Genealogy Chat

Be very careful with ages on census records and for that matter burial records prior to 1837. The ages are simply going to be how old people think they are - certainly in the earlier census returns their recollections are not very reliable (even for the children in some cases). You can seen strange discrepancies in the IGI caused by someone using the age on a burial record to calculate a date of birth. One of my ancestors was described as being born in 1856 acoording to the IGI and 1758 according to my families own records - he was however born in 1760. The 1841 census is the only one where they rounded ages down and thsi can give you even more room for error. Your ancestor could have been 32, believed or said she was 29 and it got recorded as 25!!

There are a few names where the enumerator obviously decided it was easier to take an actual age instead of rounding it - but generally, yes, it was as described. Christine

Thank you Glen and Reggie, so my lady is likely to be the one born in 1811, being 29 in 1841, her christening was on 13.10.1811, so her 30th birthday was after the census. Thanks for the valuable info, both. Regards, Donna.

Yes, ages were rounded down..........I think the age from which it was done was 15, but don't quote me on the specific detail! Reg

Anyone over 15 had their age rounded down to the nearest 5. eg 24 would be rounded down to 20 27 would be rounded down to 25 as would 29 Anyone under 15 is supposed to be recorded with the correct age,but apply the usual tolerance. The details are on ancestry,when you select 'view record' scroll down the screen to see full details. Glen

Hi, all, I have a relative on the 1841 census who gives her age as 25. She married in 1830. That would make her 14 on marraige. I have just found an entry for a birth on the IGI, in 1811. Was the ages ' rounded down on the census ? Regards, Donna.