1911 UK Census for Nathan and Fanny Sandler

I've written before about Sarah Nathan who married Sol, the brother of my great grandfather in London in 1902. Her parents were Nathan and Fanny Sandler. On many documents Sarah went by Sarah Nathan, following the Jewish naming convention of using her father's given name as her surname, but without using the Bat/Ben Daughter/Son prefix. On other documents she used Sandler. Sarah, Sol, and their children immigrated to America with the rest of the Newmark family in 1909. In the 1910 census, one of Sarah's brothers, Sam Nathan, is  in the same household as Sarah and Sol. It appears he, too, was using his father's given name as a surname, but if Sarah was the informant on the census, she may have given him the surname. I have not been able to track him later than 1910 under either possible surname.

In the 1901 UK Census, Sam, born in 1891, is indicated as having been the first Sandler child born in the UK, though I have not yet located the family in the 1891 census, or his birth record. I have also found the Sandler family in the 1911 UK Census. I find the 1911 UK census interesting in that each household seems to have gotten their own page.

Census of England and Wales - 1911

• Nathan Sandler - Head - Age 55 - Married - 30 years married - 9 children - 7 still living - 2 dead - Green Grocer - Working at Home - Birthplace Russia - Nationality Russian
• Fanny Sandler - Wife - Age 50 - Married - Birthplace Russia - Nationality Russian
• Joseph Sandler - Son - Age 18 - Single - Birthplace London
• Rebecca Sandler - Daughter - Age 11 - Single - Birthplace London
• Leon Sandler - Son - Age 7 - School - Birthplace London

I'm not sure how a green grocer works at home, but they may have lived above the grocery. I have possibly located Nathan Sandler on FindaGrave. The 1901 and 1911 census records suggest a birth year of 1856, and not 1853 as the FindaGrave profile suggests, but it's close. I've submitted a request for a researcher to photograph the tombstone, as well as to check if Fanny is buried nearby. Fanny is very possibly a nickname. If I can find some birth records of the younger children they might contain a given name I can use to find her death record.

There are two pages to the 1911 UK Census, which might be easy for some to miss. But of course, whenever looking at records online (or offline), it is always important to page forward and backwards just to make certain you aren't missing anything. The primary piece of information on this page is the address. It appears to be 1 Genter Street N, though I am unable to identify a street with that name. There appears to have been multiple families residing at that address in the census.

I'm looking forward to next year's release of the UK 1921 Census, as well as the 1950 US Census.

Error Free Genealogy

I’ve mentioned before that error-free genealogy is impossible, no matter how careful one is. But with care, we can limit our mistakes.

Tracing a family backwards in time through census reports is something almost every genealogist does, but it is very easy to take a wrong turn if one isn’t careful. One problem is census reports only provide a snapshot every ten years, and lots can happen in ten years. Another problem is that census takers didn’t always have great handwriting, so the online indexers can easily garble a name.

Perhaps the easiest way to make a wrong turn is if you find what you’re looking for immediately.

For example:

Let’s say you find someone in the 1920 US census. They are married to the person you expect them to be married to, with the correct young child. You are certain it is the correct person, but you have no idea who his parents are. The 1920 census indicates an approximate birth year, and the place of birth (State or Country)

So you conduct a search for the person in the 1910 census, using their name, state of birth, and year of birth +- 2. And you find exactly one result – a child with two parents. How do you react? It’s very tempting to be relieved that it was so easy, to write down the information on the parents, and see if you can go further back.

However:

What would you do if you found more than one result?
You’d have to conduct some research to see which family is the correct one.

And what would you do if you found no results?
Probably you’d add some wildcards into the search, and see if the person you’re searching for got indexed with a strange spelling.

Back to the one result…Do you see the problem?
If all you are going on is year of birth, state of birth, and name, it is possible, is it not, that this isn’t the correct person? The person you are searching for could be hiding under a poorly written, or poorly transcribed name. Or it is possible they don’t even appear in the census. The census reports are by no means complete. The more common the surname and given name, the more likely this is possible. Additionally, given names frequently change from childhood to adulthood.

I've made my share of research mistakes, and there are likely some I have made which I don't yet know about. What I feel is important is that I always keep an open mind to the possibility that any conclusions that I make from my research have a potential of being wrong.

On the Census and the American Community Survey

"Since the 1950s, the Census Bureau’s practice has been to hold decennial census data for 72 years after the date it was collected. This practice was instituted to protect the privacy of individuals who responded to the census, while allowing researchers, especially genealogists, to investigate their family histories. The ACS has determined that it, as the successor to the decennial census long form, will similarly hold its data for 72 years prior to releasing it to the public. "

Source:
American Community Survey
Operations Plan (pdf)
U.S. Department of Commerce
Economics and Statistics Administration
U.S. CENSUS BUREAU
Release 1: March 2003

Unless that policy has changed, the information in the annual American Community Surveys will be released to genealogists in 72 years, the same as the decennial census. It’s only being issued to approximately 15% of the population (3% per year – in a five year cycle – with no repeated recipients.) This is roughly the same percentage who received the long form in 2000.

It is the information contained within the ACS and the old long form that has drawn most of the ire of some privacy advocates. I will go on record as saying I think this is justified. In an era of people living longer and longer lives, those who are 30 years or younger can expect it's not unlikely they will be alive in 72 years. While there aren't any questions there I'd hesitate answering, I cam imagine there are some people who might not want some of those answers revealed to the general public, even after they were deceased.

It’s great for the genealogists. And I also see the usefulness of the statistical data for the government (and those, such as non-profits, providing services to the community.)

However, recipients of the ACS, like the Census, are required by law to fill it out. And *if* the data will ultimately be made public, especially while some of the respondents will still be alive, many of the questions should be optional in my opinion.

Here’s a link to a PDF of the 2010 ACS

I would argue for some of the less objectionable information from older censuses that was moved to the long form, to be returned to the census. And the American Community Survey be used to ask those questions that are useful to the government statisticians, but which are deemed more private, and destroy those forms once the data is collected.

Clarification/Expansion:

I cringe when on old censuses I see the question "Deaf, Dumb, Blind, Insane or Idiotic."

Those questions are being asked on the ACS...of course, in more sensitive terms, but they're being asked.

Working for a social services providing non-profit, I am grateful for the statistical data the census produces. It's easy for us to know how many people locally need services X, and to prove this to potential funders.

I have no problem with all the financial and disability data being collected. But it seems to me to be the most personal of the questions, and while a lot of the financial information is public, not all of it is.

Those with the most embarrassing answers are the ones who need to be counted the most, so if they were reassured that the information would be destroyed after the data collected, that would make them more inclined to tell the truth.

Genealogists don't need this information. It expands our knowledge of our ancestors, but it's not necessary information.