mini look, okay?

Okay.

I've got it.

Oh, well done.

We're back.

What?

You're back?

Okay, yes, we're back.

So, yes, we're back.

Nathan's got the answer and I haven't got the answer yet.

Fire away, Nathan.

So what is the answer?

Well, I've done lots and lots of research and, you know, the only way I can do possible by cheating, going to the internet.

Apparently, the code 030 in red ink indicates the birthplace located is Yorkshire.

Ah.

So using your clever system, can you search what the number 058 means?

Okay.

And 0X as well, just to finish off my little bit.

Sorry.

Means it's related to a tally marker of internal processing made by the enumerator when cross -referencing information.

As clear as mud.

What number were you saying?

058.

58.

Well, if it's following suit from what I've just got.

Oh, it's Liverpool.

Okay.

The birthplace code for Liverpool.

I found that in an article on Find My Past.

Oh, well done, Find My Past.

It is actually really good.

It has lots of glossaries and definitions of code numbers.

So, yeah, I should have thought of that.

That's really good.

So, well done, Nathan, finding that.

So, basically, these numbers, if you do find the little red numbers, from what my and your census documents are, a small survey of two pages of the massive census is showing you don't actually need to know what these numbers are because they are just numbers.

stating what you can already see in plain handwriting anyway.

Yeah.

But it's just useful to know they're just for census enumeration purposes so that they can, when they're jotting up how many people, tossing up how many people fit that criteria, they can just do their big census summaries.

Yeah.

It's interesting because obviously this page of the census is for Bradford that I'm looking at.

Therefore, it's in Yorkshire already, so you wouldn't think they'd need to mark it up.

Oh, it's birthplace, though.

OK, go on.

I'll be quiet.

Yeah.

Yeah, because the birthplace could be somewhere else, couldn't it?

The birthplace could have been London and they're living in Bradford now.

So then it would be a different code there.

Well, the one I'm looking at...

Talk about looking at the census again.

I've never noticed this before.

So what I'm looking at is this widow with her two little kids.

Well, they're not little anymore.

They're teenagers.

And so she's born in Liverpool and she has their code 058.

Her two kids are born in Pendleton in Lancashire and they're living in Pendleton and neither of the kids have a number next to them.

So maybe it's like when you're living in a place where you weren't born, then you get the number.

Does that fit with your thing as well?

That tallies up exactly with mine because I've got, does it?

I'm not sure it does actually.

Just a little side note to anyone.

If you're using the census and you've never looked at these little red numbers before, and you don't want to, you don't ever need to.

They're not going to materially add to your family story.

But it's just nice to know what's going on.

And it's a really good point not to overlook something because sometimes these code numbers tell us something really valuable and add to our family understanding, don't they?

Exactly, yeah.

It could be a clue.

Like knowing what it is.

Like if you ignore it and you don't know what it is, it could actually be something amazing.

Exactly.

At this point, it might not necessarily be.

I've got the code next to the entry for Normanton.

So maybe it was somebody marking it who didn't know that Normanton was in Yorkshire.

Because the Bradford one hasn't got a mark next to it.

That's my logic.

That's what I think's happened there.

Splendid.

Yeah, very splendid.

I'm going to continue having loads more fun with the census as I carry on with my branching on forwards with my DNA purposes family tree.

Yeah.

And I think you're going to have loads more fun with the census.

Am I?

Am I?

I've got myself a new rabbit hole now that I'm going to have to go through an entire layer and look at the 1911 and find out how many missing children I've got to find now.

But you don't have to panic about it because if you have a job like that, it's not your immediate task in hand.

Your immediate task in hand is finding all those three times greats.

What do you do with the jobs which are likely to distract you and cause you a bit of stress?

Well, just go and do them and get lost.

That's what I do.

Put them on my research log.

Yes.

Yes.

See, they're all here while you continue with other things.

You're not being lazy.

You're just, it's only so many hours in the day.

You can't do everything.

There is.

Things which are...

gonna best serve our overarching goals i think the problem as always is it's the shiny and new isn't it it's the the magpie effect you're like hello there what's this i didn't know this before but equally searching for everybody who i've got on the 1911 census is a task in itself so but i want to do it now but then if i find more missing children then the task becomes even bigger i should really really just focus on what i actually said i'm doing Still, it's exciting.

I like the fact that there were missing details.

I'm learning more about a document always, isn't it?

Yeah, like I said, I feel the word embarrassed comes to mind.

The fact that I just haven't read these columns.

Because like you say, you just go for the shiny bits that make sense straight away and ignore everything else.

And actually, the wording does give you hints and a hand.

Even just like knowing the dates where the census was taken is just an interesting factor.

Definitely.

quick so while we're on the topic of column headings for any census year it's definitely worth thinking there's column headings all of them don't just think because um some of them like um for census in scotland it will tell you for some of the census years will tell you how many um rooms are in the household and how many windows there were per room or per household or whatever, which might sound boring and silly, but if you've got seven people living in that household and then you realise they're living in two rooms and they've got two windows, you're like, okay, that's okay, but it's not great.

It's like a squeeze, isn't it?

Yeah?

Or it could be a lot more cramped.

So sticking with the 1911, if you go down the bottom of the page, then it will...

Where's the 1911?

Yes, here we go.

So the 1911...

Next to the signature, that says how many rooms they're living in, how many rooms they've got in their home.

Yes.

That's another useful thing, just to gain a little bit more insight to that family.

So keep exploring the page.

And the census is between the census.

Each 10 years, they vary.

Between the census countries, they vary.

So if we're looking at a census for Scotland and if we're looking for one for Wales, then it would say whether they spoke English or Welsh or both.

Yeah.

or Gaelic or English.

So you get that language insight, that's a cultural insight, isn't it, to who your family are, their day -to -day interactions.

They could have spoken a language you can't speak, even though it's just a bit over 100 years ago.

Yeah.

Gives you a sense of their mindset and their...

Yeah, yeah.

Well, instantly, obviously, like I've just said about James, he's identified as Scotch, but he was born in Bradford.

So he's very proud of his heritage.

Definitely.

Even though he's just from down the road from me.

Yes.

And it's interesting he calls himself Scotch as well because that's kind of such a dated word.

Someone who's Scottish today, I'm sure they wouldn't call themselves Scotch.

No.

Yeah.

I've learnt things, haven't I?

I'm quite impressed.

Well, I've learnt things too.

It's always lovely to talk about the census.

So if anybody would like to find out coherent, organised information about the census rather than our excited waffle today, then over on the Family Tree website, we've got a fantastic census guide.

And I'm just going to give you the URL.

Over on our wonderful website, then a great place to get started with finding out more about the census is our guide, which is at www .family -tree .co .uk forward slash getting hyphen started forward slash how hyphen to hyphen find hyphen ancestors hyphen on hyphen the hyphen census.

I think to be kind to people, should we put that link in the description below the podcast?

Why?

That's a really, really catchy URL.

We need to address that.

That's awful.

It is awful.

Anyway, it's very useful if you can face it.

Another good way to find it, and this is a really good search tip, even if you have nothing to do with this particular census page, just put in something like, so you put in the web address, the main web address that you want, then a space, then a colon, and then the search term you're after.

So for this instance, you would put in, in the search bar at the top, put in...

Family -tree .co .uk, space, colon, that's the two little dots, one above the other, space, census, press return, and you'll find the search result.

Such a blooming handy thing.

Yeah, that's good, though.

It's really good, isn't it?

I think that's all from us today, do you think?

Yeah.

I mean, should we give a quick shout out to a census webinar that we're doing in the new year?

Oh, yes, let's do that.

I think it ties in, doesn't it?

Hmm.

We've got a webinar by Dr.

Sophie Kay and she's looking at specifically the 1921 census.

And if you think you learnt a few census things today, just wait to be amazed because Sophie will just be shedding so much more light.

I don't know how she does it, but however many years you've been doing family history, she'll have thought of things that none of the rest of us have ever thought of.

So it's going to be exciting.

Yeah, I might have to tag on to that one.

You might have to tag onto that one, yes.

And thank you, everybody, for listening.

And a very, very important message.

Wishing everybody a very happy new year.

Yes, happy new year.

With loads of fantastic family history discoveries to come.