> In article <7goafg$rr...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, pakratt > <pakr...@erols.net.nospam> writes > >Could someone give me the month and day(s) if possible for the 1841 and 1851 > >census for:
----- Original Message ----- From: pakratt <pakr...@erols.net.nospam> To: <GENBRI...@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 1999 3:31 AM Subject: Census Dates
> Could someone give me the month and day(s) if possible for the 1841 and 1851 > census for:
Thanks to everyone that answered my post.. I appreciate the information. It has enabled me to narrow the birth date down on my Great-great-grandmother. That is of course "IF" her age was correctly reflected in both the 1841 and 1851 census. Her stated age was 35yrs in 1841 and 46 in 1851.... the time difference in months / days from census to census has given me a "window" that her birth "should have" occurred in. And if nothing else, it is at least a starting point.
> Thanks to everyone that answered my post.. I appreciate the information. > It has enabled me to narrow the birth date down on my > Great-great-grandmother. That is of course "IF" her age was correctly > reflected in both the 1841 and 1851 census. Her stated age was 35yrs in 1841 > and 46 in 1851.... the time difference in months / days from census to > census has given me a "window" that her birth "should have" occurred in. > And if nothing else, it is at least a starting point.
Unless I'm mistaken, ages in 1841 were rounded down to complete 5 years, so that even if she was 36 at the time of the 1841 census she would be recorded as 35.
-- Dave Mayall
The views expressed are mine and may not be those of my employer Private e-mail to david.may...@ukonline.co.uk please
Where can I find more information on the possibility of ages being rounded down as you mention in your post?
The census page that has my ancestors on it also has others listed with ages that do not appear to be rounded as you say. For instance, age 17, 16, 9, 6 etc....
Additional information would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Robert..//
Dave Mayall <maya...@postoffice.co.uk> wrote in message
> > Thanks to everyone that answered my post.. I appreciate the information. > > It has enabled me to narrow the birth date down on my > > Great-great-grandmother. That is of course "IF" her age was correctly > > reflected in both the 1841 and 1851 census. Her stated age was 35yrs in 1841 > > and 46 in 1851.... the time difference in months / days from census to > > census has given me a "window" that her birth "should have" occurred in. > > And if nothing else, it is at least a starting point.
> Unless I'm mistaken, ages in 1841 were rounded down to complete 5 years, so > that even if she was 36 at the time of the 1841 census she would be recorded as > 35.
> -- > Dave Mayall
> The views expressed are mine and may not be those of my employer > Private e-mail to david.may...@ukonline.co.uk please
I've just been looking at the a bit of the 1841 census and noticed that the instruction to enumerators was to round down the ages of everyone over the age of fifteen to the nearest five; therefore, an 19 year old would appear as aged 15. Etc.
Stella Howlett (BC, Canada)
pakratt <pakr...@erols.net.nospam> wrote in message
> Where can I find more information on the possibility of ages being rounded > down as you mention in your post?
> The census page that has my ancestors on it also has others listed with ages > that do not appear to be rounded as you say. For instance, age 17, 16, 9, 6 > etc....
> Where can I find more information on the possibility of ages being rounded > down as you mention in your post?
> The census page that has my ancestors on it also has others listed with ages > that do not appear to be rounded as you say. For instance, age 17, 16, 9, 6 > etc....
> Additional information would be appreciated.
Dear Robert,
Although there was an instruction to the Enumerators of the 1841 Census to round down ages to the nearest 5, there was an allowance that the exact age could be given IF the individual so requested. And it did not apply to children (under 15, I think) so their correct ages are given.
> appreciate the information. >It has enabled me to narrow the birth date down on my >Great-great-grandmother. That is of course "IF" her age was correctly >reflected in both the 1841 and 1851 census. Her stated age was 35yrs in 1841 >and 46 in 1851.... the time difference in months / days from census to >census has given me a "window" that her birth "should have" occurred in. >And if nothing else, it is at least a starting point.
Unfortunately, it does not really help. IF they obeyed the rules - and i empahsize IF - then the adult ages in 1841 should have been rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5 below, so '35' is any age from 35 that day to 39 and a lot. This fits the age of 46 in 1851 without implying anything about the part of the year. If, as you say, the age was accurate anyway - and people had no real incentive to remember their ages after 21. -- Eve McLaughlin
Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
> I've just been looking at the a bit of the 1841 census and noticed that the > instruction to enumerators was to round down the ages of everyone over the > age of fifteen to the nearest five; therefore, an 19 year old would appear > as aged 15. Etc.
> Stella Howlett (BC, Canada)
> pakratt <pakr...@erols.net.nospam> wrote in message > news:7gsusl$2te$1@autumn.news.rcn.net... > > Where can I find more information on the possibility of ages being rounded > > down as you mention in your post?
> > The census page that has my ancestors on it also has others listed with > ages > > that do not appear to be rounded as you say. For instance, age 17, 16, 9, > 6 > > etc....
Well, I guess all this new information on how the ages were listed kinda puts a damper on my train of thought.... derailed for the moment (so to speak).
> > Where can I find more information on the possibility of ages being rounded > > down as you mention in your post?
> > The census page that has my ancestors on it also has others listed with ages > > that do not appear to be rounded as you say. For instance, age 17, 16, 9, 6 > > etc....
> > Additional information would be appreciated.
> Dear Robert,
> Although there was an instruction to the Enumerators of the 1841 Census > to round down ages to the nearest 5, there was an allowance that the > exact age could be given IF the individual so requested. And it did not > apply to children (under 15, I think) so their correct ages are given.
In article <7gsusl$2t...@autumn.news.rcn.net>, pakratt <pakr...@erols.net.nospam> writes
>Where can I find more information on the possibility of ages being rounded >down as you mention in your post?
>The census page that has my ancestors on it also has others listed with ages >that do not appear to be rounded as you say. For instance, age 17, 16, 9, 6 >etc....
Some families filled in their own schedules and gave exact ages; some enumerators had no firm grasp of the multiplication table. You do get combined types of entry in one census. In any case, a mere year out is neither here nor there, since most folk lost count after 21. -- Eve McLaughlin
Author of the McLaughlin Guides for family historians Secretary Bucks Genealogical Society
The reason for the frequent references to the 1851 and 1881 census is that they are available on CD-ROM the former is only available for three counties (Devon, Warwick & Norfolk). The first generally available useful census was taken in 1841 and every 10 years after excluding 1941 (due to the war) but the first four from 1801- 1831 record only statistics and not names. Cheers Guy
> Speaking of the census in Britain, I hear reference to the 1851 and the > 1881. Are these two the most helpful? When was the first such census > taken?
In article <37343E71.4...@pe.net>, David B. Demeaux <frenc...@pe.net> wrote:
> Speaking of the census in Britain, I hear reference to the 1851 and the > 1881. Are these two the most helpful?
It all depends by what you mean by helpful... If it is the availability of name indexes, then yes, especially the 1881 which has a complete index so you do not even have to have an approximate address to find some-one. Indexes for the 1851 are more fragmentary, being by county, registration district or parish, according to the whim and activity of individual or family history society indexers. The 1851 was the first with the more informative birthplace info, and relationship to head of household was explicitly stated. However any of the available censuses may provide the crucial information for your researches.
> When was the first such census taken?
1801. However the early censuses were straight head counts/ household counts, and what has survived is the occasional lists of heads of households compiled by the enumerators. The 1841 is the first to list 'everyone' by name and age.
Looking for any information on Martha and her family, Father Samuel LOVEDAY. Mother Sarah ?.Siblings - Sarah Elizabeth b 1843, Benjamin James b 1845, Samuel Henry b 1848, Edward Hodgkins b 1849, Samuel George b 1852, Henry b 1857. And Emily b ? m Benjamin ADKINS. Martha m William Henry PERRY and they lived in Birmingham, Warwickshire. Thanks Brenda McLeish
