Can census records be innaccurate (ages specifically)

[Stefan P]

Hi folks,

Just a general question regarding some research I was doing last night. I found an article in a newspaper dated just four days after I knew one of my ancestors had passed away - the article described "Margaret Stockport" as committing murder/suicide by drowning herself and her one year old daughter. Tragic story, but as I read I recognised some names - her mother, Jane Blenkinsop, and her husband, John Stockport, were already in my tree.

So I wondered whether this story was indeed about my ancestor, and as it listed her age as 31 at time of death I was able to very quickly discover that yes, her age, name, maiden name, all add up to her being the Margaret in my tree. So I investigated the census records to further firm this up, and discovered that while she was indeed married to John Stockport on the census record, the age of John is wildly innaccurate.

I can say with 99% certainty that John Stockport was born in 1818, married in 1854 (making him 36 at time of marriage) but on the 1861 census his age is listed as 27! I am certain it's him - he is married to Margaret (and a search for her maiden name, Blenkinsop returns precisely this same record even though she is called Stockport after marriage). So I'm sure I have the right guy - it's just his listed age that bothers me - he would have been 42 at least - if he is indeed 27 then I have his birth wrong, his other records wrong, and he was born two years after his own father died!

So my question (and thanks for reading this far!) is, given that there would have been in 1854 a significant gap in the ages of John and Margaret, would John have possibly fabricated his age somewhat on the census form, as I would think such a huge gap in ages at time of marriage (37 for John and around 20 for Margaret) would be a bit frowned upon in the 19th century?

Thanks for reading!

[DavidG02]

What does the 1871 census say? edited???

Not sure that a marriage difference between 37 and 20 would have been commented on a great deal as most marriages were often contractual rather than emotional.

I have seen census copies that have been smudged or poorly written, odd handwriting, that can seem to read 1 thing but be another

[Milliepede]

Short answer is absolutely yes ages can be wildly inaccurate either by mistake or by someone not telling the truth.

Have you got the marriage certificate to see what age he put for that? 

Quite often an older bride would make herself younger to match that of a younger husband!

[stanmapstone]

What is entered  in the Enumerator's book is copied from the Householder's Schedule. He could have made a mistake in the copying of the information, or he copied exactly what was written on the schedule.

Stan

[silvery]

Have you looked at the census itself, rather than a transcript?

(Findmypast is only showing up one John Stockport in the 1861 and he's born in 1849.) 

[stanmapstone]

This is the entry

Stan

[Milliepede]

I can say with 99% certainty that John Stockport was born in 1818, married in 1854

I can't see a John Stockport marriage in 1854 - where did it take place? **

** Got it Dec 1853 Stockton

[BumbleB]

Just as a matter of interest, which country are we talking about?  I've looked on FreeBMD, covering England and Wales, for a marriage of John Stockport in 1854 and drawn a blank, the same for Margaret Blenkinsop.

[clairec666]

First, check if it's a mis-transcription on the census - have a look at the image yourself and see what you think the age says.

I've found that people lie / are mistaken about their age on the census, but not by such a large amount! It's fairly common when either a) their is a large age-gap between spouses or b) the wife is older than the husband. So I've wondered if there was a slight stigma attached...