Odd census record

[hmclem]

After being fairly sure that I had confirmed that my 3 x great grandparents were William Treagus (1805) and Hannah Chandler (1810) I have just found an 1851 census record which throws everything into doubt.
First let me explan how I got there. My greath grandmother was Hannah Helen Treagus born 1882. I have copy of her marriage certficate, 1909, to Walter Enos Fletcher which shows her father as George Treagus (deceased).
With this information I found the 1891 census showing Hannah and her father George. The family were living in West Dean. Hannahs mother is shown as Harriett.


Household Members
George Treagus 54
Harriett Treagus 43
William Treagus 19
Robert Treagus 17
Charlotte Treagus 15
Thomas Treagus 13
Mary A Treagus 11
Hannah H Treagus 9
Lillie R Treagus 5

Using this family information I found them in 1881 as well.

I looked at the GRO index and could see the maiden name for Harriet was Warrington. So I found the marriage (hopefully the right one) between Geeorge Treagus and Harriette Warrington in 1870. This shows Georges father as William Treagus.

So using previous information from Georges cenus records, date and place of birth, I found and 1861 census which him (?) and father William.

Household Members
William Treagus  55
George Treagus  25
Anne Treagus  24
Emily Treagus  17
Esther Treagus  16
Fanny Treagus  11
Phoebe Treagus  8
William Treagus  4
Edward Treagus  4

and the 1841 census record
Household Members:
William Treagus  35
Hannah Treagus  30
Ambrose Treagus  7
George Treagus  6
Ann Treagus  5
Susan Treagus  4
John Treagus  2

Now I have found this census for 1851 (Civil parish - West Dean ) which seems to match Geeorge and what I beleived to be his siblings but the parents age are way too high!!. Would a mistake with the age happen on a cenus in 1851 to this extent. Or is this another family.? Getting very confused.

Am worried that I have given William and Hannah too many children by combining the census records for lots of different people!

Household Members
William Treagus 66
Hannah Treagus 64
Ambros Treagus 17
George Treagus 16
Ann Treagus 15
Susan Treagus 14
John Treagus 12
Lizzy Treagus 9
Emily Treagus 7
Esther Treagus 5
Martha Treagus 3
Francis Treagus 1

Finally one other thing that is bothering me. I thought that I had found the marriage between William and Hannah in 1833, and Hannah maiden name was Chandler. But when I am searching the GRO indexes for any other their children I cannot find birth records.

[jorose]

Have you looked at the original image of the 1851 census? A first thought would be mistranscription on the ages, since the siblings line up so nicely, but it is easily possible for mistakes to creep in. Many of our ancestors would not be able to read/write, or did so only at the most basic level, so there's no guarantee they gave the information directly.

A couple of these children appear to be on the gro index with mother's maiden name Lander:
Elizabeth Treagus, 1841 D quarter
Phoebe Treagus, 1853 M quarter

and another possible:
Francis Treagus (indexed F) 1850 J quarter indexed TANDERS

Some of the others may have missed being registered, also a possible.

[trish1120]

1851 their ages are mistranscribed.

FreeREG has these Baptisms;
03 May 1834   TREGUS   Ambrose
21 Sep 1835   TREGUS   George   
11 Dec 1836   TREGUS   Ann   
01 Apr 1838   TREGUS   Susan   
11 Aug 1839   TREGUS   John
21 Oct 1841   TREGUS    Elizabeth
19 May 1844   TREAGUS   Emily
22 Mar 1846   TREAGUS   Esther
05 Apr 1850   TREAGUS   Frances
10 Apr 1853   TREAGUS   Phoebe
29 Aug 1856   TREAGUS   Edward and TREAGUS William (Twins)

Is this the 1861 you have?
William Ireagus   65
Martha Bridger   23
Henry Bridger   5
John H Bridger   2
William Ireagus   14
Edward Ireagus   14

Martha is down as Daug, Mar.
But she doesnt marry til 16 Feb 1865 to Edward BRIDGER, Father George Treagus Labourer
Also her age is 18! and Edward 37
(FreeREG)

Anc has Martha Bapt 16 Apr 1848 to George/Hannah

[trish1120]

To add to the mix another spelling of surname.

William TREAGOOSE Bapt 30 June 1805, St Andrew, West Dean to JOHN/ANNE
Siblings;
EDMUND 29 May 1792 (John/Esther Ann)
ELIZABETH 17 Aug 1793 (John/Esther)
ESTHER 25 Oct 1795 (John/Esther)
JAMES 18 June 1797 (John/Esther)
JOSEPH 10 March 1799 (John/Esther Ann)
ANN Feb 1801 (John/Ann)
JOHN 4 March 1803 (John/Esther Ann)
EMILY 30 March 1808 (John/Anne)
GEORGE 30 March 1808 (John/Ann)
(used soundex option as under various surname spellings)

Burials;
ANN Treagus 3 Nov 1844 age 71
JOHN Treagus 18 Jan 1846 age 81
Both have abode as Chilgrove in the Wood

[trish1120]

1861 we have;
George Trcagen, 29
Harriet Trcagen, 26
Sydney Trcagen, 4
Charles Trcagen, 1
William Poore, 24

1871
George Treagus, 39
Harriett Treagus, 37
Sydney Treagus, 14
Thomas Treagus, 9
William Treagus, 4
Mary Ann Treagus, 1

So looks to me this is the right Marriage for this couple;

4 June 1855, St Andrew, West Dean
George TREAGUS , 23, Bachelor, Lanourer, Father WILLIAM, Labourer
Harriet SYLVESTER, 21, Spinster, Father ROBERT, Labourer

So are there more than one couple named George/Harriett Treagus around?

[trish1120]

Sorry my brain hurts and I may have confused you more

Back tomorrow when rested!

[hmclem]

Wow thanks...this give me a lot to look into.
I must try and get to Sussex at some point to try and look at original records as well

[Annette7]

Have found birth of Susan 1838 as Treangs - again, GRO index shows mmn as Lander.

I would suggest that Hannah's maiden name was indeed Lander and not Chandler.   I don't know the state of the original parish records but FreeReg have William's own surname as 'Ingus' so perhaps the originals are not very clear.

1851 Census shows Hannah bc.1811 transcribed as Ingershaw ?? - however, I think it is a badly written Lurgashall.   There are no baptisms for a Hannah Chandler ca.1811 BUT there is a baptism of a Hannah Launder, bp.28/6/1812 Lurgashall, dau. of John and Susan.  Other children baptised to this couple show surname as Lander.

I think the details from the marriage entry are wrong - Tregus (Ingus on another source) and Chandler should be Lander I think as childrens births all indicate.

Annette 

[PrawnCocktail]

If you look at the 1871 Census, there are three George Treagus's - and all three are married to a Harriet!

There's:
George 1 born 1832 in West Dean, living in East Marden
George 2 born 1833 in East Dean, living in Arundel
George 3 born 1835 in West Dean, living in Funtington (the right one)

George 1 is the one with a son called Sydney, mmn Silvester
George 2 has a daughter called Ellen, mmn Adsett
George 3 has no children in 1871, which fits with the marriage that hmclem found for his George