Genealogy Chat

In the event many of mine in the 1841 are shown with their "correct" aged, not rounded down. If your guy was shown as 33 then he was 33 (probably!) and hadnt been rounded down to the nearest 5 or 0.

When I first started this hobby I thought that I had come across a few pairs of twins in families - lol, but then realised their ages had been rounded down.

Sorry Peter, rounding down was for people over the age of fifteen, not twenty.

Many enumerators ignored this direction and you will find exact ages recorded.

Kath is right about many people being unsure of their age, birthdays did not have the same signifigance in those days.

Jennifer

The age limit was 20, not 15, for rounding down. In practice, there are many ages over 20 shown without rounding.

Some useful info for the census on here

http://www.british-genealogy.com/resources/census/index.htm

Thanks very much!!

Well assuming he has an idea of his age (if the 1807 one is right the 33 on 1841 census) then i guess it likely discounts the 1800 birth. His wife's age appears right in 1851 and he would be 4 years 'too old' - i guess thats just about alright for census data!

In the 1841 census anyone 15 and over is rounded down to the nearest five years. That means that if your person is said to be 30 then he could be anything from 30 to 34. A lot of people seemed to be unsure of their proper age in those days.

Kath. x

Pretty sure i've read somewhere that ages are rounded in the 1841 census - How rounded are they? The reason i ask is that I have a William Voisey on the 1841 census as age 30. Further census' suggest a birth date of 1804 but i've found a baptism in 1807 (with a birth date in 1807). If he was Born 1804 surely he would be '35' or '40' on the census not 30???? The problem is that there are 2 other potential Williams - one born 1800 (not likely i wouldn't have thought given the 10 year descrepent ages) and one born 1810.

In 1851 William gives his age as 47 - so he's aged 17 year in 10 lol!