On this page we'll take our search for the Shingelston's on 20 years to 1901. The reason we've skipped 1891 for now is that the 1901 census is the next fully searchable census on the internet (at the PRO site).

We draw a complete blank with the name Shingelston. A slight panic sets in. Had they moved away? Had they all died in a plague? In either case finding them was going to be a problem.

Common sense and logic then return. We'd already decided that the spelling could be suspect so we try our other options. There they are, now noted as living at 3 Emperor Place, just before Beach Alley. This could even be the same house as in 1881 so we will need to do more map reading. In the meantime we'll transcribe the information.

Name	Rel.	M.	Gen	Age	Birthplace	Occupation
Shinglestone, George	Head	M	M	46	Whitstable, Kent	Fisherman
Shinglestone, Fanny	Wife	M	F	46	Whitstable, Kent
Foreman, Nellie	Daughter	M	F	23	Whitstable, Kent
Shinglestone, Gerty	Daughter	U	F	16	Whitstable, Kent
Shinglestone, William	Son		M	14	Whitstable, Kent	Butcher's assistant
Shinglestone, Douglas	Son		M	10	Whitstable, Kent
Shinglestone, Margaret	Daughter		F	7	Whitstable, Kent
Shinglestone, Sibert	Son		M	4	Whitstable, Kent
Foreman, Winnie	G.Daughter		F	4	Whitstable, Kent

Data © Public Record Office.

At first glance it appears that we have the correct family, but let's have a closer look to be certain.

Firstly we have a different spelling of the surname, As discussed in part 1 we expected this to show up so it does not cause us any immediate worries.

Secondly we have a discrepancy in George and Fanny's ages by one year. In our experience this is common when searching through census data of this period. The 1881 and 1901 census dates were one week short of 10 years apart but we wouldn't have expected both of them to have had their birthdays during this week. It is more likely an error on either on the census collections or just the fact that people in those days were not as strictly confined by dates and exactitudes as we are today. Nature, the seasons and tides were their calendars then. We feel we can safely put this discrepancy to one side for now. When we get exact information about their dates of birth we can then see where the errors have crept in.

Thirdly the address. We are not too concerned about this. The two dwellings in question would been no more than a few yards apart. Families did move as children were born and they required a larger house. The houses in this area would all have been rented so moving locally would not have been the traumatic process it is today.

Now let's look at the positive things. Due to the rare surname, we by chance chose to investigate, the chances of more than one set of George, wife Fanny and daughter Nellie are too remote to be likely. In addition Nellie has married a Foreman so we now have a connected family to explore.

Ernest, who would now be 21, is not present. He could be at sea, moved and/or married by now, so we have another tangent to search along. Graceht has also gone, we won't search for her at present but neither will we forget her. It is also possible that other children could have been born and left home within this 20 year span. We will come to them, if any, when we search page for page through the 1891 census later on.

Well, we have:

• Found that George and Fanny had at least 4 sons, 3 daughters and a grand-daughter.
• Discovered that their surname could be Shingelston or Shinglestone.
• Seen them possibly move house at least once.
• Learnt that there were more places that no longer exist in Whitstable.
• Found a link to an old Whitstable surname - Foreman.

Ready to carry on? NEXT