Genealogy Chat

It's a fair comment. My family are turning out so far to be nail makers and fishmongers, with some farm labourers, I guess the passing of time would have been observed very differently!

Hi, I put my daughter on the censusat our home as ours is her registered address, then she put herself on it at her rented address. So yes, inconsistencies can happen! My great-grandparents very irritatingly sent all their children to stay at other people's houses on the night of the 1901 census so it took me a while to find them all.
I also do believe that, much more recently than 1811, some people genuinely did not know when they were born. Time and date, after all, is man made and not always relevant to everyone.
Certainly some of my ancestors don't seem to have been born at all, even though I am here to prove them wrong!

hi,

i have a couple of inconsistencies with the census. my gran is on the 1911 census twice, once where she worked and once where she lived, her boss made the error as its on the orginal. then my 3 x g grandfather disappeared in the 1851 census. found him be widening the area to the next county as "his village" was near the county border and widening his birth year.. he was in hospital and whoever had written the orginal had transposed the home village of all the patients one line up. was confirmed withn the health archives that it was my ancestor but thry couldnt give any details of why he was in hospital - aw. also have a 3 x great grandma whose first name and age changed with every census, but at least she stayed with the same initial letter.
the censuses are only as good as the people who wrote them but such a wealth of true info makes up for it
val

Indeed. There's only one real leap of faith I've had to take so far, and it seems to have paid off. I was confident as what are the odds of a family having all the same names and similar ages moving into the same home. Fortunatley, it looks like one of the daughters moved back in with her husband and child by the next census, just before the parent passed away.

I will bear it mind though, and continue to cross refence anything I can.

I have to say, don't just assume because what you find isn't quite what you expect that it is a mistake or fib. It may be telling you something you are not aware of.

Yes, ages do vary from one census to the next but remember that deaths during childbirth were very common and remarriage often took place soon afterwards and could easily be to a woman with the same first name. I fell for this one several times in the early days so these days take nothing for granted or make assumptions just because they seem to fit.

Check, double check and scour the BMDs and any other available info for possible clues.

If you are looking at the 1841 census be aware that ages of adults should have been rounded down to a multiple of 5 years, although that was not always done. Also that census was done in June rather than March/April for the later ones.

In Reponse KenSe, The original census doesn't show them, but then again, the page was full with other households, perhaps the census taker prioritised the heads. I have to admit, upon completing the 2011 census, it never once occured to be that my great great grandkids might be trying to decode it one day!

Good advice all round :)
Sadly, I'm seeing the same with the next generation up, in that I'm certain I've found the same people a second census, but the "mothers" age is out by 5 years. The daughter is a perfect match, right down to profession, the father is absent, having died a few years previously.

Your comment about people not knowing their true age, would you consider that probable as recently as 1811? I have a source elsewhere where exact dates have been given, which makes me more inclined to follow thos dates than something just listing the month.

I'm still in the early stages, you see. And want to get as much groundwork done before I start taking trips to the record office and investing in birth certificates etc.

There are many reasons why the information contained within census records is inconsistent. Starting with the fact that due to illiteracy not everyone knew their true age and place of birth through to social reasons such as the "Norm" of men being older than their wives or fear of being relocated should they fall on hard times. It is always essential to look at the original of the census to ascertain that what has been transcribed is accurate.

As far as why people are "Missing" from census records, once again there are many reasons why we cannot find them. There are many steps between what was originally written down and the record we now view on our computers. Every step has the capability of error. It usually pays us to use all of the means available to us such as wildcards, using just the missing persons forename, birthplace and birth year (+/-2) when searching. When searching it also pays to look for children as their ages are less likely to have been "Corrupted". In the case of Maria and George in 1871 look for a George with a mother called Maria.

The census data is not perfect. I too have a relative who took a couple of years off her age every census. If you are using transcripts and there is a discrepancey in one year then check the original image. Sometimes people use different names over time.


Have you found who was living in the house in 1871? Assuming you have access to census data it is worth finding if anyone was there. If no one living at that address is she staying with her parents?

How accurate / reliable would most of you consider a Census to be?
I'm having lots of fun spotting the fibs my ancestors were telling here and there. Usually, inconsitancies would raise concerns that I've found the wrong people, particularly when a surname is common. But when the same people are living together over a long period, even the same household, I love to see my 3rd great gran telling increasingly bigger fibs each time. One minute she's 28 and from Derbyshire, 10 years later she's now 42, and from America! (a huge discrepancy, I know, but unless her husband swapped for a younger, overseas model with exact same name, I tihnk I can put this down as the 1880s version of everybody putting "Jedi" as a religion, with her wanting to seem young back in the day? Maybe she realised that if she was telling the truth, it would have meant she was only 13 when she got married)

I wanted to ask, actually, because I have a situation where, in 1861 John and Maria live together in a house, with the census being taken just months before George is born. Ten years later in 1871, John is the only person on the census in a different part of town, apparenlty living alone. By the time the 3rd census is due, John has died, and Maria and George and the other kids are now living in the same, second house. I can find no other trace of Maria in 1871 - Shoud I just assume they were there all along, and didn't bother with the census. Also, is it really worth worrying? I have a good picture of their lives together, and as long as I have the family structure and parents details right for further research, is it worth shattering this little soap opera I have in my head for the sake of a couple of decades?

Cheers!