From age 19 to 59 in 20 years???

[bel_jon68]

I have a puzzling gggrandfather!

In 1871 census, his age is 19, his wife's 28
In 1881 census, his age is 40, his wife's 38
In 1891 census, his age is 59, his wife's 46

I thought the 1871 was mistranscribed, but looking at the image I'm not so sure!!

Can someone please tell me what they think the ages are on these census images?  I'm looking at Thomas Jones and Charlotte Jones (her first name is spelt differently on each one).

Also, what do you think Mary xxxxx Jones's middle name is?  She's transcribed as Mary Jones Jones, but I think she's Mary Ann.

Many thanks

Bel

[krisesjoint]

Can u give us the Ref Details for these entries please so we can have a good look ourselves....Too hard to c on these posted images....Kris 

[krisesjoint]

Hi Bel I have located the entries...anybody else wishing to take a look the Ref Details R

Guilsfield Montgomeryshire Wales

RG10/5632 Folio 8 Page 10 (Charlota 28)
RG11/5498 Folio 72 Page 9 (Sharlote 38)
RG12/4601 Folio 71 Page 1 (Charlotte 46)

I would have to agree with the ages appearing as u have provided....I expected to find mistranscriptions but If I was transcribing them I would say the same thing....Does make it Difficult to work out just how old this man is!

In The 1871 Census Marys Middle name is not Jones nor Ann...It looks like Jobiezu? In 1881 it is Clearly Ann

Kris 

[bel_jon68]

Thanks for digging out the references Kris -  I've only just seen your posts, so didn't get chance the post the references before you did! 

Another of my gggrandfathers was a bit economical with the truth on census forms but there was method in his madness and I eventually got a copy birth certificate for him.  With this one, though, I can see it's going to be a lot more difficult!  Need to crack on with trying to find their marriage, methinks...mind you, it would help if "Charlotte" was spelt consistently - three different spellings by three different enumerators does not make things any easier!

Maybe I'll discover something dodgy...maybe she married more than one Thomas...?

Anybody else got any ideas?

Bel

[bel_jon68]

Just had another look at 1871 - Thomas cannot possibly be 19, as their eldest son is 11 - he could be 29, which would tie in with 1881, or 39 which would tie in with 1891.

Bel

[krisesjoint]

Yes Bel i saw that myself but on looking at the scan his 2's r very distince where that is just a 1.....Can only assume the enumerator wasnt concentrating.....I thought it must be a 29, 40 and 59 must be 50 or alternately 39, 49(not 40) and 59 but when u look at the scans u can only say 19 40 and 59 unfortunately...Hope u find him all the best with it....Kris 

[hlbradd]

Hi Bel

Are you sure these are the same families ?

I can't read the addresses clearly but Thomas and Charlotte weren't particularly uncommon names (I've got a pair around that time!) - and I hate to think how many Jones's in Wales there were ! 

Come to think of it - I have two brothers further up my tree - both named Frederick (and no, the first Fred didn't die in infancy) - and they BOTH married Mary Anns (talk about complicated!  Maybe your Thomas's are cousins ?  Or maybe it's a case of Thomas Sr and Jr.  Was he married before and had a grown up son by the 1871?

Just a thought (or two) anyhow

H x

[bel_jon68]

Hi H

It had crossed my mind that I'd got the wrong family (Jones and Wales!). 

I know that the 1881 is definitely the right family.  The children in 1871 are Thomas, George, Eliza, Emma and Mary; in 1881, Thomas, George, Elizabeth, Emma, Mary, David, Alfred (gggdad) and Edith; in 1891, Emma (26), George (25), Edith, and Charles Henry, plus Sidney (9 - Grandson).  I thought my gggdad had brothers called Charles and Sidney - it might be that Sidney was in fact his nephew but as he was only 6 years younger, he was treated as a brother. 

It might be that the 1891 I've got is not the right one, but it would be very coincidental, don't you think?

I feel like a mole sometimes...

Bel