Welcome to The Briercliffe Society Forum
http://www.briercliffesociety.co.uk/talkback/

Which Pollard is it?
http://www.briercliffesociety.co.uk/talkback/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=1093		 Page 2 of 3
Author:  Burnleymasher [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 1:37 pm ]
Post subject: 
I have relatives that lived in the Habergam Eaves area and their registration district was Burnley. :)
Stephanie
Author:  Gloria [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 2:45 pm ]
Post subject: 
I think Padiham BMD's were all registered at Burnley.
Author:  portia [ Fri Apr 18, 2008 11:24 pm ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Julie in Norfolk [ Sat Apr 19, 2008 7:19 pm ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  charon10 [ Sat Apr 19, 2008 8:28 pm ]
Post subject:  John Pollard - age in the 1841 Census
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
Author:  Julie in Norfolk [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:25 am ]
Post subject: 
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:
Author:  Gloria [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 10:50 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  charon10 [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:28 am ]
Post subject:  Age in the Census
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
Author:  Mel [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:32 am ]
Post subject: 
Gloria, you don't look a day over 83 :twisted:

I am nowhere near 47 :D
Author:  charon10 [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:33 am ]
Post subject:  47?
Mel
Nor am I, but in the wrong direction
Charon
Author:  Mel [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:36 am ]
Post subject: 
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!
Author:  Gloria [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:39 am ]
Post subject: 
83 :cry:
Author:  Mel [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:41 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Gloria [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 11:46 am ]
Post subject: 
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.
Author:  Mel [ Sun Apr 20, 2008 12:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
Sorry to hear that Gloria, I remember you saying about the party.
Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
https://www.phpbb.com/