Can census records be innaccurate (ages specifically)

[clairec666]

Re the surname in 1861 - it clearly says StockFORTH and not StockPORT, but I'm assuming this is a mistake from the enumerator. There are very few BMD records for Stockforth, and definitely no John.

A similar thing happened in my family - a surname very clearly appears as HEDGES even though I'm 100% certain it should be HODGES - I've confirmed it from the other people in the household. I think the census is a bit like a written form of Chinese whispers, only with misread writing instead of misheard speech!

[DavidG02]

Thomas and George 16 and 14 are living with the Blenkinsopp grandparents in Wingate

FreeCen Piece: RG10/4976 Place: Easington -Co. Durham Enumeration District: 19

[Milliepede]

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

How so?  This can't be the same John.

[DavidG02]

I agree Millipede

I see a John Stockport born 1834 (FindMyPast) - fits census date and image- to Rachael Stockport ( which is oddly similar to 1818 birth) I think we will find a marriage of Rachael/el to John Spowert

[jorose]

http://www.durhamrecordsonline.com/NewSearch.php
shows a John Stockport baptised 1834 in Newcastle (abode Reckington [Wrekenton])
also the John Stockport baptised 1818 who may be the one who was buried in Gateshead 1832 (born abt 1818), and whose abode is given as Wreckenton    
(cannot see the full info without payment).

It is certainly possible that John b. 1834 was a younger brother or nephew of John b. 1818 which may have caused wires to get crossed as to which John belonged to who.

[DavidG02]

1881 census ( FindMyPast ) John is a Lodger at Collingwood Street, Coundon, Auckland, Durham, England

[Stefan P]

Wow!! I just checked back here and my humble question went nuts! Thankyou all so much for taking the time to have a look for me and for all the great suggestions.

I can confirm that Rachel did marry a John Spowert after her first husband (George) died in 1832. The record for the 27 year old John Stockport does indeed exist and the mother is listed as Rachel (with no fathers name listed, given that he died 2 years previously. Raises the question of who fathered the young lad, but no way of finding out I suppose).

So, I think (as has been helpfully suggested) the answer is the obvious one really, there are two John Stockports! And the one from the news article is the younger of them.

Many, many, many thanks for all the replies it's been fascinating to read, and has also given me lots of other ideas of things to look at that will help with the family story

[iolaus]

They can also be mistanscribed.
One of mine I couldn't find on his first census - he should have been 1 (15 months) - eventually through looking up his elder brother I found him, mother and fathers ages both matched, elder brothers age matched - his age - 15 years!

[GUT]

Yep, ages can be all over the place.

I have one family member with about 8 different ages.

2 different ages while in the navy (but only 2 years difference)
1 when he marries
3 different births of children
1 on wife's death
1 on his own death

About 10 years difference all up