After years of hearing cautionary advice about ages being rounded to nearest ? In 1841, I find a man aged 53 & his wife aged 44. She was 51 & a widow on census in 1851. How then does one take a flying leap of faith to find the actual/probable birth date of either of these people?
As I understand it 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...and so on but some enumerators did put in the age given by the people (I suppose the some of the enumerators did not understand the rules either). Many people just gave a guess at their age as they did not know how old they were, hence the anomolies in the next census ten years on. You just have to search in a very broad band - not helpful with a common name.
According to "Making sense of the census" by Edward Higgs, the actual instructions for recording ages in the 1841 census was confusing. The householder was told: For persons aged 15 years and upwards, it is sufficient to state within what period of five years their age is, writing down the lowest number of that period: thus, for persons aged 15 and under 20, write 15 -- for 20 and under 25, write 20 -- for 25 and under 30, write 25 -- for 30 and under 35, write 30 --, and so on up to the greatest age; but the exact age may be stated if the person prefers it. For persons under 15, write the number of years; for infants under one year the number of months.It seems that the enumerator was told to record exact ages under 15, and for 15 and above to use the lowest figure of the 5 year period; additionally, that if it was impossible to ascertain anything more about a persons age other than child or adult, to write 'under 20' or 'over 20'. Of course, I have seen enumerators rounding up instead of down, and recording exact ages. Mostly they round down though. But they are only working on what the householder told them on the household return, and it seems there was ample room to get confused in. Also people 'lie' about their ages for all sorts of reasons, they might not know the exact age of their partner or children, they may confuse the ages of different children, they may even not be sure of their own age. Someone asked me how old I was not so long ago, and it took me by surprise, but what surprised me more was that my tongue got into action before my brain, and I said "36" -- needless to say that was a 'lie'.
Thank you both, pretty much as I thought it. Still darn hard to find the necessary John M among those listed. Not really,you don't stop being 36 just because you add another year or two on top Rather like not being engaged when you marry, you don't stop being engaged to the man /woman you marry, just move the ring & give yourself a different adjective & prefix.
Never mind the 1841 census ages being confusing - some of my lot couldn't make up their minds on any of the census returns (I'm sure many of you have been there). And as for my other half's ancestors.......one of them thought you had to deduct years from your age each time. If he hadn't cottoned on, he would have ended up younger when he died than when he was born...... Ann
May I throw this in? I was out in 'that' left field today & wondered about regional accents, if there were/was/is. Maybe it was what the census recorder heard, not what the person said as such. (Just can't drop the subject) 1841, John MITCHALL HO107, Piece 565, Book 10, Folio 24, Page 1.Family always in other records named as Mitchell. inc.marriage & baptisms of children. Is this a broad Lancs. accent or Yorks. or otherwhere? Is it just the way the census fillerin-er heard it? Would so like to slink in to various areas & hear the voices from... Oh dear, am I delusional?
Wendy, it is true that regional accents can have a profound effect on how words or names are heard, especially if the name is unusual or unfamiliar; however I shouldn't have thought that would be the case with a common (no offence) name like Mitchell. Perhaps Mr Mitchell thought that was how his name was spelt, and that is what he wrote on the householder returns, in this case the enumerator didn't 'correct' him (I have come across plenty of cases where I believe the enumerator 'tidied up', Eliza to Elizabeth, Harry to Henry, Tom to Thomas etc) You should also bear in mind that even educated/literate people can have idiosyncratic spelling 'errors', that they just can't seem to unlearn. You know, like when people say 'pacific' when they mean 'specific', but in spelling ... maybe like 'creater' instead of 'creator'
Hi Christel, thank you, I did wonder if persons actually filled in the entry which was logged in the enumerators official entry. His marriage record was 'Mitchel' his mark 'Mitchell'. None taken, 'popular' is the requisite expression Add Martin in London to that,-- not common our lot I'm thinking I may be too obstinate to give up on him just yet? He-he, he won't get away, but I'm going to get dinner for my lot.
Blimey Wendy, of course you must be obstinate; all of them will eventually be tracked down ... after dinner though, can't hunt on an empty stomach
Also, the thing to remember is that spelling did not really settle down until as late as the beginning of the 20th century. People wrote what they heard or thought how it should be spelled. Probably not as important then as it is now. With my family name of MILSTED, I have seen it spelled so many different ways and even today some people want to throw an "A" in there or an extra "L".
Exactly. Even more so before 'universal' education -- I suppose that was when things started to become 'standardised'. I sometimes wish I could spell my name as my #x g uncle did on his marriage certificate -- as MONKESTER -- but these days it would just be wrong, those days it was just how he said it.
I have a fair few 'mistakes' on census that were undoubtedly caused by regional accents. Makes me think of The Two Ronnies' "Four Candles" sketch. "What's her name?" "'Annah." "Anna, right." "No, 'Annah..." "Anna." "No-oooo... Ah said, 'Annah'!" Took me ages to find Hannah's records.
I have told this before, but my great grandfather's older brother was recorded in 1841 as Sarah. His name was Pharaoh - but pronounced in the thick Essex accent as rhyming with Sarah. I was wondering where Pharoah was and what happened to Sarah for ages until the penny finally dropped....
Tell us more Wendy.... Does he not deserve his own thread? Is there a marriage, can we find a baptism?
In Oxfordshire I kept coming across Oliffe in my husband's line. Eventually I realised ol-if-fer = Oliver, late pa in law's middle name passed down the generations!
