Genealogy Chat

bit of a long-winded one I'm afraid - please see below

I received a marriage cert today, dated 1913, which gives my bride as 29yrs, spinster, marrying a 49yr old bachelor!!! Sounded a bit much, so I'm trawling through ancestry trying to find Henry Hall on censuses prior to his marriage: Henry is an accountant, and was married in Harlesden,Middlesex. His father, also Henry Hall, was a commercial traveller (whatever that is) but was deceased by 1913. I found a Henry Hall in 1891 as a visitor with a family named Polden - Arthur Polden was a witness at the marriage of Henry and his wife Beatrice (also known as Eva...just to complicate things further!!) Henry's occupation is 'Clerk', which figures if he later becomes an accountant (have other rellies who followed same occupation line) Would I be correct in believing this is my Henry Hall? Next I try to find Henry on either 1871, 1881 or 1901 census, but this is where things come unstuck. The Henry on the 1891 census was born (supposedly) in Camberwell so I'm using that as a starting point: In 1871 there are only 3 Henry Hall's born Camberwell, one is the right age but with the wrong father's name, the other two are father and son, but the son's age isn't right (3 yrs out). In 1881 I find a father and son called Henry - the son's age is 5 yrs out, but the father is a Brush Traveller which is getting closer to the details I already have. In 1891 there are no Henry Halls born in Camberwell! I am now banging my head on my desk - could someone please read this and tell me if any of it makes sense because its making me dizzy. Where should I be looking? So far I appear to have found links to Camberwell, Kensal Rise, Harlesden and Willesden - does anyone out there know where these places are? From what I can find, it looks like Kensal Rise, Harlesden and Willesden are all fairly close together in NW London, but Camberwell is in South London! Is this right or am I just confusing myself even more? Many thanks Sarah

Sarah your geography of London is correct it is possible that the 1891 only shows London as birthplace especially if auditor was in a hurry or didnt want to listen lol

If everything else fits I wouldn't take the age TOO seriously. People seem notoriously fickle in stating their age!. Also the details were not always given by the person themselves. Can you (hand on heart) quickly state the age of all your extended family? I know I sometimes confuse their names let alone the age. I don't think the general public was necessarily trying very hard for the census. My point is that the age should be a general guidline along with all the other evidence for making up your mind if its the right person. It is more difficult for you with a relatively common name in a big city than someone in a small village with an uncommon name. Anne

Thank you both - I'm still going round in circles mind! I'm assuming the marriage cert is going to be more reliable than census returns as far as age goes, and it seems far too much of a coincidence that the 1891 census has a possible match for Henry, living at the same address as one of the witnesses to his marriage some 20-odd years later - surely that must be the same one? I think I shall have to put this one on the back burner for a while, before I go completely nuts!! lol