Genealogy Chat

Have you tried + or - with the year of birth? They often rounded ages up or down on the census

Good evening all, I was wondering if someone could help me with a brick wall I've hit... I have a relative and their family clearly listed in both 1891 and 1901 censuses, but I've failed to find a birth record match. I've searched for every Arthur born in the district with the matching year and done everything I can think of to get around a mis-spelling but to no avail. Does anyone have any ideas on where I could go next? Many thanks in advance! Cath

Give us some actual clues, maybe someone else can find something

Try posting the name here, and somebody will have a look for you. Don't assume the age given in the census is exactly correct - it may not be accurate.

Thanks all... I've looked + / - a few years; The name is Arthur Rackham - born c. 1873. Census records correlate (listed at age 8 and 18) and both list the birth location as Bethnal Green. (If it helps, the 1881 index lists the age as 6 but original looks more like 8) All help would be very much appreciated! Cath

I might be wrong but I think it was not compulsory to register births before 1875. Maureen

Is this the family in 1881? Bit of an age gap with the children. Name: Arthur Rackham Age: 6 Estimated birth year: abt 1875 Relation: Son Father's name: Benjamin Mother's name: Ann Gender: Male Where born: Bethnal Green, Middlesex, England Civil parish: Spitalfields County/Island: London Country: England Street address: 14 Gt Pearl St Occupation: Scholar Registration district: Whitechapel Sub-registration district: Spitalfields ED, institution, or vessel: 4 Household Members: Name Age Ann Rackham 53 Arthur Rackham 6 Benjamin Rackham 57 Charles Rackham 19 Cornelius F. Rackham 21 Frederick Rackham 16 Joseph D. Rackham 14 Source Citation: Class: RG11; Piece: 434; Folio: 53; Page: 6; Line: ; GSU roll: 1341094

Did they have a daughter that could have been his mother and actually he should be recorded as grandson? or indeed a son of one of the older sons?

Thanks - yes, that's the family. 1881 original is more of an age 8, leaving a 6 year gap between Arthur and the previous child. I can't see anything that would indicate Arthur being one of the older siblings children, are there any other obvious possibilities here or could there be an infinite number of reasons for this / possible real parents? Thanks once again Cath

A bit further but still no luck... can anyone help! I've matched the other females in the family to their future names and then back to the birth records to see if my Arthur was registered under a different surname that matches but no luck. Has anyone experienced this before? All suggestions would be massively appreciated - it's feeling like a bit of a needle in a haystack at the moment! (Happy new year all!) Cath

Thanks Maid Marian - I think I'll give up on this one and look at some other family bits. Thanks for the info Cath