ChatterBank0 min ago
I Hope I'll Get To See The 1921 Census Release In 2022
I don't think I'll see the next release, but if these plans go ahead, things look set to be very tough for future generations of genealogists. though in 100 years time will there be nothing else to reveal?
http://
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by DJHawkes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Try and imagine how people outside the UK view this story, its implications and resulting reactions, perceptions, etc. in the UK. Others were at least 100 years and more ahead of Britain with a full census of the population. There, genealogy is easy, you simply go online and look yourself up then trace relatives in all directions, in some cases as far back as the 700s. Today the UK debates how to get to know things about the population, government and the public are equally lost and in the dark. In this and other matters, other Europeans consider the UK a backward place, and this contrasts sharply with the UK's self-image of advancement.
One can see why folk object to what seems to be pure nosiness though. But surely the cost justification will become obsolete when they just get folk to log in on the obligatory Internet and fill out the boxes. All automated, next to no cost. I don't see why they have to wait so long to release the information though. My grandmother had died years before I saw her first mention in a census. No one needs to keep it hidden that long. Half the time would still be more than necessary.
A census is only truly necessary where there are no linked up records and, in particular, no national register. Otherwise all genealogical linkage info is there, plus a good deal more. These data are not assembled by the public filling in boxes on the internet but by the authorities running a system of registers where births, deaths and marriages/registered cohabitation are promptly noted and which records are then instantly available online - abroad but of course not in the UK. The UK's preoccupation with secrecy amuses many foreigners, and possibly some Brits as well but it is part of the culture.
Genealogical linkage is not dependent on surnames. jno is correct in that mothers and fathers long ago knew their offspring and this could be recorded irrespective of the naming convention - civilisation existed and still exists where repetitive surnames were/are not used. The Nordic countries are probably the most obvious ones within Europe where good records go a long way back and there is no shyness about allowing access to them.
Apologies, when typing I do not see what is being posted at that time so appear slow to respond. The most striking example of an almost completely open register is that of Iceland where everyone can trace the up to now transcribed records along their bloodlines (paternal and maternal) - but not outside their bloodline beyond one link such as spouse of a relative.
Just to look at that example further, the population in Iceland is almost 94% Icelandic, but as that is still almost 200,00 less than the population of Liverpool, then it must mean that there is an awful lot of marriage between close relatives which is going to reduce the number of ancestors a person can lay claim to, a little bit like my Yorkshire ancestry from the 1700s where cousins married cousins because the weather was too harsh to travel to the next village.
While it would be correct to conclude that, once you come up against a foreigner in the bloodline you get stuck if the records in his/her country are not up to the challenge, when it comes to whether the records are thorough or not the size of population has no bearing but the quality of the records is all important. Any population has the choice of creating and deciding what use to make of available records and the task gets bigger the longer you leave it. The task of creating access is in relation to the amount of record and the size of population. A large population presumably copes with a larger record - if they choose to or have the gumption to take it on. The absence of an accessible record is that nation's report card. I saw somewhere that of the people currently living in Iceland something like 20% have parents that were born abroad. I don't know what the figure is for the UK and maybe nobody knows but the simple fact is that, comparatively, UK records seem to be both poor and inaccessible and there appears to be little will to at least make a start at this very late juncture.
personally I totally disagree with that last statement Karl, I managed to compile a pretty decent genealogy for my family in the days before the internet, now with so much online it would have taken just a few days. watching wdytya last night I thanked god and the registrar general for a decent system. the only problem is poor transcribing
you also cannot criticize our excellent parish register system which henry viii wanted to make the best in the known world and which Elizabeth I turned into the best in the known world. the uniformity of the system and accssibilty for all classes meant that england has an unrivalled record of baptism and marriage going back to 1538. the access to it has been simple for decades even before researchers just needed the internet at home, it may have been brought about as a sideline of a faux church but no family historian would argue it's a bad thing.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.