1841 census

[Tabby]

Sorry cant remember on the 1841 were the ages rounded up or down

Kind regards Sue

[jeanettemarie]

The 1841 census was rounded down to the nearest five i.e. 26 or 27 was put down as 25 but children up to the age of 15 were stated as their proper age
Jeanette

[Tabby]

Thanks for that Jeanette
Sue

[Jenjen]

Surely they were also rounded up. 28 29 rounded up to 30. Either way you are looking at a 5 year span.
Jen

[Linda]

Surely they were also rounded up. 28 29 rounded up to 30


No, they were rounded down. :)

[uksearch]

Here is what the Enumerators' Instructions state:

Write the age of every person under 15 years of age as it is stated to you. For persons aged 15 years and upwards, write the lowest of the term of 5 years within which the age is.
Thus -for persons 15 years and under 20 write 15
20 years and under 25 write 20
25 years and under 30 write 25
30 years and under 35 write 30
35 years and under 40 write 35
40 years and under 45 write 40
45 years and under 50 write 45
50 years and under 55 write 50
55 years and under 60 write 55
60 years and under 65 write 60
65 years and under 70 write 65
70 years and under 75 write 70
And so on up to the greatest ages.

If no more can be ascertained respecting the age of any person than that the person is a child or is grown up, write "under 20" or "above 20", as the case may be.

Amongst other places, the full 1841 Enumerators' Instructions can be found at the link below:

http://www.uksearch2003.co.uk/page11.htm

UK

[Mutley]

Did some Enumerators' not follow the instructions? :confused:

I know I have ages from 1841 that do not end in 0 or 5. Could this mean that some may have just chomped 5 years off an age given or written down the age told to them regardless of the instructions?

Or is the answer an 'either/or' or a 'as long as a bit of string'? ;)

[Jan1954]

Hello Mutley,

Some of the enumerators in Essex and Cambridgeshire were very accomodating and many of them recorded actual ages in 1841. :D

(Thank you for not following instructions, enumerators!)

[Alan Welsford]

I know I have ages from 1841 that do not end in 0 or 5. Could this mean that some may have just chomped 5 years off an age given or written down the age told to them regardless of the instructions?

Like you, and Jan, (and I guess just about everybody else!), I've seen many cases of people over 15 recorded as what look like the actual age given. (Yes bless the enumerator who didn't read the instruction book!).

Wherever it has occurred, I've always found the 1841 & 1851 ages to be as consistent as they ever tend to be.

I've never seen any evidence that the enumerator just took a stated age, and knocked 5 off it.

It's amazing how many people don't know about this rounding. I've had people insisting that various member of my family must have been twins, because both show in the 1841 census as aged 15. I've even been told how odd it was that the family baptised each on different dates! :confused:

Alan

[jeeb]

It's amazing how many people don't know about this rounding. I've had people insisting that various member of my family must have been twins, because both show in the 1841 census as aged 15. I've even been told how odd it was that the family baptised each on different dates! :confused:

Alan

Hi,
Like Alan I find it quite astounding how some people will not change their opinion because they have found a birthplace or age stated on a census or some other document 'so it must be accurate'.
I actually know someone who has a 'family tree' traced back to late 16th century on 'evidence' of a birthplace given on the IGI. I have told him it is the wrong family but he won't agree because he can't accept all his hard work is wrong. The person he says is his ancestor died in infancy!

Jeremy

[Mutley]

On the forum of the web site provider I use was the request to show dates prior to BC.

This is the post......

"I can actually trace my genealogy back to Marcomir, King Of Troy, d.411BCE."

We should be so lucky.... http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f175/paulograham/BoUnCe.gif I wish.....

[Alan Welsford]

"I can actually trace my genealogy back to Marcomir, King Of Troy, d.411BCE."

I don't see how. Surely the IGI doesn't go back that far ?

[Mutley]

I don't see how. Surely the IGI doesn't go back that far ?

Alan - You forgot to :D

[Jan1954]

Did you see the "Who Do You Think You Are?" programme about Matthew Pinsent? His family was traced back to God...:D

[Mutley]

Did you see the "Who Do You Think You Are?" programme about Matthew Pinsent? His family was traced back to God...:D

Had to google that one Jan, Portugal don't do that program.
This is what the web site said

He managed to trace his ancestry directly back to a n General Sir George Anson "who fought with great distinction during Wellington’s peninsula campaign against Napoleon. Because this George Anson was knighted, the ancestry from there was quick and easy to find. It took him back to the uncle of Katherine Howard, Henry VII's beheaded missus, and then directly back to Edward I. From there, obviously the ancestry is very well known, they traced the line back through the kings within minutes, even going as far as including King David, then Jesus, Kane and Abel, Adam and Eve and then God! lol Apparently this is what royalty do - try to provide proof of their link to God to prove true nobility. It just went so far back so quickly, and his face, as those scrolls unrolled and just went on and on, I was chuckling like nobody's business.

Who'd have expected that? Unbelievable. I thought his parents took it remarkably calmly. http://images.digitalspy.co.uk/forum/smilies/wink.gif

http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=679949

[Jenjen]

Well UK, you are a fount of information. It all makes very interesting reading.
Jen

[jeanettemarie]

Did you see the "Who Do You Think You Are?" programme about Matthew Pinsent? His family was traced back to God...:D

Do you think they would give me a hand I have only get back to 1800 with my family and 1577 on my husbands side:D
Jeanette

[Jan1954]

I wish...

One line, I have traced through the parish records back to 1434. Luckily, they didn't move around much. :) On another line, I can't even confirm my grandfather's birth :(

[Mutley]

My mum was born under a gooseberry bush, she must have been, either that or the immaculate conception because she does not appear to have any parents that I can find |blush|:(

[Peter Goodey]

Surely the IGI doesn't go back that far ?

Well, if you call up the IGI for Denmark and enter a surname of "Odin", you'll find a birth record for the Norse God. There is also a record for his wife, named, what else, "Mrs Odin"!

[suedent]

Well, if you call up the IGI for Denmark and enter a surname of "Odin", you'll find a birth record for the Norse God. There is also a record for his wife, named, what else, "Mrs Odin"!

Well that's a bit of a giveaway, she'd be *****dottir, having done a little research on my husband's Swedish g-grandfather I've just begun to get the hang of Patronymics & actually quite like the system now.

[uksearch]

Well UK, you are a fount of information. It all makes very interesting reading.
Jen

Thank you very much:o:o:o. You are most kind.

UK