Find Ancestors

Thank you JaneyCanuck, most helpful.
In the past I have spent quite some time trolling through the sites you mention only to come up with nothing or being even more confused than when I started.
There are people on here who offer help for no reward and find things for those of us who are having problems.
I, and most others are very greatful for thier help.
Thank you for pointing out that we all have access to the same sites, thats most helpful.
Well, I have tried all sites I know of, and come up with nothing.
I know there are sites out there that I dont know of, or don't have access to, and I was hoping that one of the kind helpers on here might be able to find something that I could not.
It was an honest open plea for help. I gave all the information I could , but was attacked by the self appointed boards polce quoting rules.

Thank you Janey for what you found on the 1841 census.
I confess I had already found that entry but had discounted it as false because in 10 years according to the 1851 census he had aged 14 and his wife had aged 12. A son, henry also also disappears. Also, there is no mention of siblings
True what you say about the unusual names in the same area though.

Sorry, you are not helping yourself.

You weren't attacked. You were asked to abide by the rules. (The least you could have done, if you felt compelled to post elsewhere, was offer the link to this thread so that the person you were asking would not be left info-less, not that you posted enough here to start with.)

The poeple who ask you to abide by the rules are the people you are asking for help, it might be wise to remember.

And disputing the information you are offered, when there is no better to be found, doesn't help you either. Especially when it's offered by very experienced researchers who are well aware that age variations of several years are not remotely uncommon in the 19th century records.

Son Henry would have been 19ish in 1851. Very likely had left home, not "disappeared". Could have died.

In 1841 there are a handful of Henry Duff-s in the census. Only one in Worcestershire (Dudley): the one in the household of Benjamin and Elizabeth. (Did you find any other Benjamin and Elizabeth Duff, or even a Benjamin, to fill your bill in 1841?) No Henry Duff was born in that area 1841-1851.

Did you look at FreeBMD for a death or marriage of Henry Duff? Did you look for him in 1851?

There are four Henry Duff deaths 1841-1851. I might consider this one as an explanation for the 1841 Henry "disappearing", since there was no other Henry Duff in the vicinity in 1841 and none was born there 1841-51:

Deaths Sep 1844
DUFF Henry Worcester 18 355

Oh, for heaven's sake.

Benjn Duff 25
Elizabeth Duff 25

They hadn't "aged" 14 and 12 years by 1851.

Ages in the 1841 are *rounded down* to the nearest 5 years.

Obviously, theirs were rounded down exactly as directed in that census. (This is basic knowledge about the censuses.)

Ages in the 1851 are accurate (to the knowledge of the people in question, and to the extent they reported them honestly.)

I hear what you are saying.
I will ammend my ways.

However, in a comparison 1841 - 1851
Benjamins est birth year changes from 1812 - 1816
He ages 14yrs
Elizabeth ages 12yrs
Henry is not mentioned, but as you point out at age 19yrs he could have moved out.
On the 1841 there is no mention of a son Thomas, who, according to the 1851 would have been approx 5yrs or of a daughter Elizabeth who would have been approx 2yrs.
I note and take your advice about approx ages/dates but missing Children?
Any thoughts?

Oh dear, done it again it seems.

Please pardon my ignorance of even basic matters relating to the census in 1841.

Must have missed that lesson.

Is it another basic matter not to mention your children?

Welll, that is probably about enough of this, but here's one more basic matter for you.

This is your family, not mine, so I didn't go that extra mile.

It's a basic matter to look at the original info and not wait for someone else to do the whole job for you, or go purely by Ancestry's transcriptions (or anyone else's). Particularly in 1841, Ancestry has a habit of randomly severing households. You'll find 3-yr-olds living in their own households.

Look at the image for the 1841 household. You'll see that Ancestry has interpreted a random mark on the page as a household separation, and you'll find the children you're missing, all three of 'em.

However, do note that there are explanations for children who materialize between censuses, e.g. they are children of a deceased sibling taken into the household and called the HOH's children, even if they aren't, because they were "adopted" at a time when there was no such thing as adoption.

Do feel free to find something else to be sarcastic about now.

And I do recommend reading *all* the material posted since your last reply each time, to save effort.

There's always "thanks", of course ...

Janey you are a star.

Nobody told me that Ancestry sometimes get it wrong. (or not that often)

I have never heard of household seperations before.

I certainly didn't realise that a mark on a page could be missinterpreted and by so doing that a whole family could be seperated.

Perhaps you might now understand how I would get so easily confused.

Thank you for explaining it to me.

I now know a lot more about how to trace my tree than I did before I met you.

Thank you once again

You're very welcome.

Most of us here do get at least as much satisfaction from passing on the know-how as we do from serving the results up on a plate. ;)