Genealogy Chat

Thanks for your kind words, Heather. Actually it just came to me in a flash after I had posted the message, I realized that the ages were exactly 5 years off from what they should have been. I had to go back and update the message. It's still early morning here, too. I hadn't even had my second cup of coffee! Margaret

not forgetting people like s i l who stayed at age 29 until her daughter had her 18th birthday party! sil had a similar problem with 39 too. You think women are any less truthful now than then?? lol C

Perhaps we shouldn't always blame the enumerator. I've recently come across this from the 1841 instructions: The householders are asked 'to state within what period of five years their age is, writing down the lowest number of that period ... but the exact age may be stated if the person prefers it' So it could be the householder who got it round their neck rather than the enumerator. I always have a picture in mind of a harassed little man going door to door and writing down all the answers as he quizzed whoever opened the door, but even in 1841 there was a form left first for the householder to fill in if they were able.

Gawd bless all your cotton socks, I think I've finally got it. Regards Thanks

Margaret, thats really well thought out - yes, now I look at it and I can see that the enumerator seems to have deducted 5 years from mum and dad's ages - I wouldnt have thought of that - well done! As already said, the idea was to round down to the nearest 0 or 5. As such a 33 year old would become 30 and a 47 year old, 45. Kids up to 15 werent changed at all. Ive found some areas where they put the exact age anyway. The enumerators seem to have been a bit confused themselves. But I think Margaret has cracked it there - it was a case of a particularly stupid enumerator!

1841 Collins family Source Citation: Class: HO107; Piece 696; Book: 2; Civil Parish: St George Middlesex; County: Middlesex; Enumeration District: 3; Folio: 18; Page: 29; Line: 20; GSU roll: 438811. Having looked at both 1841 and 1851 I would say it is the same family Maureen

Hi Rita Generally, in 1841, children up to the age of 15 had exact ages recorded. After the age of 15 ages were rounded down 5 years, i.e. a 19 yr old would be shown as 15, 24 as 20 and so on. In answer to your question regarding that family, I would say that the chances are that they are the same lot. Hope this helps. Angela

I can't explain the discrepancy in the parents' ages there. The census taker evidently didn't follow the rounding down rule on the 1841 census. Ages over 15 should all end in 0 or 5. The rule only applied to the 1841 census and all ages over 15 were to be rounded down to the nearest 5. They didn't all follow the rule. It looks like, in your case, the census taker didn't understand the rule and instead of rounding down to the nearest 5, he simply took 5 years off their ages.

Rounding up and down of ages in early censuses. How did the system work? Examples please. . Did it apply to children? I have on the 1841 census the following: King Street Patrick, Head - age 33 Mary, Wife - age 26 Timothy, son – age 8 Mary, dau. – age 4 John, son – age 1 And on the 1851 King Street Patrick, Head - age 48 Mary, Wife - age 41 Timothy, son – age 17 Mary, dau. – age14 John, son – age10 Followed by several subsequent children. Would a concensus be that this is the same family, paying due regard to the discrepancy of the parents’ ages between the 2 censuses. I have to leave the PC but will be back later. Regards Rita

See below RIta