Genealogy Chat

I have been searching the census for 1861 for my gg grandfather Isaac Dyer b c1833. He was born in Langley, Essex and I have found him on 1841 and 1871 but not in 1861. Can anyone suggest a reason why or other suggestions as to where I might find him! Many thanks in antcipation.

Gillian Is this not him? Isaac Dyer abt 1834 Langley, Essex, England Head Langley Essex James Dyer abt 1860 Langley, Essex, England Son Langley Essex Lydia Dyer abt 1838 Langley, Essex, England Wife Langley Essex Sarah Ann Dyer abt 1858 Langley, Essex, England Daughter Langley Essex Isaac Dyer Age: 27 Estimated birth year: abt 1834 Relation: Head Household: Gender: Male Where born: Langley, Essex, England Civil parish: Langley County/Island: Essex Source information: RG9/1120 Registration district: Saffron Walden Sub-registration district: Newport ED, institution, or vessel: 6 Folio: 79 Page: 4 (click to see others on page) Household schedule number: 22 GSU Number: 542757 Vanessa

People go missing all the time on censuses! It could be because - he's been mistranscribed in the index. - he's just put Essex down as place of birth instead of Langley - he was out of the country - he got missed off - he isn't where you expect him to be - the bit of the census where he was is missing or badly damaged (a whole chunk of St Lukes/Clerkenwell in London is gone from 1861 and with it some of the answers to mysteries in my husband's family tree). nell

Isaac Dyer abt 1834 Langley, Essex, England Head Langley Essex James Dyer abt 1860 Langley, Essex, England Son Langley Essex Lydia Dyer abt 1838 Langley, Essex, England Wife Langley Essex Sarah Ann Dyer abt 1858 Langley, Essex, England Daughter Langley Essex

This looks like him in 1861:- >>>Isaac Dyer abt 1834 Langley, Essex, England Head Langley Essex James Dyer abt 1860 Langley, Essex, England Son Langley Essex Lydia Dyer abt 1838 Langley, Essex, England Wife Langley Essex Sarah Ann Dyer abt 1858 Langley, Essex, England Daughter Langley Essex Kath. x

Yep, sure is! I must be blind! I have spent ages looking but not properly! Thanks for finding him and also for your really quick response! You're a star! Thanks again

And this is him in 1851 ( which you dont mention above :) ) Emmer Dyer abt 1838 Langley, Essex, England Daughter Elmdon Essex George Dyer abt 1843 Langley, Essex, England Son Elmdon Essex Isack Dyer abt 1834 Langley, Essex, England Son Elmdon Essex James Dyer abt 1848 Elmdon, Essex, England Son Elmdon Essex Sopiah Dyer abt 1846 Elmdon, Essex, England Daughter Elmdon Essex Susan Dyer abt 1810 Langley, Essex, England Head Elmdon Essex Sofiah Newman abt 1779 Langley, Essex, England Mother Elmdon Essex Cheers...Paul

Oops! That was quick Vanessa! Janice

Gillian, was he married to Lydia ? There is an Isaac on the 1861 b 1833 Langley, Joan

God I surprised myself how quick I was, probably just the bar of chocolate I had gave me a boost of energy. Vanessa x

Are you sure it wasn't the 1871 census that you couldn't find him in, because I found him in 1861 but can't find him in 1871? Kath. x

Could this be him on 1871? He looks like he has been listed as Frank Dyer, but on the census image it could be Isaac. Ref RG10/1708 Folio 70 Page 26 Vanessa x

Vanessa, you are right. The 1871 he has been entered as Isaac with a 'k'. free bmd shows a marriage of a Lydia Hyde march 1859 Saffron Walden, could this be the wife? Date out a bit though. ??? Joan

Hi Joan, I would think it more than likely that the marriage is the right one, looks like they may have got married after their first child. Vanessa x

Well what can I say, I popped to the shops and look at the response I came back to! It was 1871 that I could not find him not 1861, slip of the finger with the typing, apologies! I had found 'Frank' and wondered whether there was a connection but did not even think that the name could have changed in the transcribing! Isaac was definitely married to Lydia Hyde (Hide) and from that marriage my grandfather one of the umpteen children born to them. I can only say thank you to you all for your time and suggestions in trying to resolve what turns out is not really a big problem! Thanks again.