Which census do I believe?

[Woolspinster]

Does anyone have any advice on how to work this out?

I have found the man I'm looking for on the 1841 census, it says he is aged 55 (probably rounded up or down I know) and is living in Nottinghamshire, in the " born in county?" box it says Yes.

He is also on the 1851 census, aged 71 but his birthplace is now London, Middlesex. I know that he is the same person. It isn't a particularly common surname in the area, he has the same wife and children, is living in the same place and even has the same neighbours so it must be him.

How do I work out which versions of DOB and birthpace are the right ones? He is dead by 1861 so I can't check there.

Any suggestions?

[Necromancer]

Out of context, its hard to say ..... but aged 55 on the 1841 could mean he was up to 59 years old. So in fact only a 2 year discrepancy by the time the 1851 is enumerated .....

I've seen many examples in 1841 where the Birth County is just ticked 'anyway'

1851 and onward also suffered from people and/or the Enumerator just stating PoB same as Enumeration place, but if he is specific - ie London - I'd be tempted to go with that ..... any sign of a baptism in the IGI ?

[Woolspinster]

Yep, there is one in Putney in 1780 that looks promising. How safe would I be to follow it up do you think?

[avm228]

Well, the roundings in 1841 were downwards; an age of 55 should mean he's actually 55-59.  If 59 he's not too far off the age corresponding with 1851.

The "born in county" box in 1841 can be unreliable - too easy to put a whole row of "Y"s.  If London, Middlesex is explicitly entered rather than dittoed from somebody above then I would think that's more likely to be reliable.

The only caveat would be that you say he was dead by 1861.  Did he die soon-ish after the 1851 census?  If he was ill in 1851 an incapable of answering for himself then the info given in 1841 might - just might - be more reliable on the basis of having been given my the man himself rather than another household member.

No easy answer to these ones!  At least with a not-too-common surname it's not impossible to research all options .

Sorry to duplicate most of what Newf said

Anna

[mike175]

Hi,

I'm not sure if there is a definitive answer, but I have found that the ages of older people tend to be less reliable than younger ones. Unfortunately, as you say, the 1841 census usually rounds down the age. This means that your man could have been anything up to 59 in 1841, making him 69 in 1851 . . . not too far from 71. Without other evidence it's difficult to be more precise.

Mike.

[Necromancer]

Putney is really Surrey, but if the name is rare .....

[Woolspinster]

Thanks everyone, I think I will follow up the Putney one for now and see if I can prove or disprove anything.

Anna, he died in Mar q 1853 so not too soon after the census.

Thanks again for the help.

[Woolspinster]

No, it isn't him, the Putney Samuel is on 41 and 51 too. 

Oh well, will have to try something else.