Genealogy Chat

Hi I'm currently working on the Smith side of my husband's family in Much Marcle and I a bit of anomaly with the Census records and the IGI record. According to the dates on the 1841 Census William Smith was born approximately in 1821. However, the Christening records on IGI have a Christening date of 1821. I know that william could have been christened before this date as other siblings were. Is it therefore possible that his birth date on the census was 6 years out. He is the first born son and the date on the census would mean that he was also the oldest child but if the date of christening is right he would have been the 4th child born with all the others before him being girls. The rest of the information fits i.e. parents' names, his middle name of Henry and the place. Sue

Is this what you meant to say According to the dates on the 1841 Census William Smith was born approximately in 1821. However, the Christening records on IGI have a Christening date of 1821 Doesn´t quite make sense as to what your problem is!

Correction. Christening date is 1828, census birth date is 1821. Thanks Sue

Correction. Christening date is 1828, census birth date is 1821. Thanks Sue

My initial reaction would be to ignore the IGI as it is a submitted entry and therefore its accuracy is in doubt. However, I have found the same christening on the BIVRI so it looks as if it is right. SMITH, William Henry Christening Gender: Male Christening Date: 22 Feb 1828 Recorded in: Much Marcle, Herefordshire, England Father: William SMITH Mother: Louisa Source: FHL Film 1041613 Dates: 1617 - 1875

Many thanks for your help. This has straightened one little kink in my treet. Sue

Are you sure that he is a son of the family listed - he could be another relative. 1841 census does not give relationships. In fact looking at the census he is listed at the end of the family list, after the youngest child, which would suggest he is not the son of Louisa.

Hiya you said 'Christening date is 1828, census birth date is 1821.' Just because they were born in a particular year, doesnt mean they had to be christened in that yr, 'usually' it was only children that werent expected to live, which were christened/baptised very near to their birth...some didnt get christened until they were at least 20 I have found. others might have had say, 5 children, the fifth child not expected to live, the other children not christened, so have them all done together, 'a job lot' so to speak. hope this helps Julie

Shouldn't worry about the timeframe.......whilst searching parish registers for Chatham I came across a few multiple baptisms...... seems like some parents 'saved them up ' Had them all done together... regards , Joyce...

I'm fairly sure that William Henry Smith is Louisa's son as he appears on other census records with son next to his name and it it does tie in with the Christening then the William Henry Smith christened in Much Marcle to William and Louisa would fit it. It is food for thought though and I will look further into it. Sue

There can be years difference from birth dates to christening dates . One of my families have about seven kids of different ages all christened on a date years later in the early 1800's.

At the time in question early 1800's and before, a lot of babies were baptised within 4 weeks of birth. But thereagain a lot weren't. Multiable baptism's often took place after a sick child was born because at that time if the child died and hadn't been baptised you couldn't have them buried in the local church grave yard, so parents panicked and had their other children baptised. One thing that I have found when looking through church registers is against the date RIC, this means 'Received Into Church'. If a sickly baby was baptised at home it didn't always get entered into the register, if the baby lived at a later date they would be received into the church. I have found this several times on my family history and sometimes the RIC was a few years after the baptism, in other cases I haven't found the original baptism at all [possibly because they were baptised at another church]. On the igi extracted records I have sometimes found the baptism date to actually be the RIC date.

Christening dates can be any time..... A few of mine were christened just before they married - had to be christened to marry in a church in times gone by - and you could only marry in a church so it was a bit of a 'catch 22 situation'. Also have a 'job lot' of christenings, 5 children from my 'family' - from 1 yr to 10 yrs of age - along with 8 of the neighbours children!!! (found these in parish registers). maggie

Any ideas on how to narrow it down between the two dates?

Having looked at the 1841 and 1851 entries I would say they were two different Williams. The 1841 William is probably NOT a son. If he was, he would be listed next after his mother, as he would have been the eldest. I would guess he was probably a nephew etc. Have you found the father William in 1841? He was not at home so probably would have been working away and maybe William jr. was with him? I've had a look for William Smiths c.1790 but couldn't find him. Much Marcle is fairly near the border with Gloucestershire, he may have been working there? In 1851 there is a William Smith aged 29 living with his widowed mother Emma in Much Marcle. The 1841 has Thomas and Emma Smith but son William is not with them. Could Thomas and William Smith sr. be brothers? William was away from home in 1841 so his nephew was staying to help out around the farm? The IGI parish records for Much Marcle only have the female baptisms transcribed.

Hi I have just been reading this thread - I am not sure you should discount William as the son in the 1841 just because he is out of order, being at the end. I have seen several times that children did not always strictly appear in age order, and wondered why. I have come to the conclusion that either the parents did not expect that child to be at home and so they came home late and was added last, or the enumerator just skipped one and then realised his mistake and added the missing one at the end. I have seen one entry where I am sure the enumerator transposed another person, a visitor from London, into the spot where our missing child should be - most frustrating. Diane Cole

Ages on the 1841 were supposed to be rounded down,so someone of 24 should appear as 20. However some people did not really know how old they were. Is this the family? 1841 Elizabeth Smith abt 1826 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record George Smith abt 1834 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record James Smith abt 1841 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record Louisa Smith abt 1801 Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record Louisa Smith abt 1827 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record Mary Smith abt 1838 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record Sarah Smith abt 1830 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record Thomas Smith abt 1833 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire View Record William Smith abt 1821 Herefordshire, England Marcle Much Herefordshire 1851 Maria Evans 21 Thomas Perrins 12 Elizabeth Smith 25 James Smith 10 Louisa Smith 24 Mary Emma Smith 13 Sarah Ann Smith 20 Thomas Smith 18 William Smith 61 William Henry Smith 23 Charles Thomas 25

My great grandmother was aged 24 when she was christened!!! Anne

Jim Yes that is the Smith's I am researching. Sue