RootsWeb.com Mailing Lists
Total: 1/1
    1. RE: [BDF] Recorded Ages on the 1841
    2. Ian Fisk
    3. Chris, The exact instructions to the enumerators were: "Write the age of every person under 15 years as is is stated to you. For persons aged 15 years upwards, write the lowest of the term of 5 years within which the age is. Thus -- For Persons aged 15 years and under 20 write 15 | 35 years and under 40 write 35 | 55 years and under 60 write 55 20 years and under 25 write 20 | 40 years and under 45 write 40 | 60 years and under 65 write 60 25 years and under 30 write 25 | 45 years and under 50 write 45 | 65 years and under 70 write 65 30 years and under 35 write 30 | 50 years and under 55 write 50 | 70 years and under 75 write 70 and so up to the greatest ages If no more cam be ascertained respecting the age of any person then that the person is a child or is grown up, write "under 20" or above 20: as the case may be." Thus all ages above 15 were supposed to be rounded down to the nearest multiple of 5. All you can say about your couple is that their ages were at least 40 and no more than 45. Ian Fisk http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~fiski > -----Original Message----- > From: Chris Roberts [mailto:c.robertsis@rogers.com] > Sent: Thursday, 2 February 2006 4:14 p.m. > To: BEDFORD-L@rootsweb.com > Subject: [BDF] Recorded Ages on the 1841 > > After seeing the ages on the 1841 census for the Stanbridge couple, > Richard and Hannah Holtum, that I had asked about,--gratefully helped > by Kevin and Peter--I am now asking about their recorded ages. > > I noticed that all of the adults on the 1841 Stanbridge census have a > rounded off ages to the nearest 5. I do remember something being said > about this being done on this first census, but have found that this is > not always so. However, in the Stanbridge case, it is with all of the > adults enumerated. > > Does anyone out there know the rule for this. For example, my couple > are both listed at age 45. Does that mean that they were simply nearer > to 45 than 40--say 43 or 44? A small detail, I know, but of > interest. > > Thank you, > Chris in Ontario > > > > ==== BEDFORD Mailing List ==== > Bedfordshire at Rootsweb > http://www.rootsweb.com/~engbdf/

    02/02/2006 11:51:10