Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Census 1861-1891, opinions please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Census 1861-1891, opinions please

    Hi Everyone,
    I was just wondering if anyone with a bit of time and patience would mind having a look at a couple of census returns and giving an opinion on whether it`s the same family or not.
    Theres plus points and negative points- on the plus side all the kids have the same names, in the same order and with more or less the same ages, and the places of birth correspond.
    One big negative is the wild fluctuations in mum and dad`s ages, and also the discrepancy with mother`s name on the 1861, however I`m quickly coming to the opinion that the laws of physics and logic don`t really exist in the world of genealogy, so anything`s possible!

    It`s the Cook family I`m interested in; John, Mary etc..
    1891: RG12/4195/72/25
    1881: RG11/5053/144/20
    1871: RG10/5073/83/11 (trans. as Cock on Ancestry)
    1861: RG9/3819/30/51

    Any opinions would be much appreciated,
    Thanks,
    Craig

    >>>>>>>>>>>61 71 81 91
    John>>>>>>>>35 58 52 76
    Bridget/Mary>>29 54 50 66
    Ann>>>>>>>>>4 13 23 32
    Catherine>>>>>1 10 - -
    John>>>>>>>>>- 8 18 -
    Ellen>>>>>>>>>- 5 16 24
    James>>>>>>>>- 3 12 -
    Thomas>>>>>>>- - 7 18
    Last edited by Konovolov; 12-04-09, 01:29. Reason: added an age summary (which didn`t turn out very well :))

  • #2
    I don't have time to look now, but have you found the deaths of Mary/Bridget and John? How do those ages sit with the rest?

    Have you got their marriage? What forename(s) does she use?

    Comment


    • #3
      The other thing is, have you found an alternative Cook family around at the same time?
      Does the father have the same - or similar - occupation and are the parents' birthplaces consistent?

      If so I would say probably the same family. As for age fluctuations my husband has a gt gt gt aunt who only aged 13 years over 3 censuses!!!! Some mean person registered her death with her correct age.
      ~ with love from Little Nell~
      Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

      Comment


      • #4
        Hi merry and nell. Thanks for your input. Mary is still alive in 1901, think I found john's death which tallies up with the 91 and 71 ages. unfortunately it's the old problem of birthplace- ireland. Think what I need to double check are john and bridgets in later censuses, as the 61 is bugging me. I'm trying to eliminate as much as I can before I have to start splashing the cash on certs! Craig

        Comment


        • #5
          Forgot to say- she's only bridget in the 61, so I guess this should be easiest to rule out. I assumed they were married in ireland, but i'll check the bmd for possibilities. I can't believe they get younger from 71 to 81 lol

          Edit:

          Possible marriage: John Cook, Bridget Egan, Sep 1856, Newcastle 10b 160 (2 transcriptions Cook and Cooke)

          Poss. Birth of ann: march 1857, newcastle 10b 19
          Last edited by Konovolov; 12-04-09, 19:28.

          Comment


          • #6
            I hope this doesn't sound racist, but I have found in general the Irish were much vaguer about their ages than others on the census!

            Comment


            • #7
              Just bumping up as havn`t been able to find any alternative families

              Comment

              Working...
              X