Genealogy Chat

Even with a common name say James Smith with age differences, it can be simple to know it is the same person. On the 1871 census say for example he was aged 40, and his wife Mary was 31. They were both born in Bungay, Suffolk say, but were living in Holborn, London, James a carpenter. James was married to her in 1864 in Bungay, and the cert says, both of full age given, widower, he was a carpenter, fathers name of Thomas Smith, also a carpenter. But Mary was only really 24.

You look for James on the 1861 census and find that the only likely one is aged 48, born in Bungay c1813, a carpenter. You cannot find another James Smith in the town, also a carpenter. The James Smith bc1813 was the son of Thomas Smith, a carpenter according to his 1813 baptism record.

You find James and Mary on the 1881 census still in Holborn, both born in Bungay, and he is aged 60, aged 20 years in just 10 years, whereas Mary is 41, which ties in with her 1871 age. James died in 1885 aged 72, and the address tallies with that of the 1881 census so you know he was that age, meaning he was really 58 in 1871 not only 40, and 68 in 1881, not 60.

Why does his age keep varying greatly from decade to decade? Even with a common name in such an occurrence you know it has to be the same person but they could have lied to hide the fact they wed a much younger woman. Someone aged 60 might have gave their age as just 40 in a census if their wife was 30 years younger, to make the age gap look only 10 years.

Ben

I had the same problem.

I was tracing my 2x great grandmother in my local records office before censuses came online.
In 1881 she was the same age as her husband so I wasted a lot of time hunting for her birth in the parish registers. I spotted a baby with the right first name who was several years too early but didn't make a note of her.
I tracked backwards through the censuses slowly and painfully (they moved around a bit) and each time her age was different compared with her husband.
The father she had given herself on her marriage certificate appears to have been invented so I hadn't realised she had her mother's maiden name.

Eventually it became obvious that I'd found her baptism already because she was the older child I'd seen recorded years before I'd expected. I'd also by then spotted her in service in a nearby village in 1851 but hadn't realised that was her at first either.

Some of these ancestors are very tricky to trace if you believe what they say in records!

Sue

I have recently been searching for one of my cousins, her Great Grandmother on her mothers side aged only four years between 1861 and 1871.
I wish
Pat.

Athena

My ggggrandfather was 26 years older than his 3rd wife and in the 1881 census, he was really 68 but lopped off his age as just 60 whereas his wife was only 40. He died in 1889 and that states his proper age, as does his workhouse records but I know exactly what you are meaning when people married much younger spouses, either younger men or younger women.

I think there was a small stigma attached to it in those days. But when my above mentioned ancestors married, the man was 51 and the woman 24 nearly 25. They had 6 children together, the last one when her dad was 63.

I wonder when he turned 70 in 1883 if he had a cake and candles??

Apparently it wasn't until around 1900 that most people started celebrating birthdays - not that that excuses all my relatives who consistently pick a number out of the ether when they get married or the census emunerator calls.
One of mine never recorded her correct age as she married when she was only 17 and her husband was 45 - he also reduced his age, so eventually they ended up at the same age. It drove me mad for ages.

I awlays check with BMD's if they occur after 1837..and i don't mean those on Ancestry..the County Local Bmd's are, in my experience, spot on..which of course does not take into account of individual misrepresentations.or lies!!
For instance my mother was illegitimate but her full Birth Certificate gave name and occupation of a totally mythical person as her father.Drove me potty until i sussed it out!!

My great-grandad obviously uncovered the secret of eternal youth - I have got his birth certificate which says he was born in July 1860. In 1861 he is 8 months old, by 1871 he is ten.

In 1881 he somehow is only 18 yet was living with his mother and stepfather (she must have known when she gave birth to him but then again she couldn't write). In Jun 1888 he said he was 27 when he got married to a 19 year old, by April 1891 he was 29 (should have been nearly 31) and in 1901 he was magically just 37.

But on his gravestone his age is right and his wife is said to be 74 when she should have been 72. Strange indeed.

I have found that quite often the wife's ages go up after the husband has passed away! And that in fact they were older than their husband yet still had tons of kids.

Sometimes their ages weren't just a few years out, either - watch out for a sudden drop in age when marrying for the second time - I have a few ancestors who lopped as much as 15 years off their age when marrying a younger person!

Athena

Some ages were rounded up and down in the 1841 census. My one ancestor was 17 then and it took ages to find him - the age on the return had been altered to 20, while his 14 years old brother's age had been altered to 10. To add to the fun, they were living with their maternal grandparents, and their surname was hopelessly mistranscribed.

It's good to know it's not just me having this crop up. So we have to make one or two leaps of faith sometimes that it's the same person. I've found some deaths that I've flagged up as probably being the person but noting the age differnce in the records.

Thanks for that info Jennifer. It makes it easier to understand if it's a general thing.

Birthdays did not carry the same importance to people as they do today, many people were not sure of their exact ages, or of where they were born, so it is inevitable that there will be discrepencies from time to time.

Jennifer

Does anyone find like me that the ages of people in the 1800 censuses, bmd registers etc seem to be quite fluid? I have several that I thought I had pegged as a certain age and then they are a few years younger or older by the next record, and yet they can't be a different person as far as I can see. Everything else stacks up like siblings, spouses etc.