1841 Census - family or visitor ?

[LeedsHipPriest69]

Is there a way of identifying visitors, even if related, to a household on the 1841 census, here's my dilemma

On the 1841 census I find my 4th great grandparents George Boulton and his wife Lydia in Hanley Staffordshire along with their children. Initially in my research I was only interested in the parental line in regards to following their entire life where possible through Parish Records and Census Records, but added other children etc where identified on the Census returns for later

In 1841 George and Lydia have a "son" listed, George, then aged 4. As there is no sign of him by 1851 I assumed he'd died young end of the line. Interestlingly I couldnt find a baptism record either, but I know some parish records were lost forever as a result of rioting in Hanley in 1842

However I have found a George aged 14 in 1851 with parents George and Elizabeth, and then a marriage record in 1860 in nearby Etruria, with the father named as George.

To confuse things both the George married to Lydia and the George married to Elizabeth were cabinet makers/carpenters

Is it possible/likely, my George aged 4 in 1841 was simply visiting my George and Lydia ?

[Milliepede]

Yes the 1841 is indeed a problem with working out relationships as not everyone is as they seem.

Not always the case but you would assume a visitor that young was more likely to be a relative of some kind.

Have you found the George & Elizabeth in 1841 to see if there is a 4 year old George with them?

[Milliepede]

Just noticed George age 4 is down as female but it does look more like George than anything else!

There is a big gap between Harriet 13 and George 4

Are the marriage witness names any help?

[coombs]

1841 census was quite good but was more basic than subsequent censuses. 1841 census will not give relationship to head of household. My theory is the 2 George Boulton's (wed to Eliz and Lydia) were first cousins but that needs to be verified.

[Milliepede]

Ok if I have the right family George age 4 is with George & Elizabeth in 1841

transcribed as Bawlten

George 25
Elizabeth 24
George 4
Adam 2

Mothers maiden name Stanley I think. 

However if Lydia's maiden name was Mountford?  one of the children of George & Elizabeth was called Herbert Mountford Boulton so there is a link there somewhere.

[coombs]

I see that according to the 1851 census, the George wed to Lydia was 57 in 1851, born Whitchurch, Shropshire. And the George wed to Elizabeth is 34 in 1851, born Stoke, Staffordhsire.

[LeedsHipPriest69]

Thanks all, so, looking into the helpful information you've all provided.

It seems that the George aged 4 with George and Elizabeth, turns out to be the first son of my George and Lydia b1817. As a result of the rogue George aged 4 on the 1841 census, I had previously assumed 1817 George had died young, my bad I should have checked.

So I have a few more names to add to my tree, but as yet no answer as to George b1837 per the 1841 census.

[Mabel Bagshawe]

Is it possible he's the son of an older daughter, who later marries. George might be with her in 1851?

[Milliepede]

That's a good shout Mabel.

There are baptisms with parents George & Lydia including these 2 girls who would be old enough to have had George

Hannah 1816
Harriott 1819

Plus some older boys

George 1817
Adam 1819