Genealogy Chat

We have one on my wifes side which goes 1871 - 22 1881 - 34 1891 - 44 1901 - 53 1923 - 74 (at his death) So it looks like the first and last were the correct ones. The reason, we suspect, was that his wife was older than him...!

I will apologise to Mary Seymour then - but it does look odd - especialy as she was born in Feb!

Kate is correct about the 45/46 probable answer. But from 1851 onwards, when the ages should be actual, not rounded down, it is very common to find the age a couple of years out. I have at least one example where a couple have only aged 7 years between censuses.

If the brother *thought* he was 45 (and he was only 44) then that is what he would say when asked.

Jennifer - all right, her half-brother was born in 1796 and say he had already had his birthday when the 1841 census came along, he was 45 and so his age was put down as 45. If your ancestor's birthday was after the census date (7th June), then she was 44 on the date in question, and so her age was in the 40-44 range and recorded as 40. No lying involved at all! Kate.

OLDE CRONE!!! Well...i'd never have thought it...tut tut Jess x

Uh, I dont understand - she had a brother born the same year, but there was no male heir to inherit? I read somewhere that it is a minor miracle that anyone has EVER told the truth on a census. Given that the enumerator might be known to you, and not knowing if he was going to show 'next door' what you had said on the Census, would YOU want to wash your dirty linen in public? And when the householder actually filled in the form himself, he was hardly going to say that his young widowed niece and her children were actually his fancy piece and the fruits of their loins! When I met my second husband, I knocked three years off my age, not knowing that I would be stuck with this 'social' lie for nearly twenty years! Anyone looking for me in the future will be well off track and presumably cursing the Census takers for their inaccuracy - but twas ME who lied, I had to, it was far too late to break the truth to my husband. Olde Crone

It was the 1841 census but her brother who was born in the same year (1796) was recorded as 45 but she was recorded as 40. There were a lot of issues about her legitimacy. Her father and mother weren't married until four years after her birth and she wasn't christened until she was 11. She was an heiress so it was quite likely that her father was trying to make her more respectable than she actually was- he was anxious to prove her legitimacy as he didn't have any male heirs to inherit and spent his life in the courts trying to prove her right to inherit.

Which census do you mean? The 1841 'rounds down' anyone aged over about 20 to the nearest 5 years, so someone who was 39 would be recorded as 35. Also on other censuses, if the person giving the information to the enumerator wasn't the mother/father of the person with the incorrect age, they may not know the actual date of birth and make an educated guess. I know what you mean though, it is sooo helpful (but rare) where you find someone whose age is exactly 10 years different on each census! Sam x

I'm always amazed by people who think because something is written down it must be accurate. I don't think I have a single relative whose information is 'the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth' on all their certs and censuses. It pays to keep an open mind. Mind you, I must say ALL my relatives so far have proved to have the right ages which go up by 10 years every census, so they were probably better at maths than me! nell

I have just caught one of my ancestors lying about her age on the census return. This could be because her illegitimate brother was almost exactly the same age in reality and so she decided to put a five year 'decency' gap between them for posterity, but it could equally have been vanity as she made herself out to be five years younger than she actually was. Just thought I'dpoint this out - the census ain't the gospel.