Census Puzzle

montgo

I found 2 census records for Bridget B in 1911 when there was supposed to be only one Bridget around at the time.

Parents, Matthew (1841-1904) & Bridget (c1844-c1921) appear on the 1901 Mooreabbey Census here with son Thomas. They had 4 children: Thomas (b.1876), Sarah (1877), Mary (1879) & John (1881). Sarah, Mary & John are recorded elsewhere as servants.

However for the 1911 Census there are 2 Bridgets recorded in neighbouring townlands. Mooreabbey here is where the family lived. And this is the other census record for Bridget together with 3 children. The ages for Thomas, Mary & John agree with their actual age but Bridget is recorded as 42 years old (should be 72, I think). I haven't found any other BMD record for a Bridget.

Could Bridget & indeed Mary have been recorded twice? Any other ideas?

Jellybaby1

I looked at Forms N and B1 and B2 for the Bridget in Ballycrana and the numbers 1 and 7 are quite different. I would say that Bridget's age is actually written as 72 and not 42. Can't say about the duplication, others are more qualified to answer you on that.

Menas

I have had a duplication where my grandmother (aged 7 in 1911) was recorded as been at home with her parents on the night of the census. But she is also with her aunt/god mother on a different return.
We reckon that she really was visiting her aunt but her parents included her on their return as she was 'supposed' to be at home.

montgo

I admit that this doesn't look like a duplication - everything is different, apart from their age.
1901 - Matthew & Bridget - Read only - yet Matthew apparently fills in the form and signs
1911 - Moorabbey - looking at it again, the writing appears the same as the Enumerator? Bridget R+W
1911 - 2nd one - see the signature of Constable Neary, completely different. Bridget Cannot Read?
More confusing...