Genealogy Chat

Hi,
Would you trust the information on the 1841 census forms?

The reason I ask the question is because I've been trying for a numbers of months to find the parents of William Wakefield of Finchley. The 1851 census has him born in 1796 in Finchley while the 1841 census has him born 1806 in Finchley, the same goes for his wife Susan Wakefield. The 1851 has her born in 1797 in Welwyn Hertfordshire but the 1841 its 1806 in Finchley.

William and Susan married at St Mary's Finchley in 1823, Susan was preg with there first child who was born a few months later. They went on to have a number of children with the last Henry being born in 1846 making Susan 49 at the time if she was born in 1797.

There is a thought that Henry wasn't William and Susans child because on the 1851 census he is listed as a Grandson. Henry was Baptised in Islington when William and Susan were living in Finchley but the certificate stated that William and Susan where his parents.
All the other children were baptised in Finchley.

William and Susan's 2 eldest daughters were living in Islington at the time of the baptism.

Any advice would be greatly received.

Many Thanks

Brian

Remember that on the 1841 census ages of those over 15 were rounded down to the nearest 5 or 0. However that doesn't account for the age differences that you have between 1841 and 1851.

Thanks for that info Madbull, I didn't realize that the 1841 was rounded down, so this means William could have been born between 1801 and 1806 if the 1841 census is to be believed.

The way I understand it.... if 1841 states born 1797 he could have been any age between 45- 49
but please remember, our ancestors did not always know their true age...
Have you found the marriage cert to check ages on there?

RECORD ON ANCESTRY.. marriage.
Williamm Wakefield & Susan Summer
21 apr. 1823
with consent of parents. Making them under 21 so 1851 looking more accurate.

I think if the 1841 census says born 1806 it must show his age as 35 meaning he could be 35-39, making him born 1802-1806.

I have to differ again. If they were under 21 in 1823 they would have to have been born 1802 or later.

OOPS got it the wrong way round

Thanks again for the new leads

Alright Madbull.... so my maths is not as good as yours !!!!!

It is confusing, though, isn't it Margaret? When I try to do it in my head I always do it backwards. I have to scribble it out with pencil & paper.

http://www.census-helper.co.uk/1841/
The instruction was to record the exact age of those who were 15 or under, and for everyone else to round up or down to the nearest 5 years - for example, a man aged 27 would have his age rounded down to 25. However many census enumerators did not adhere to this instruction.

I have to disagree again. The instruction was to round down not up or down. I agree though that not all enumerators followed the instruction.

Having read from that site again, I disagree with it, too :-)


From http://www.findmypast.co.uk/CensusPersonStartSearchServlet?censusYear=1841:

The 1841 census is the first modern UK census, when the first Registrar General of England and Wales was made responsible for organising the count.

This is the earliest census that has survived in its entirety: only local fragments of the 1801, 1811, 1821 and 1831 censuses survived once the statistical information was collected.

Note:
In the 1841 Census a policy of rounding down ages was in place.

As such people aged:
15-19 were recorded as 15;
20-24 were recorded as 20;
25-29 were recorded as 25;
30-34 were recorded as 30;
35-39 were recorded as 35;
1841 was the first time that the head of each household was given a form to fill in on behalf of everyone in the dwelling on a set day. This system still forms the basis of the method used today.

The 1841 census was taken on the night of 6 June 1841 and gave the total population as 15,914,000.

To make it more interesting, not all enumerators rounded in 1841 either......!

So in my case William must have been born between 1802 and 1806.

The 1841 census has William aged 35 so could be 35 to 39 meaning a birth date range of 1802 to 1806.

William was married in 1823 and as Margaret in Sussex pointed out the wedding certificate stated 'with parents consent' meaning he was under 21 years of age but over 16 so giving a range of approx 1802 to 1807.

On the 1841 census it states William was born in Middlesex so with the above dates i can narrow things down to 2 or 3 Wiliam.

Thanks for the help.

Just to add:
I tend to think that the younger you are, the more accurate the age is, so someone could claim to be around 70 and no-one would notice if they were really 75, but the difference between a new born and a 5 year old is obvious.
Also, the older, the more forgetful, if you do not really know, and many people can be tracked through censuses gaining only 8 years for every new 10 year census.
However, this does not work if people are trying to deceive, and wives do not want to be older than husbands, or children born before marriages, etc etc.
And, as pointed out, 1841 ends up very vague for lots of people.