Find Ancestors

My G.G.G. Aunt was KATE HUGHES, born 1863 at Woodbury Devon. On the 1871 census she is stated to be aged 7, 1881 aged 16, 1891 aged 25, that is quite close to her birth date, however in 1901 her age states 27 (should be 38) and in 1911 her age is 30 (should be 48) I have checked and it is the correct KATE HUGHES has anybody any idea why KATE would have added between 10 & 18 years to her age? in 1911 she is in service unmarried living at 252, Bristol Road Birmingham.
I am trying to find a date of death for her but it is difficult without having a correct age to go on. Thank you for any help.
Regards,
Syd

Difficult as the name isn't unusual and there are many death records for the same name ,

Wonder about this one as she was in the area in 1911


Name: Kate Hughes
Birth Date: abt 1864
Date of Registration: Jun 1925
Age at Death: 61
Registration District: Birmingham North
Inferred County: Warwickshire
Volume: 6d
Page: 448

Hi Syd

It is very common for ages to fluctuate on census records. It depended on who gave the information and if the person knew how old they were

..............and then, there might have been the odd porky pie!

It's not the 1925 death as there is a probate record which follows through to this Kate on 1871:

1871 census transcription details for: Villa Road, Handsworth
Print Close

National Archive Reference:
RG number: RG10
Piece: 2970
Folio: 71
Page: 37
Reg. District: West Bromwich
Sub District: Handsworth
Parish: Handsworth
Enum. District: 10
Ecclesiastical District:
City/Municipal Borough:
Address: Villa Road, Handsworth
County: Staffordshire
Name Relation Condition Sex Age Birth Year Occupation Where Born
HUGHES, John Joseph Head M 42 1829 Warwickshire
HUGHES, Hannah Wife F 41 1830 Warwickshire
HUGHES, Frank Son M 15 1856 Warwickshire
HUGHES, John Son M 13 1858 Staffordshire
***HUGHES, Kate Daughter F 7 1864 Staffordshire
HUGHES, Walter Son M 4 1867 Staffordshire
HUGHES, Jessie Daughter F 2 1869 Staffordshire
TORR, Mary Servant F 16 1855 Staffordshire

Dea x

You need first to find out whether she ever married.

And she didn't ADD years!

For INFO only

1911 census

Person: HUGHES, Kate Address: 252 Bristol Road Edgbaston

PLAYFAIR, Charles Head Married M 45 1866 Gun And Rifle Manufacturer And Major In Special Reserve Worcestershire Acocks Green VIEW
PLAYFAIR, Rosa Jane Wife Married22 years F 44 1867 Warwickshire Birmingham VIEW
PLAYFAIR, Muriel Rosa Daughter Single F 21 1890 Co Antrim Belfast VIEW
PLAYFAIR, Ilfra Thirza Daughter Single F 14 1897 Co Antrim Belfast VIEW
HUGHES, Kate Servant Single F 30 1881 Cook Domestic Devonshire Devon VIEW
SHERWOOD, Beatrice Mary Servant Single F 19 1892 Housemaid Domestic Warwickshire Acocks Green Hall Green VIEW

Can you say what checks you have made to confirm that this is the woman born in 1863.............

It seems unlikely that anyone would mistake a 48-year old for a 30-year old

IF the 1901 and 1911 censuses are correct, she had moved to Edgbaston...

How about this death?

Name: Kate Hughes
Birth Date: abt 1862
Date of Registration: Dec 1933
Age at Death: 71
Registration District: Birmingham
Inferred County: Warwickshire
Volume: 6d
Page: 470

Reggie - assuming registered, and registered as Kate, then these are the only births in Devon covering the whole range of Kate's year(s) of birth

Surname First name(s) District Vol Page
Births Dec 1863 (>99%)
HUGHES Kate St Thomas 5b 47 Scan available - click to view
Births Mar 1870 (>99%)
Hughes Kate Angelina Plymouth 5b 266 Scan available - click to view
Births Jun 1880 (>99%)
HUGHES Kate Ellen Plymouth 5b 258

So St Thomas covers Woodbury and is the correct birth I think

So I think there were a few porkies being told :-) and I know quite a few 48 year old woman who could pass muster for 30 :-)

HOWEVER....in 1891 (where she says she was born Exeter) she is a needlewoman like her mother. Then in 1901 and 1911 she is a cook....career change????

Jude

To add to the age problem. One of my g/g/grandmothers always stated on census returns she was born in 1899. However, after the death of her husband she declared she was born in 1891/2, and that year stayed on all following census returns.

She was just trying to hide the fact she was about 11 years older than her husband!

Now I know where I get the 'toy boy' thing from!

Thank you all for your kind help and comments, I agree that KATE for some reason had the wrong date of birth entered.
Regards,
Syd