Jane who??

[Ermintrude46]

Helping my daughter trace her partner's tree for him for Christmas so taking a few short cuts    Looking for George Mathews (one 'T', age 21, allegedly, at marriage in December 1884) with father William Mathews, occupation at time of son's marriage was glass toy maker - have found the following on the censuses with good match for William on occupation/age:

1881 RG11; Piece: 3009; Folio: 66; Page: 16 George age 18 with William and Jane
1871 RG10; Piece: 3121; Folio: 48; Page: 7 George age 5 with William and Emma
1861 RG9; Piece: 2154; Folio: 116; Page: 5 William and Emma before George was born
1851 HO107; Piece: 2057; Folio: 311; Page: 7 ditto

In 1891 William seems to be a widower in the workhouse infirmary (glass button maker) and there is a death for an Emma Mathews in Birmingham in 1887 and one for an Emma Matthews in 1886 which is a slightly better match for age.  So who is Jane or is this an enumerator's error?  And why are the ages for George out between the 1871 and 1881 censuses??
Ermy

[Jeuel]

Censuses, like any other records, aren't necessarily accurate.  I have examples such as a woman ageing only 3 years between censuses and a woman who is Susannah in 1851 and 1871 but who is inexplicably recorded as Sarah in 1861.  I came to the conclusion that whoever filled in the census sheet couldn't read the original writing, after I'd looked in vain for a death and remarriage.

I've also found instances of a woman being called Prudence Elizabeth on some censuses and plain Elizabeth on others, but whose death was registered as just Prudence.

[SBZ5809]

Jeuel, that would explain some of the confusion I'm experiencing at the moment.

I think a lot of us novices tend to assume that census records and BMD registers are gospel.

[danuslave]

Jeuel, that would explain some of the confusion I'm experiencing at the moment.

I think a lot of us novices tend to assume that census records and BMD registers are gospel.

It's generally safer to assume that everything is (at least slightly) suspect, and try to find more than one source.  Even then, you may well have to take a '2 out of 3' approach to some information 

Linda

[Ermintrude46]

Thanks, guys.  I've come across plenty of age mis-matches for adults, this is the first one for a child but I guess the same would apply re poor writing/the family not being entirely sure re ages.  Think we will go with this unless we can find anything better.
Ermy

[Sloe Gin]

The original schedule may have had George's age as 15, but perhaps the enumerator read it as 18.  The figures 5 and 8 can easily be confused depending on handwriting.

[Ruskie]

or.... did Emma die between 71 and 81 and William remarry before the 81 census?

I think you should also check for Matthew's with 2 "t's" because even if they could read and did check they probabaly wouldn't have been too bothered if there was an extra "t" added which could easily have happened. 

[Ermintrude46]

Thanks Ruskie, I have run my eye over the Matthews as well but there are a fair few possibles given the size of Birmingham at the time -  think I'll leave this bit for my daughter's partner to do after Christmas if he's bitten by the geneology bug 
Ermy