COMPLETED THANKS 1891 Census lookup please - DAWSON household

[Soureau]

Good morning,

I would be very grateful if anyone can supply the details of the 1891 Census for:

William DAWSON b. Belchford either 1829 or 1859 (not clear)
Jane Ann DAWSON (wife), age around 27 in 1891, born 1864 Boston.
George (Jane's son), aged about 6 (born 1884 in Boston)

Many thanks.

Nick

[GeoffE]

I can't see them in 1891 ...

1901 has
81a Liquor Pond St, Boston
William DAWSON 41? Labourer - Scavenger, Belchford
Jane A 37 Boston
Albert DARLEY (step son) 17 Seaman, Boston
RG13/3046/13/17

1891
40 Rosegarth St, Boston
Henry DARLEY 51 Fisherman, Boston
Jane A 51 Yorks Cropton
Albert H 7 Boston
RG12/2575/6/6

Marriages Dec 1887 
DARLEY    Jane Ann        Horncastle    7a   1035   
DAWSON    Henry William         Horncastle    7a   1035

Perhaps I'll look for Henry

1891
Fosdyke
William DAWSON 62 Grazier? and Gardener, Belford
Jane Ann 27 Boston
George DARLEY (son in law) 6 Boston
RG12/2570/96/14

What fun - indexed as DANSON, with birthplaces Belford (Lincs) and Dorton (Leics)

[Soureau]

Good afternoon Geoff,

Thanks for that lot ! Curious that William DAWSON seems to be 41 in 1901 and 62 in 1891.

I found a Henry William DAWSON born in 1859 or 1856, which suggests he might have been born in 1859 rather than 1829. Then the dates would fit better. An 1881 Census return shows he could have been 22 then, which would confirm a birth around 1859.

We may be dealing with Census enumerators who were slightly hard of hearing !

Thank you once again in any case. It's been of help !

Nick

[GeoffE]

1871
Scamblesby
William DAWSON39 AgLab, *
Ann 36 Minting
Louisa 14 Hemingby
William 11 Belchford
Thomas 4 Belchford
Charles 3m Scamblesby
RG10/3381/81/15

Birthplace is XXXford - I can't make it out

1861
Belchford
William DAWSON 30 AgLab, Salmonby**
Ann 26 Minting
Louisa 4 Hemingby
Henry W 2 Belchford
RG9/2369/61/6

** Tetford adjoins Salmonby - I'm not convinced it said that in 1871, but perhaps it was.

[Soureau]

Thanks again Geoff,

I think I may have to go for the marriage certificate to get an age, or get someone to go to the Archives in Lincoln.

There were quite a few Dawsons around, but that still doesn't explain the discrepancy between 1891 and 1901 for his age.
The salient fact is that Albert and George DARLEY were brothers, and that would confirm we have the right household.

Many thanks for your input and time and trouble on this one.

Nick

[GeoffE]

Having looked at the 1891 image again, if you want it to be 32 or 62, there are enough lines there for either.  Ancestry has 32, but I guess that was because his wife's age was near that.

[Soureau]

Thanks for your comments Geoff. They could come in useful.