Complete Green or Groom and possible wrong Census record

[mumbles]

RF looked up this marriage
26 Dec 1870 St Thomas Dudley
James GREEN 21 B Furnaceman Dudley Father Thomas Green Grinder
Harriet SMITH 19 S Dudley Father John Smith Miner
After Banns James Signed The X Of Harriet
Wit; Emma Dunn X/ John Ratcliff X

and I tried to find on 1871 Census and found
1871 Census Newbury Lane Oldbury West Bromwich Worcs.
John Ratcliff Head 27 Labourer in Stone Quarry born Oakham Staffs.
Mary Ann Ratcliff wife 24 born Dudley Worcs.
Albert Ratcliff son 5 born Portway Staffs.
Emily Ratcliff dau 2 born Portway Staffs.
James Ratcliff son 10 mths. born Portway Staffs.
James Groom son.in.law 22 born Rounds Green Worcs.
Harriet Groom 20 born Rounds Green Worcs.

John Ratcliff married a Mary Ann Smith 1863 St. Thomas Dudley

I think son in law should be brother.in.law and Harriett is sister. in.law

I have added Census records post 1871

[mumbles]

This is John Ratcliff

https://www.tribalpages.com/tribe/brows ... pid=229395

This is James Green

https://www.tribalpages.com/tribe/brows ... =569070685

[kdwoodie]

Already on BCC here

https://www.tribalpages.com/tribe/brows ... ver=669580

[rockyfowler]

3 19 Oct 1863 St Thomas Dudley
John RATCLIFF F B Labourer Dudley Father John Ratcliff Miner
Mary Ann SMITH M S Dudley Father John Smith Labourer
After Banns The X Of Both
Wit; John Parkes X / Mary Parkes X

[kdwoodie]

Freereg
Tipton
St Martin
Parish Register
Register entry number 3652
Baptism date 21 Sep 1845
Mary Anne
Person sex F
Father forename John
Mother forename Betsey
Father surname SMITH
Person abode Puppy Green
Father occupation
Labourer

Worcestershire
Dudley
St Thomas
Parish Register
Register entry number231
Birth date28 Jul 1851
Baptism date02 Nov 1851
Person forename Harriet
Person sex F
Father forename John
Mother forename Elizabeth
Father surname SMITH
Person abode Kates Hill
Father occupation
Labourer

[mumbles]

All Added and Connected thanks to RF for marriages and RF for connections
Definitely a considerable error on 1871 Census as original looks 100% Groom not Green
and relationships are wrong

[mumbles]

Meant also Kdw for connections .
There was 3 different John Ratcliffe born c. 1840 to 1842 on Bcc and I have found all the same and adjusted

[rockyfowler]

The original entry was prob Green on the 1871 census but has been destroyed so we will never know ? maybe poor handwriting and the transcriber read it as Groom ?

Typical Census up till 1911when it was our ancestors own writing for the first time

Say 1861 census for example
The original household census schedules from 1861 were destroyed after the information was transcribed into enumerator's books. These books, which contain the detailed census information, were kept and eventually moved to The National Archives. While the originals were destroyed, the enumerator's books were preserved and are the records we can now access, though some pages may be damaged or illegible.
Here's a more detailed explanation:
Household Schedules:
In 1861, each household was given a form to fill out with details about the residents. These were known as schedules.
Enumerators' Books:
The enumerators collected these schedules and copied the information into books. These books were then sent to the General Register Office.
Destruction of Schedules:
After the information was transcribed and checked, the original household schedules were usually destroyed.
Preservation of Enumerators' Books:
The enumerators' books were kept and eventually moved to The National Archives.
Microfilming:
The enumerators' books were filmed in 1970 to preserve them and make them more accessible for research.
Current Access:
Researchers can now access the 1861 census records through microfilm or online databases, which are copies of the enumerators' books.
Missing Pages:
Some enumeration books or parts of them are missing from the 1861 census, so some individuals may not be found.