Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
census age differences
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Shirley~I,m getting the hang of it | Report | 4 May 2005 23:29 |
|
Have viewed the census for 1861 & 1871 & am puzzled as to why my rellie on the 1861 is aged 60 & on the 1871 is aged 75 a difference of 5 years!. the other members of his famlly have aged correctly by ten years. Any explanation anyone can think of? Its a prob as by 1881 the wife is a widow so dont know what age to search for for his death Shirley |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Phoenix | Report | 4 May 2005 23:39 |
|
I have one lady who is 50 in 1841, 70 in 1851 and 90 in 1861. Goodness knows what her real date of birth was. |
|||
|
maggiewinchester | Report | 4 May 2005 23:39 |
|
Hi Shirley, On earlier censuses they tended to 'round up' the ages if they were an odd number (like 38 would become 40). I'm sure someone will give you a more detailed answer!! maggie |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Joe ex Bexleyheath | Report | 5 May 2005 02:22 |
|
It is only in the 1841 Census that there should be age variations. In that year anyone age up to 15 should be correctly shown, then from 15 - 19 year old would be rounded DOWN to 15, age 20-24 also rounded down to 20, and so on in blocks of 5. From 1851 ages should be shown correct as at time of census and any discrepancy is possibly due to the innumeracy of the person giving the information, so you should always bear in mind that incorrect information may have been given - people may have lied about age for various reasons, also where they were born, children born out of wedlock and the loose term 'lodger'. |
|||
|
Bill | Report | 5 May 2005 03:45 |
|
Sometimes later clerical marks ups, on the consolidated enumeration forms, obscure the age entry field to the point where it is either easily mistaken, or becomes as much a guess as it is anything else. Cheers, Bill Sydney, Australia |
|||
|
Geoff | Report | 5 May 2005 08:03 |
|
Remember that any 'original' census page that you see is actually a transcription. No originals exist. |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 5 May 2005 10:27 |
|
Quite a few of mine aged by a silly number of years between censuses. I guess that their real age didn't matter too much at the time. I also think that some of the ages I have on death certificates were not too accurate either. |
|||
|
Maxine | Report | 5 May 2005 12:38 |
|
My grt grt grt gran was aged 42yrs on the 1861 census, 51yrs on the 1871 and still 51yrs (her husband was also down as being 51yrs) on the 1881 census and according to the 1881 census she was the mother to children of 4yrs and 6weeks. I suspect the children belonged to her unmarried daughter as I don't think she would have been able to have children at the age of 61yrs. Maxine |
|||
|
Shirley~I,m getting the hang of it | Report | 5 May 2005 14:52 |
|
Thanks everyone. Guess its more cert buying till I get the right one. Have already brought one for 1877 but isnt right as dont know the informant on it who is named as son. I,m fairly sure of all the kids names( altho he was married twice) but the age was way out too . However it does give me a larger time scale to check parish records for the birth details too. He was either born 1801 or 1796!. THanks again for useful comments Shirley |
|||
Researching: |
|||