Do not believe everything you see in census records!

In this post, Nikki Brown demonstrates the flaws that may exist in census records by going on a search for Priscilla Agnes Ruby.  From transcription errors to issues of class , the post suggests the many reasons for inaccuracies, or simply people who cannot be found in any other source.  Perhaps you can find her! 

Looking through the England & Wales 1881 Census database for those born or living in London that had not yet been researched, I realised that most of those remaining were servants and so would be harder to place with their families. However, I found a young woman, who because of a more unusual name, I thought would be less of a challenge.

Her name was Priscilla Agnes Ruby and in 1881 was 20 years old and a servant in Lambeth. The original was legible and confirmed her name, age and occupation, although her birthplace was a little vague and stated only “London”.

Excerpt from 1881 Census for Priscilla Agnes Ruby

I ran into difficulty from the start. I was unable to find her birth. The only Priscilla Ruby that I found was the Priscilla Ruby who was born 1862 in Totnes RD, Devon. Although the year of birth was correct, she and her twin sister Lydia both died in the same quarter of that year

Therefore, I soon realised that the census information was inaccurate. There are of course many reasons for this, and I thought considering them might help identify this young woman. The reasons are usually due to how the census was collected and the people involved.

“In every census year an enumerator delivered a form to each household in the country for them to complete. The heads of household were instructed to give details of everyone who slept in that dwelling on census night, which was always a Sunday. The forms completed by each household, known as schedules, were collected a few days later by the enumerator. From 1841 to 1901 the information from the schedules was then copied into enumeration books. Once the enumeration books had been completed, most household schedules were destroyed, although there are some rare survivals." ^[1]

There were several stages where errors could occur

1)    The person completing the form:

a)    was illiterate, so they had to get someone else to fill in the form. This might have been the enumerator, but they would not have had time to complete all the forms they had to collect and may have completed them in a hurry. Alternatively, a friend, relative or other member of the community such as a minister or school teacher may have helped but may not have known the household too well.

b)    or was partially literate and so misspelt some details.

c)    may not have known all the people in their household very well and wrote what they remembered or guessed.

d)    may have asked the person but mis-heard the details given, especially if they had a different accent.

2)    The person giving the information:

a)    may not have been sure of when they were born or how old they were.

b)    may not have known where they were born and given the area where they were brought up instead.

c)    may have given the name that they were known as and not the one given at baptism, or the one registered.

d)    have deliberately given misinformation, for example:

i)      lied about their age e.g. in order to join the army or get a job.

ii)    given their father’s surname, although illegitimate and their birth had been registered using their mother’s surname. 

iii)    used the name of the father of their children although not married to him. 

iv)   used an alias for a variety of reasons including involvement in criminal activities, the stigma of being in a workhouse or asylum, they just didn’t like their name or perhaps even because of their occupation such as using a stage name.
(A more unusual example of this could be the case for Mary Ann Ruby, a young lady, who is 21 years old on the 1851 census. Her relationship to the head of household is given as visitor and her occupation is prostitute.)

3)    The enumerator may have mis-copied the information from the original forms into the summary book because:

a)    they had to meet a deadline and in hurrying made mistakes

b)    some forms would have been hard to read

c)    may have had surnames or occupations that they did not recognise and made a best guess

d)    the volume of information to transcribe meant their concentration slipped

e)    some may have been more conscientious than others

In this case, other evidence that the details on this census were not at all correct is that even Priscilla’s employer, James E Dawrick and his family do not appear on other censuses (nor the other servant). Therefore, it may have been the transcribing that was wrong but as most of the household schedules were destroyed, that would be almost impossible to verify.

Regarding the completing of the form. The head of household was a boot-maker and his 35-year old son was a clerk, so would have been literate. It is quite possible that they did not know their servants very well. The family were from Cornwall, so the accent of the London born servants could easily have been mis-heard.

The vagueness of her place of birth, certainly suggests Priscilla did not know that information or the household just considered her “local”. It is quite possible that Priscilla did not know her age or given the wrong age in order to get the post.

Extending the year of birth in case she had overstated her age did not help. The only other Priscilla Rubys found were born in 1802 and 1916, clearly not this lady. The usual variations also revealed nothing and there were no Agnes Priscilla Rubys either. Priscilla Agnes Ruby did not appear on any other censuses either, nor did any of the variations. The only Agnes Ruby found was Agnes Mary Ruby born in 1911.

She was recorded as unmarried but perhaps had said so in order to get the maid’s job, However, the first registered marriage of a Priscilla to a Ruby did not occur until 1941.  We do not know if Priscilla Ruby was legitimate and used a name different from that registered. It is certainly possible that this was not her original name.

Sometimes in the case of a servant, it was quite common for a job to have an “acceptable” name associated with it. This could mean, for example, that the footman was always called James, so if Robert was hired as the footman, he was called James because he was the footman. ^[2,3]. There was an example of this used in the TV series “Upstairs, Downstairs”, when Clémence Moffat (played by Pauline Collins) got the job of under house parlour maid, her employer Lady Marjorie said Clémence was "not a servant's name" and renamed her 'Sarah. Although in the case of Priscilla Agnes Ruby, her name was fancier and she was not a servant in a “big house” but the home of a boot-maker.

The person completing the form had mis-heard her name, possible due to a differing accent. The only Priscillas born between 1858 and 1863 have the surnames Challis and Pickles. So, unlikely to have been mistaken for Ruby. There are 7 Agnes Priscillas born during this period and one, who was born in 1860 in St George Hanover Square RD, London, had the surname Webbe. This may have been pronounced Webby, which could have been mis-heard as Ruby. She died in 1882, but she is probably the Agnes P Webbe, aged 19, on the 1881 Census with her family in Croxted Road, Dulwich. It is possible that her family included her on the census, even if she was not there on the night, as this was not unusual. Her father’s and brother’s occupation were recorded as Draughtsman (Artizan). Would the daughter have been a servant? And if so, it would probably been recorded on this other census too. Also, she and her elder sister were disabled: "imbecile" from birth. It is possible, although unlikely, that she could have worked as a servant 3 miles away and perhaps the disability led to her pronunciation of her name being unclear.

Rubys of this age that were servants on the following census include Alice Ruby, age 27, working in Old Compton Street, London for a German butcher. I thought her first name may have been misheard but I cannot find her birth either!

So, there are many reasons for the information recorded in the census books to be inaccurate, the information seen is only as good as that that was given, depending on the ability, knowledge and truthfulness of the person giving and recording the information by others. Does this mean that Priscilla Agnes was not a Ruby and should not be included in the study? Perhaps not, but there is no evidence that she wasn’t a Ruby either as she was not found consistently under another name in other records.

Sources

1)    Census Records Guide: The National Archives

2)     The Life of Domestic Servants in Victorian England (The Great Courses Daily)
https://www.thegreatcoursesdaily.com/servants-in-victorian-england/

3) The real life Downton Abbey: The true story of servants (The Daily Express)
https://www.express.co.uk/expressyourself/348130/The-real-life-Downton-Abbey-The-true-story-of-servants