Hrllo everyone, Have found an entry for an ancestor as a child in a 1851 census giving an age which would give a birth year of about1846. An 1881 census shows him married with an age given which would make the birth year about 1850. Am I correct in assuming that the information shown would be given by the head of the house and that the age shown would be based on the birth year. This latter point is of interest as in some cases I have found considerable gaps between baptism and birth dates. Thanks, Colin Jarvis.

Hello Colin, There's a lot of Theory that doesn't necessarily match up to Practice here, especially for the earlier Censuses and first 25 years of Births Registration... Census-taking Theory - The Head of the Household was responsible for recording all the appropriate details of those who spent Census Night there - and that the information he would give would all be true. Practice a) - Enough of them didn't bother / couldn't understand [maybe also unable to read or write] / was absent when the Enumerator called to collect his form / flatly refused to co-operate. b) - Although it was an Offence to refuse etc, this would mean Bother (and much extra unpaid work) for the Enumerator who not-infrequently would obtain the details from wife, neighbours etc (which latter would involve a certain amount of guesswork) and fill in the Householder's Return himself. c) - Remember that the "Census Returns" we now see are COPIES made by the Enumerators from possibly-inaccurate originals - *before* allowing for the Enumerators' own and inevitable copying errors. Birth Dates Theory - all births after 1 July 1837 had to be Registered within 6 weeks. Practice a) - Although it was an Offence to fail to Register (either within the time limit or at all) there was no Penalty if the parent was caught. [This state of affairs continued until around 1875!] b) - 'Late' Registration could be covered by stating the child was born 6 weeks before the date of Registering... c) - it is entirely possible for a child to be baptised before it was (officially) born ! Ages 1) Our preoccupation with Exact Age wasn't shared by most of the population at that time - most didn't have a Vote, and there were no Pensions that started at a set age - so why bother to be accurate? 2) In general, though, children's ages [birthplaces, too, and possibly even more so] are more likely to be given accurately by parents (especially if supplied by the mother...) than by adults who wouldn't remember the event... 3) Adults - for any number of reasons - might Lie about their Ages. (I've come across a woman who consistently understated her age by 6 years in 4 successive censuses, and a man who overstated his by 4 in 3...) Conclusion Don't take *anything* appearing on Birth Certificates or Censuses as being Absolute Truth... Treat each item as a 'Data Point' - and gather as many as you can. The net result should (hopefully) then be Accurate Enough. Gus ----- Original Message ----- From: colin jarvis <colcon2@bigpond.com> To: <ENG-WORCESTER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Tuesday, July 12, 2005 2:52 AM Subject: [WOR] AGES SHOWN IN CENSUS RECORDS. > Hrllo everyone, > Have found an entry for an ancestor as a child in a 1851 census giving an age which would give a birth year of > about1846. > An 1881 census shows him married with an age given which would make the birth year about 1850. > Am I correct in assuming that the information shown would be given by the head of the house and that the age shown would be based on the birth year. > This latter point is of interest as in some cases I have found considerable gaps between baptism and birth dates. > > Thanks, > > Colin Jarvis. > > > > > ==== ENG-WORCESTER Mailing List ==== > FreeREG Project: parish register database > http://freereg.rootsweb.com > > UK Census on-line > http://freecen.rootsweb.com/ > http://www.worcestershiresurnames.co.uk/ > >