Welcome to The Briercliffe Society Forum

The forum is free to join and you do not need to be a member of the society. You will receive an email to activate your account before you will be able to log in. Please check spam filters and junk mail folders for this email.
It is currently Fri Oct 20, 2017 3:25 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:37 pm 
Librarian
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 22, 2008 6:08 pm
Posts: 1121
I have relatives that lived in the Habergam Eaves area and their registration district was Burnley. :)
Stephanie


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:45 pm 
Computer Whizz
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 3879
Location: Near Chorley
I think Padiham BMD's were all registered at Burnley.

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:24 pm 
Sage of Simonstone
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2007 12:07 pm
Posts: 1600
Location: Burnley
Don't know whether it's relevant but Padiham is a town in its own right - older than Burnley, although in many ways now subsumed by it it.

_________________
Maureen
If you can't fight, wear a big 'at


Last edited by portia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 11:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:19 pm 

Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:30 am
Posts: 79
Location: Norfolk, England
Looking at the LancashireBMD site, Padiham BMDs were in the Burnley registration area but it looks as if the BMDs were registered either in Padiham or under a Padiham umbrella at Burnley. Certainly they have a different document reference: eg BU/15/68 is a Burnley registration and PA/5/3 is a Padiham registration.

Look how learned we are all becoming :D

I am now looking at 3 deaths all in 1849 and 3 more to go if those are not my John Pollard, however all of these Johns are older than he claimed to be in the 1841 census. His age was recorded as 60, in my mind that means 57 to 63 giving a birth year of 1778 to 1784. The closest that I have is 1776 then 1774 and then 1773. That is the order that I will send off for them.

_________________
Making each day count


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:28 pm 
Mongrel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 264
Location: Gloucestershire
I understand that in the 1841 census, the ages of people over 15 years old were usually rounded down to the nearest 5 years. Someone who was actually 34 years would have their age listed as 30, and someone who was actually 37 years old would have their age listed as 35. (It's true that in a lot of cases the ages evidently haven't been rounded: presumably in those cases the age is what the individual told the enumerator.)

It this rule was applied, it would mean that Julie's John would have been 60 to 64, so the earliest possible dob would have been June 1776 - the 1841 Census was taken on 6 June. The 1776 John may just be the right one!

Charon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:25 am 

Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 10:30 am
Posts: 79
Location: Norfolk, England
Ah, that's the way the rounding worked. Thank you. See how many new things I have learned from this thread. :oops:

Between us we are invincible :wink:

_________________
Making each day count


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:50 am 
Computer Whizz
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 3879
Location: Near Chorley
It's true that in a lot of cases the ages evidently haven't been rounded: presumably in those cases the age is what the individual told the enumerator.
That is true, and leads to the fact that whatever the correct age can only be deduced from what the enumerator was told. I think quite a bit of that was supposition, as most of these people couldn't read or write and quite probably couldn't count either.

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Age in the Census
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:28 am 
Mongrel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 264
Location: Gloucestershire
Gloria's quite right, of course. One effect of illiteracy and innumeracy is that in those cases where you can follow an individual from census to census, there's often inconsistency, in fact I'd say there's inconsistency more often than not. In Genealogy, as in life, "Nothing is certain, not even that nothing is certain."
A trend I think I've noticed among some of my female ancestors is for the date of birth implied by the census record to get later from decade to decade (though even so, they aren't all stuck at 47!)
Charon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:32 am 
Spider Lady
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 8051
Location: Staffordshire
Gloria, you don't look a day over 83 :twisted:

I am nowhere near 47 :D

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: 47?
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:33 am 
Mongrel
User avatar

Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 5:22 pm
Posts: 264
Location: Gloucestershire
Mel
Nor am I, but in the wrong direction
Charon


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:36 am 
Spider Lady
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 8051
Location: Staffordshire
There is never a wrong direction! Then again, I am in the right direction but, with another birthday looming, I feel I am fast approaching the wrong!

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:39 am 
Computer Whizz
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 3879
Location: Near Chorley
83 :cry:

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:41 am 
Spider Lady
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 8051
Location: Staffordshire
Gloria, as I don't actually know your age, I needed to go way over the mark so as not to risk offending. :roll: I would hate to have quoted 49 and been in bad books.

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:46 am 
Computer Whizz
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 9:28 am
Posts: 3879
Location: Near Chorley
Hmmm, like to think I am 47 but sadly I was 62 in march. My family have a history of longevity, my gt aunt has just passed away, and we celebrated her 100th not long ago. She was a Syker born and bred.

_________________
Gloria

I'd be dangerous with a brain.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:01 pm 
Spider Lady
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:23 pm
Posts: 8051
Location: Staffordshire
Sorry to hear that Gloria, I remember you saying about the party.

_________________
Mel

Searching for lost relatives? Win the Lottery!


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 37 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group