Genealogy Chat

Are the Dearmans old enough to be the grandparents? I know you're not familiar with the name, but could it be a remarriage? Perhaps if you track them in other censuses, you might find some sort of connection. If the address, siblings and ages all tie up, and there are no other candidates, it probably is the right family.

Could it be a mistake by the enumerator?

……… on whether I have found my 2 x great grandfather on the 1851 or not!!!!!!! I have everyone from my grandfather to my 2 x g grandfather down to the 1871 and am pretty certain where they all are!! – although the trail goes cold and I can’t find them on the 1861. So I thought I’d give the 1851 a try!! I have my 1 x g grandfathers birth cert which gives his parents as John Mills and Elizabeth (Mops? – can’t quite read cert and haven’t found a marriage for them yet as it could be just pre-reg) My 2 x ggrandfather is DANIEL MILLS, born c.1840 Bethnal Green (therefore should be approx. 11 on 1851). I have a DANIEL MILLS at 3 Duke Street, St Matthews, Bethnal Green with siblings, Susan Mills, Louisa Mills, George Mills and John Mills – aged 3 weeks – BUT – they are not at this address with JOHN and ELIZABETH – they are all shown as ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ but the couple are Thomas & Elizabeth DEARMAN (not a name that appears anywhere else in my tree!) Anyway, thought this was just a red herring, but carried on looking for JOHN and ELIZABETH and, lo and behold, on the next page at 9 Duke Street, there they are, him shown as a ‘wood cutter’ which would fit with the ‘family profession’ of wood carving and turning down the next three generations!!! So the questions are: Do the children belong to John and Elizabeth? Why were they shown as ‘sons’ and ‘daughters’ of Mr & Mrs Dearman? Why might they have been at No 3 instead of No 9 on the night of the census? Suggestions gratefully received. Thanks Looby

see below