Emery on 1841/1851 Census

[jkimc2]

Hi,
Can anyone have a look for Jane Emery b. about 1835 in Paulton, Somerset on either 1841 or 1851 census?
Thanks
Kim

[1pompey]

Hi Kim,

There are a few Emerys in Paulton on the 1851 census transcription.
The following is maybe the one that you want as it includes a Jane.

EMERY Joshua 55 Coal Haulier Ashwick
Sarah 54 Paulton, Som.
Jeremiah 31 Coal Miner. Paulton, Som.
George 25 Coal Miner. Paulton, Som.
Joseph 18 Coal Miner. Paulton, Som.
Ann 12 Scholar Paulton, Som.
Jane 10 Scholar Paulton, Som.

Hope this helps.

[jkimc2]

Hi 1(Excuse the informality)
Could be what I'm after, but this Jane is a little young.
Thanks
Kim

Hi Kim,

There are a few Emerys in Paulton on the 1851 census transcription.
The following is maybe the one that you want as it includes a Jane.

EMERY Joshua 55 Coal Haulier Ashwick
Sarah 54 Paulton, Som.
Jeremiah 31 Coal Miner. Paulton, Som.
George 25 Coal Miner. Paulton, Som.
Joseph 18 Coal Miner. Paulton, Som.
Ann 12 Scholar Paulton, Som.
Jane 10 Scholar Paulton, Som.

Hope this helps.

[1pompey]

Hi Kim,

The age doesn't necessarily mean that this is not your Jane, below is a quote from the Genuki census website.

Quote, "The 1841 census is the first useful genealogical census for England & Wales. You will see that no relationships are given - except occasionally in column 5 where you may see Farmer's Wife or similar. All ages 15 and above should have been rounded down to the nearest 5 year multiple, i.e. ages shown as 15 may be 15-19, ages shown as 20 may be 20-24, etc. Another point to remember for ages is that people often said that they "were in their 60th year" meaning that they had passed their 59th birthday. If a person gave information meaning they were in their 60th year, they will be shown as being 60, whereas strictly keeping to the rules, they should be recorded as 55".

So you see that they used to round ages down, I am afraid that genealogy is not an exact science.
So don,t give up hope of this one being the right one.
Hope this is helpful.

Mick

[jkimc2]

Cheers Mick,
Thanks for the advice
Kim

[krisesjoint]

This is the only Jane in Paulton in 1841 but she was not born in Somerset 

HO107/0939 Folio 18/14 Page 20
Plummers Hill
Paulton

EMERY Mathew 35 N (No not born in County) S (Scotland) Coal Miner
EMERY Elizabeth 35 N
EMERY Betsey 12 N
EMERY George 9 N
EMERY Eliza 7 N
EMERY Dorcas N (Age unreadable-looks like 3 with I dont know what over the top)
EMERY Jane 3 N
Richard Gregory 1 N (Not sure if this one is an Emery ...it just says Richard Gregory then the one under it says James Emery-not sure if the ditto was omitted or not)
EMERY James 2 N

Here is the family found by Mick in 1851 Jane was not born yet!

HO107/0939 Folio No 18/19 Page No 31
Paulton

EMERY Jonah 45 Y (Yes born in County)
EMERY Sarah 45 Y
EMERY Jeremiah 22 Y
EMERY James 18 Y
EMERY George 15 Y
EMERY Mark 10 Y
EMERY Joseph 8 Y
EMERY Elizabeth 20 Y
EMERY Mary 12 Y
EMERY Eliza 6 Y
EMERY Ann 3 Y

No Occupations are listed

Cheers Kris 

[krisesjoint]

Here is Matthew in 1851 with a new wife now listing as born Somerset...Looks like this is the family you are after

HO107/1939 Folio 112 Page 6
Batch
Paulton

EMERY Mathew 46 Coal Miner Shepton Mallet, Som.
EMERY Frances 37 Paulton, Som.
CARTER Elizabeth Wifes Daughter 14 Paulton, Som.
EMERY James Mathews son 12 Coal Miner Paulton, Som.
CARTER George Wifes son 11 Coal Miner Paulton, Som.
EMERY Martha 5 Paulton, Som.
EMERY Mark son 1m Paulton, Som.

and here is Jane visiting...her sister one would suspect

HO107/1932 Folio 873 Page 37
Coleford Somerset

DANDO George 26 Blacksmith Paulton
DANDO Elizabeth 22 Paulton
DANDO Mary 3 Mark Paulton
DANDO John 8 Paulton
EMERY Jane Visitor 14 Paulton

Cheers Kris...Hope it helps 

[jkimc2]

Thanks krisesjoint,
I've managed to confirm that Matthew was Jane's dad, but couldn't find Jane. This and the info from 1841 seem to back up the bits of info that I'd found.
Thanks again,
Kim

[jkimc2]

Hi Kris,
I've been looking more closely at this info. Matthew only seems to have aged a year from 1841 to 1851! Is this a typo or are they not the same family? Could you double check for me please?
Thanks
Kim