David KING - Age Discrepancies

[mergendy]

Hi all,

I'm having some trouble with contradictory ages in censuses, and my record-keeping is still not ideally cross-referenced!

My ancestor David King, who lived in Lowestoft (Raglan Street if anyone's interested!) is given as (or at least I thought he was) age 47 on the 1891 census...that was according to previous notes, and I had him as a widower, living with his three daughters, aged 19, 12 and 9...

However, now I search for him again, it seems he's listed as being 67 in 1891, but that's not all...it also seems he's 59 in 1881, 47 in 1871, and 35 in 1861...oh, and not there at all in 1851...

So my question is, er, help? I thought his birthday was ca. 1844, but now I've no idea...is it really likely he fathered a child in 1882 in his late fifties?

I appreciate the individual case is difficult to unravel, but I'm really just looking for help re: the discrepancies in age...I thought it was only the 1841 census that rounded down to the nearest five years?

[KGarrad]

So that we know we have the correct David King(!), what were the names of his wife and/or children?


Remember, though, that each census was held on a different day of the year.
And also, people weren't all that bothered about how old they actually were! They probably guessed?!

[mergendy]

So that we know we have the correct David King(!), what were the names of his wife and/or children?

Hi there KG...My previous record shows David KING, Carpenter, Widower (47?) living at 314 Raglan Street, Lowestoft in 1891, with daughters Alice, Mabel (my great-grandmother) and Florence...I have no idea at this stage what his wife was called, and indeed my basic search on the 1891 shows a David King aged 67...however, might the ? on my record indicate that the 47 was hard to read, and someone's misread it as 67 and put it online? 47 certainly makes more sense regarding the kids's ages, namely, 19, 12 and 9...

[Stanwix England]

One of my ancestors rounded down his own age by five years about the time he acquired a much younger second wife!   So there could be some bending of the truth in places.

On another census of a different ancestor of mine, one of the ages is just badly written down and open to interpretation.

Hope you manage to resolve your issue.

[*Sandra*]

1881 Class RG11 Piece 1904 Folio: 131 Page: 46
North Raglan Street Lowestoft.

David King 59 years. Carpenter.  Susannah King 40
Walter King 17  David King 14
Susannah King 10  Alice King 7  Mabel King 2

Sandra

[suey]

The 1891 looks like 67 to me if it's any help.  People often find that their ancestors give wildly differing ages in census so don't worry too much 

Suey

[suey]

A David Henry King married Susannah COOPER March Q 1872 - Ipswich 4a 806

Suey

[*Sandra*]

Same family as in reply 4 (at Raglan Street) 
1871 Class RG10 Piece 1780 Folio 123 Page 42 - 227 Raglan Street.

David King 47 years - Carpenter. Susannah King 30 years
Walton King 8  David King 5  Susannah King 8 months old.

Sandra

[mergendy]

1881 Class RG11 Piece 1904 Folio: 131 Page: 46
North Raglan Street Lowestoft.

David King 59 years. Carpenter.  Susannah King 40
Walter King 17  David King 14
Susannah King 10  Alice King 7  Mabel King 2

Sandra

Many thanks Sandra! So it does seem as if he is indeed the same as the one who's listed as 67 on the 1891 census...maybe he's actually 69 then, or 57 on this one...who knows?

Hmmm, I had him down as being in 314 Raglan St in 1891, and you've got North Raglan St in 1881....I wonder if that's the same road...maybe North and South were merged in the meantime...