Listing of children on a census

[greyingrey]

I've got a census record & , when it comes to listing the members of the household, there are, as usual, first the parents & then the children , in descending order of age. At the end of the list, however, there is another child listed (apparently with the same surname) who's the same age as the oldest child listed.

Would this have been done to indicate that he was, perhaps, an orphaned member of the family who had been taken into this household ?

[stanmapstone]

Can you give the details so other people can see the entry, and give an opinion?

Stan

[avm228]

Is the last child listed as son?

I wouldn't immediately think of adoption.  Are you sure the child at the bottom of the list doesn't have "months" after the number - being an infant? Otherwise perhaps they were simply inadvertently missed out above.

Can you give a census ref & details so that we can have a look?

Anna

[mshrmh]

Greyingrey - unless this is 1841 it should give relationship to the head of household -  this may not be relevant if the whole family are for example boarders or lodgers for example where I have sometimes found the relationships stated & others not.

It may be as simple as one child was initially missed out - either originally by the householder or when the enumerator transcribed the records (other than 1911 what we see are the enumerator's transcriptions). Or, as you say the last listed may be another relation who may just be a visitor or a permanent member of the family.

As you mention the same age as the eldest - could be a multiple birth (if they're registered that should be apparent from the references - if not more difficult) or just born in quick succession - I've found births of siblings less than a full year apart.

It's difficult to be sure unless you can find him with other relations on a different census, perhaps or are able to get a birth certificate or baptism record.

[greyingrey]

Thanks for your replies. It's the 1861 census SourceCitation Class RG9 Piece 1636 Folio 77 Page 43 Roll No 542843 & it's the household of Walter & Marena Elliott of Chard, Somerset....it lists the children, starting with Turphena Elliott aged 11 &, at the end there's a Thomas Elliott aged 11.


Thanks

[avm228]

Thomas is 1, not 11 - there is an administrative mark on the page which may confuse a reader.

[Sloe Gin]

I agree, and also I think the daughter's name should be Tryphena (a Biblical name that was quite popular with the Victorians).  There's a birth reg in Chard in Q2 1850 for a Tryphena Elliott, and one for a Thomas in Q2 1859 in Wells.

[greyingrey]

Thanks to everyone for their help....cleared it up nicely (I was wondering if it was 11 months & they'd omitted to put the months in)