Genealogy Chat

Me again ! Just noticed a slight indiscretion with the ages on the 1841 census of one of the children in the family I have been studying. All of the others I can follow through from the 1841 census onto 1851 and 1861 however, one of the children should be aged approx 12 and is shown as 5 ?? Is this likely do you think ? Regards, Marie.

The 1841 rounds down ages but not normally for kids under 15. Are you sure its the same kiddie or could one have died and another been born and named the same? Oh, just reread, and its the wrong way round for that to be the case. Can you give us the name and details so we can have a look?

Yeah sure : The family are living at Lime street, Newcastle upon Tyne 1841 John Masterman 47 Potter Margaret 36 Mary 14 Thomas 5 (Should be about 12) Margaret 9 John 2 All other childrens ages are correct (I think !) apart from Thomas. Cheers x

Hi, well its a really clear image and its saying 5 but if everything else is right, Im betting my bottom dollar its your family. Firstly, the enumerators normally put the kids in order of their ages - eldest to youngest - and this Thomas would be totally out of order where he is on the census form - he has a 14 year old above him and a 9 year old below him. (If you look elsewhere on the same page, it does stick to the normal eldest to youngest form). I think the guy back at the office has incorrectly read the enumerators writing and what should be 12 has been mistranscribed at that time. (The image we see is not that completed by the family or on the doorstep but a copy made later). If all else is the same, I wouldnt worry about it. Though thats a big gap between the 9 year old and the 2 year old - were there deaths or is this a second marriage?

Thanks, I did think that myself but it's good to get someone elses opinion on the matter ! I haven't looked for any more deaths as yet but that is a good suggestion as I see what you mean about the age gap. I think my next task is to look for deaths for other children. Thankyou for your help. Marie xx

Or possibly a remarriage?

Never considered this actually ! Not sure where to start with that idea ?!

Although saying that, I don't think so as John and Margaret are down as Mary and Thomas parents on the IGI listings x

Well assuming they were as fertile as most back then (LOL) you may be lucky and find the marriage say 3 or 4 years previous to 1841 - if the youngest kiddie is 2 - so it MAY be registered - otherwise you could try the IGI. Its not really a great problem unless your direct ancestor was born to a second wife and therefore throws out your calculations on his tree.

Well you said Mary is Margarets daughter didnt you? So if that is a reliable record (not a submitted one!) then its not a problem for you. It is quite mature for a man to marry for a first time but it doesnt throw out your direct line. I have male ancestors who married in their 30s - sometimes they just couldnt afford to marry and support a family.(Of course he may have married a second Margaret, Johns mum - LOL)

I probably should have mentioned that I have the marriage for John Masterman and Margaret Anderson (oops sorry!) in 1826. John was 37 so do you think this could have been his second marriage after all ?

Yep, very true, well thanks again for your input, it's been very useful ! Best Wishes, Marie x

The BVRI has this marriage. John Masterman married Margaret Anderson, 14 May 1826, Newcastle on Tyne. Margaret Opps, just re-read, you've got it!

Do you have these from BVRI? They're christenings of children of John Masterman & Margaret in Newcastle on Tyne: Margaret, 1 Apr.1834 Sarah, 9 Jun.1835 John, born 4 Mar.1838, christened 11 Aug.1845 Henry, 11 Aug.1845 (All christening dates unless otherwise noted) Margaret

Still nice to have Margaret!

No Thomas or Mary on those? But a Sarah and Margaret bapt 1834??? Hmmm Funnily enough, I was just looking at this death: Sept 1837 Masterman Sarah Newcastle upon Tyne 25 199 Needs some thought that.

Sorry, went to make a cuppa ! Yes thanks Margaret for taking the time to look for that marriage. I didn't have any of the christenings no, so thankyou very much. I just found the Sarah Masterman one as well Heather !

Looks like Sarah was the poor wee thing born 1835 and died in 1837.

The christenings fit perfectly as they went on to have Henry in 1843 approximately. Also, Thomas and Mary were born in Durham/Sunderland. x

Looks like it. There may be others if they also lived in Durham. That info from Margaret was very useful then.