It is hardly news that this week the genealogy community, or at least those who have C20th English and Welsh ancestry, have been revelling in the release of the 1921 census. I thought I’d share a few of my initial thoughts. Before I do, I can’t ignore the debate that has roused passions on both sides and that is the issue of the charges for access. This is the sort of post that you really need to read to the end, or at least part way, to understand the argument. I’ll tell you when you can stop!

FindmyPast won the contract to undertake the not inconsiderable task of digitising the records, so that those of us who can read this can potentially view these from the comfort of our own homes. In order to recoup the costs of digitisation, transcribing and indexing, there is currently a charge for access. Without indexing and transcribing, you would have to guess where your ancestor was living and work your way through the district page by page in the hope of finding them.  Anyone who researched in the 1970s and 1980s can vouch for how long this took and how often it was unsuccessful because great granny wasn’t where you expected her to be. In recent decades, we have come to expect that we will have the benefit of online countrywide indexes, transcription errors notwithstanding.

It is important to make it clear that, contrary to popular opinion, searching the 1921 census index is free. You do NOT need a FindmyPast subscription for this. So, there is some limited work you can do without any cost. Once you have located someone in the index, there is a charge for each transcription or image of a page that is viewed. These cost £2.50 and £3.50 respectively, although those with the higher level of FindmyPast subscription get a 10% discount. If this follows the pattern of previous dataset releases, after a period of months, accessing the 1921 census will be absorbed into the FindmyPast subscription charge and when the exclusivity period expires, it will be available on other subscription platforms as well.

Unlike previous releases, this time, there has been a significant amount of disquiet regarding charging to view a public document. So where do I stand on this? First some facts. To those who say, ‘but it is volunteers who do the transcribing’, not in this case. The 1921 census has not been digitised, transcribed or indexed by volunteers. It is a project on a massive scale and the logistics of trying to make it available on a countrywide basis by voluntary effort would have been close to insurmountable. I’ve been around long enough to remember the work required producing indexes to the 1851 and 1881 censuses. In any case, most family history societies who undertake voluntary transcribing projects charge for access to these in some way, either by a direct charge, or by making them available only to those who pay the society’s subscription. This provides valuable funds that are ploughed back, to the benefit of family historians.

To those who say, ‘1921 census access should be free’, in some ways it is. There is no charge to view if you have access to The National Archives, Manchester Central Library or the National Library of Wales. The charge is not for access to the record itself but to the digitised images, so in effect the payment is for the convenience of home viewing. Of course, visiting one of the free access points is not possible, practical or affordable for many. Travel to London, Manchester or Aberystwyth for me would involve a two-night stay and with travel costs would be the same as downloading approximately 75 1921 images, assuming I stayed in the caravan. I will not be doing this but I am fortunate, my financial position, my health, my geographical location and my home responsibilities mean that I could visit one of these centres if I chose to. For many that is not an option.

One side of the argument is that we should accept that digitisation is not something that can be achieved for free, the heavy financial investment has to be recouped and the 1921 census is now available to anyone with internet access, or who can get internet access at a library, for the cost of a good cup of coffee or a pint of beer per image. The #FreetheCensus counter argument is that, as a public document, the 1921 census should be freely available to the public and that the current charges are prohibitive for some and thus counter to the #GenealogyforAll ethos.

Although I am better placed now, I began my family history at a time when financial pressures impinged heavily on my ability to research as I would have wished. That doesn’t make it okay, I am just saying that I understand. I am passionate about making family history accessible to as many people as possible, be the barriers financial, geographical, age related, due to a disability, or anything else you can name but there is a BUT. My own view is that there will always be a cost implication associated with researching your family history. If you think you don’t spend anything, think again. At a minimum, you will be paying for internet access or for your phone contract and for the electricity to run and charge these devices. Even if you don’t use technology and you interview granny who lives with you (no travel costs), you need to purchase a writing implement and something to write on. If you can read this, you are already at an advantage over others because you can access the internet, with all that has to offer to help you in your research. In an ideal world it would be an equal playing field and it would all be free, I really wish it was but economic forces just don’t work that way. The best we can do is to try to level that playing field as much as possible, to work together to help and support each other and to keep costs as low as we can.

I am mindful that there are those who are, at the moment, excluded from viewing the 1921 census because of the charge and in one sense I am one of them. I have wider interests than my own immediate family. I would love to be able to access the returns for the communities for which I conduct one place-studies (all four places!) and for all those in my one-name study. I want to look at the entries for unrelated people whose lives impinged on those of my family. I certainly can’t afford to do all this within my family history budget. So, I agree, this is not #GenealogyforAll but I would add one word – yet. It is very difficult to be patient when genealogy social media is full of ‘look what I found in the 1921 census’ but patience is what is required. In time, no time-scale has been announced but my bet (based on zero insider-knowledge) is on six months, access will become part of a FindmyPast subscription and therefore freely accessible via library subscriptions. For those whose libraries only have Ancestry access, the wait will be longer; I believe about three years.

What we have is not ideal and I’ll admit to a sharp intake of breath, coupled with disappointment, when the charges were announced. The current access does allow those whose barrier is geography, disability or family responsibility to do their research and that is a sizeable community, who in the past might have been excluded. In time, those for whom the barrier is financial will also be included. I wish that was now, I really do but I just don’t see how online, countrywide, transcribed and indexed access could be achieved without cost. It seems fairest to recoup that cost from those who are interested in seeing the records. I suppose an alternative would be for this to be government funded and make all taxpayers contribute. Despite what family historians might think, the general public would hardly see this as priority when the country is struggling to fund health and social care and education. The bottom line is, in an unfair and unideal world, whilst not fully inclusive, this is as good as we could hope for. If that makes me sound as if I am resigned to the inevitable and not ready to fight for greater inclusivity, that couldn’t be further from the case. Passion for change does have to be tempered with practicality and at least a small dose of realism. You can stop reading now, unless you want to know what I’ve been up to within my limited 1921 download budget.

Now to the post I was actually going to write. In the three days of 1921 census access, I have only had time for a brief play, having listened to the world’s first live official FindmyPast presentation on using the census at 7am on Friday morning! I do recommend doing some background work before leaping in. The help pages and various videos and blogs that are available, really are worth reading. Look out for a FindmyPast presentation from your local family history society, many will be hosting these in the coming weeks. I made a list of all my direct ancestors who were alive in 1921. There were ten: one parent, four grandparents and five great grandparents. I wasn’t expecting any amazing breakthroughs from the 1921 census, as I already have full birth, marriage and death details for all of these ancestors but I was interested in the additional detail.

I belong to a lovely online group of genealogy friends and we have decided to begin the year by gathering the life stories of one of our grandmothers, so ‘Granny’ was first on the list and easily found in the index, together with her mother and brother. I purchased the image and brought up the filmstrip allowing me to access, for no additional charge, the ‘extra materials’, which included the page providing the address and a useful map. It is a shame that the useful ‘enumerator’s book lists’ from 1911 were destroyed in 1921. Of particular interest to me was the name of the employer, in Granny’s case ‘J. Gardner & co. wholesale caterer etc.’, where she worked as a clerk. The address of the employer, Leadenhall Market, was also given. This confirmed my mother’s memory that Granny had worked for ‘John Gardner & co. at Smithfield’ – wrong market mum but close! The more specific detail has allowed me to identify this company, subsequently taken over by Trust House Forte. The family photograph collection includes pictures of Granny with colleagues named ‘Reidy’ and ‘Carlie’. I can freely search the 1921 census by employer using the advanced search. This brought up 340 entries of people living in London, Middlesex, Surrey or Kent who stated there employer to be J Gardner. Without purchasing the images, it was difficult to be certain the employer was the same J Gardner but I did find a twenty-two year old Elizabeth Reid on the list, who is a candidate for ‘Reidy’. I tried Car* in the first and last name boxes but there were no likely entries for ‘Carlie’, who in any case may not still have been working there in 1921.

Next up, Granny’s future husband. With a name like Frederick Smith, a little more care was needed before parting with cash. Hoping that he was still with his parents, I by-passed Frederick Smith and tried great grandad instead as he had more unusual forenames and fortunately he was listed with both of them. I was able to hover over the transcription button in the index to check who else was in the household before purchasing the image. That ticked off Herbert Havet Smith, his wife and grandad Fred. The surprise here was that they had already left London and were living in Southend-on-Sea, with grandad commuting to his office in London. Again, it was an employer I recognised; my mother followed in her father’s footsteps and was still working part time from home for the company in the early 1960s.

My father, his parents and two brothers, with the benefit of an unusual name, were also easily found. There are only two people, of any age, with my father’s name in the 1921 census. Co-incidentally the other lived a few hundred yards from my home address, more than 250 miles away from my father. I knew that my father grew up in poverty but it was still a shock to see all five of them living in just two rooms.

Two more great grandparents to find. John Hogg in Morpeth was no trouble, He was living with his ‘widowed’ (she was never married) sister, her adult son and two male lodgers, in three rooms. I can’t imagine what the sleeping arrangements would have been. The final great-grandparent was trickier. In the end I found her by searching for her son. Inexplicably searching for Fanny Thomasine, WITH the variants box ticked, did not bring her up; she had been mis-transcribed as Fanny Homasine. Her writing was pretty awful – maybe I can claim it is genetic! In fairness to great granny, the census was taken just a week before she died; she was described as ‘unable to work’.

I have decided that my children’s direct ancestors can wait until the 1921 census forms part of my subscription, so five households was my limit. I would have paid for great great aunt Fanny if I could have found her. She was in the county asylum, which I also failed to find. I did have a quick look at my home village in the index, using the place search. There do seem to have been some large scale garbling of the house names in my parish. In addition, somehow the parish seems to have become attached to the neighbouring one, in a run-together version of the names. There will be some wholesale correction sending when I can access these via my subscription. I have heard others report that there are some weird and wonderful place name errors, with towns being ascribed to incorrect counties but I gather that this is being worked on.

So overall a positive experience and I am happy to wait for more extensive access. When it really will be the 1921 census for all.