Genealogy Chat

Oh wait I see! That does look like a 15 or a 16. Maybe she'll be easier to trace and place then.

You can read that image? Honestly it looks like a blur to me. I'm trying to see where it says 15 though...

Kathleen, I don't think that Alice was born in Ireland, she was just 'not born in county' also, I think that the age on the imageis actually 15... which would mean she was born c1826.

Right now I'm trying to sort out the identities of these people: Alice Casey abt 1763 Cathrine Casey abt 1791 Ireland Cathrine Casey abt 1829 Lancashire, England Hugh Casey abt 1811 Ireland As you can see there's no place of birth for Alice, but I assume she was born in Ireland. Hugh is, I think, Cathrine's (1829) uncle (that's what it says on the 1861 census anyway), but I don't know who Cathrine born 1791 is. My first thought was Hugh's mother but she appears on the 1851 census as Catharine born 1778, that's too far out even for the census age fiddling. She could be Cathrine 1829's mother, but that doesn't account for the missing father or why she would be staying with her brother in law and a mystery older woman. This is why I was hoping there was a chance her age got recorded incorrectly, if she was Catharine of 1778, or vice versa, ir would sort itself out nicely. Sorry, I'm really just thinking outloud here. Unless somebody has a genius idea of how to work it out, I fear it will have to remain a mystery.

but be careful, I have some in 1841 who I though had about 15 children, it turns out that some of the kids were actually their nephews and neices. tom.

from 41 census *The ages of people over 15 years old were usually rounded down to the nearest 5 years. Therefore, someone who was actually 24 years would have their age listed as 20, and someone who was actually 27 years old would have their age listed as 25. julie

Did they really do that? Wow! If that checks out that I think I will indeed have found my great x 6 grandmother. Thank you so much Tom, I was worried that I'd found yet another branch of people with identical names. You too Darksecrets, even if the relations aren't noted, I think I can make an intelligent guess based on this info.

hiya ages on the 41 census were rounded down to nearest ie, someone who was 47 would become 40, someone 23 would be 20, but under age of 15 they should be right age Julie

in 1841, ages were generally rounded to the nearest 5 years (1801,1806,1811,1816etc) Although sometimes, beacsue it was the first 'proper' census and ddin't go into much detail I think I am right in saying that some enumerators just guessed.

Hi all, I've been researching my family tree for many months now, and I recently had a breakthrough in my investigations, discovering my great great great great great grandma on my mom's side. I think I may even have found HER mother, however these are names/dob's that appear only on the 1841 census. Similar names and ages do appear on 1851, however there is only one girl I can place for certain. My question is, how likely is it that the ages on these census' would have been recorded incorrectly? For example a one Hugh Casey is registered as born in 1811, but the only other Hugh in the same area in 1851 is born 1805. There's no way to really tell if these were the same people because in the 1841 census family relations weren't recorded. Does anyone have any suggestions?