Yes, Jeff, I agree with you, that census' are full of anomalies, and certainly I have found entries in the public trees on ancestry that have clearly not been cross referenced. I never accept that any one person is 'mine' until I have cross referenced several sources. I have recently tracked several 'possibles' for someone I was looking for, through all the census records to eliminate each one,(by finding them married to the wrong person in 1881) and narrow down my options. Its a long task sometimes but at least you 'get your man' (I must have some "Mountie" blood in my veins!) Anyway, I digress from the subject in hand,, Pte George. I have been cross referencing possible options for him, and have eliminated those that have the 'wrong' parents, so I am down to the original family who show up on the 1861 census, in Sheldwich with the William aged 8 and Walter 1 month, and with siblings whho match those listed on his enlistment record. Yes I have my doubts about the census enumerators entries, in the 1891 census where William is show ant Canterbury Barracks, the name immediately above him is also a William, and I wondered if the enumerator erroneously put William? but then you told me that he enlisted as William,so maybe not. Its frustrating to say the least, isn't it? especially when we don't even know if he really is 'one of us'. The search for him and his descendants has come about because we have in our possession - something which once belonged to Pte George, - found in a box of 'family stuff' which belonged to my late father in law. No one in the family knows why it should be there, and at the moment, no family connection with the George family is evident. Onward and upward as they say.
Thanks, (again) so much for the enlistment details. One day we'll uncover the connection .. perhaps!