Why can't I find ? on the census

[newbie]

Help,
Trying to find Albert Charles Tyler,  in the census.
From his marriage certificate received yesterday.
Albert Charles Tyler age 29 Occupation Private Royal Marines,
Father ' George Arthur Tyler, Ironmonger.Doesn't say deceased.
However doesn't say dec'd for the bride's father and I know he is because his death certificate arrived with this one. Place of marriage  parish of Stepney London, District = Mile End Old Town. Date of marriage  Aug 1903

With his age given as 29 that makes him born c 1874, looking in the 1901 census I just can't find him tried various permutations but no luck,  found this one for 1881  now do you think this is him, I found this one by searching for Tyler and keyword Ironmonger (for his father)

Charles Tyler b abt 1875 Bethnal Green, Son
George Tyler b abt 1835 Head,  occupation Ironmonger.

Too much of a coincidence ?

Tried the 1891
George A.Tyler  57, Civil Parish Bethnal Green London Occupation Ironmonger
No sign of the son.

Any ideas anyone, I'm going crazy trying to find him!
Newbie

[sillgen]

He might have been serving abroad.  Boer War?   Mistranscribed as Taylor?
Andrea

[newbie]

oohh didn't think of Taylor, had thought of War, or abroad serving
off to look for Taylor
Thanks
Newbie

[jacdee]

Hi Newbie,

I found this on the 1891 census-

Albert Chas Tyler age 19 born Bethnal Green.
He was at The Barracks in Brentford.
RG12/1025 folio 159 pg 15.

I know that aged 19 makes his birth year 1872, which is earlier than you thought, but do you think he may of lied about his age in order to enter the forces? 
I'll try the 1901 for you in a minute.

Jacdee

[jacdee]

Hi again,
Right, i've looked on the 1901 census and found this-
Charles Tyler aged 28 born Barnes Surrey.
He was at the Chatham Barracks in Kent.
RG13/732 folio 39 pg 8.
It had Soldier Infantry listed as his occupation.
Do you think it could be him and that they have his place of birth wrong?
I couldn't find any Albert Tyler's.
Hope this is some help to you!

Jacdee

[newbie]

Hi Jacdee,
Thanks for all that information, I think I'll go to the record office to look at the GRO index next week, to find his birth reg, (not on freebmd) and send for his birth certificate once I've got that that should help, although if this is him in the 1891 and the 1901 being in barracks isn't going to confirm much else.
I thought in the 1891 it wouldn't be him because it says for occupation "Private Militia" do you think that's the same as Royal Marines? also the age difference, but as you said maybe he lied about his age - I hadn't thought of that.
In the 1901 he is Charles (not albert charles but he may have just preferred Charles to Albert) but again he's now a soldier in the Infantry not Royal Marines, and the birthplace is different, it could just be a mistake.
I was just concerned there were too many "differences".
Thanks for confirming that I wasn't going round the bend!
Newbie

[newbie]

HI again,
Just found 2 entries on freebmd that are possible, both DEC 1874,  Bethnal Green, pages 291 and 293 so will have to confirm next week, so looking likely that your information is correct.   Thanks
Newbie

[Hackstaple]

Possibly the key to this is that he was stationed at Chatham as an Infantry soldier. Chatham was officially a naval base. If he was then posted to a ship he would have become a Marine. Marines of those days did no special training.
The Boer War was not around in 1891 but there  were troops in many overseas sectors but most notable in Ireland.
He would not have needed to lie about his age to enlist as before 16 one could enlist as a Boy Soldier but after that you were counted as a man.
Militia did not mean Home Guard. There were militia regiments in every county and they had permanent staff as well as volunteers who trained weekly.

[newbie]

Thank you for clarifying that for me Hackstaple,
Newbie