MONMOUTHSHIRE-L Archives

Archiver > MONMOUTHSHIRE > 2002-04 > 1017804746


From: "Pam Thornbury" <>
Subject: Re: [Mon] question for Pam Thornbury
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 15:34:01 +1200
In-Reply-To: <000f01c1daba$99037f40$af533b41@Brooks>


Hi Vernia

The answer is simple. I gave you all ROBERTS names that were listed
with the same reference page/folio number in the 1861 index. When you
looked at the original film, you found your family of Robert, 50 etc., and
somewhere on that or the adjoining page you will also find Robert, 24 and
Jane 50.

Not necessarily the same family, just enumerated on the same page/s.
That is why it is important that people who use indexes also cross-check
(like you have) against the original census to ensure that relationships are
correct.

Hope this explains the situation.

[It would be worth looking for the family in 1851 to see if Robert 24 is
related to Robert 50 and boarding away from home in 1861. If you send
me their 1861 address I will see if I have the relevant fiche for 1851.]


Pam

> Pam you were very kind sometime ago to look up the 1861
> index for Ebbw Vale for the Robert Roberts family. I spent
> 4 hours today at the LDS library (the machine broke down)
> going over the original census film. There were some differences and
> I wonder if you understand them? Was the index later and would that
> time difference explain? Index Robert Roberts 48 Jane
> 50 Robert 24 Gwenllyn 18 Ann
> 16 Rees 12 Thomas 3
>
> Census
> Robert Roberts 48 widowed
> Gwenllyn 18
> Ann 16
> Rees 12
> Thomas 3
>
> Could Robert have remarried between the census and the index?
> Either way I really appreciate your help directing me to the census.
>
> Thank you very much, Vernia
>

This thread: