Myths debunked when doing family histroy.

[IgorStrav]

Another myth debunked is when people say "the census will give which cottage our ancestors lived in then". Maybe more likely in later census records but not so much in earlier records, and even for later records you still have to do a bit of digging to find where in the village or hamlet the cottage/house/farm was. In cities it was easier as houses were numbered more often and streets named.

You’re right - but then the street numbering of houses/dwellings in cities also changed over time as new buildings erected.

Could never find the correct entry for my house in Oxford in the 1939 Register though it was built before that date - it was built on a road which eventually joined two parallel roads and the numbering changed on both.

“Walking” with the Register round the locale was very discombobulating even though I knew it well

[Top-of-the-hill]

  I have to agree with coombs about tracking houses in censuses in rural areas. I can know a village like the back of my hand, but right up to 1921 many people just used the village name as their address, or maybe "The Street". (Which in this village is not what is now "The Street!)

[KGarrad]

I was helping an Austalian family with their Family History; they were visiting IoM.
The cottage we were looking for was, at some point, merged with another cottage to become a house!

Fortunately, the building(s) were on a main road, very close to a well known TT corner!.
And the grandfather used to work at a farm & house across the road.

Not easy to find, but obvious once I knew.

[Andy J2022]

Going off topic slightly (it's not about a myth), for anyone trying to locate a house or cottage based a census entry, don't forget to use all the collateral sources such as tithe maps (for rural locations) and city directories for the towns.  Dave Annal explains this technique in his excellent Setting the Record Straight series of videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clTdeptZqPg (for tithe maps) and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSTnayiyVaA (for an urban search).

[coombs]

Going off topic slightly (it's not about a myth), for anyone trying to locate a house or cottage based a census entry, don't forget to use all the collateral sources such as tithe maps (for rural locations) and city directories for the towns.  Dave Annal explains this technique in his excellent Setting the Record Straight series of videos:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clTdeptZqPg (for tithe maps) and
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSTnayiyVaA (for an urban search).

Beat me to it, as I was just about to mention the fab Dave Annal and his YT videos where he also debunks many myths. I have watched a few of his videos such as his Setting the record straight video about the civil registration 1874 act, and his video on how it was very usually the householder who filled out the census records, and the image of the enumerator stood at the doorstep writing down the answers should be replaced with him collecting the filled out census form from the householder.

[DianaCanada]

There is also the myth about women marrying at a young age, i.e. under 20.  I find most brides in my family range from 20-24.  I think this myth might have originated in the USA where brides might have skewed a bit younger. 
Puberty happened later in the past, so young mothers of 15-16 are rare, most of the births without marriage seem to be hovering around 20 and even older.

[coombs]

There is also the myth about women marrying at a young age, i.e. under 20.  I find most brides in my family range from 20-24.  I think this myth might have originated in the USA where brides might have skewed a bit younger. 
Puberty happened later in the past, so young mothers of 15-16 are rare, most of the births without marriage seem to be hovering around 20 and even older.

Also it is wrong to assume in the pre census and BMD era that a woman was around 20 when she married, if there is no other record of her age, a woman in say 1750 who had children after marrying could have been up to the age of 35. If she had just 2 or 3 children, it could be she married later in life.

[DianaCanada]

There is also the myth about women marrying at a young age, i.e. under 20.  I find most brides in my family range from 20-24.  I think this myth might have originated in the USA where brides might have skewed a bit younger. 
Puberty happened later in the past, so young mothers of 15-16 are rare, most of the births without marriage seem to be hovering around 20 and even older.

Also it is wrong to assume in the pre census and BMD era that a woman was around 20 when she married, if there is no other record of her age, a woman in say 1750 who had children after marrying could have been up to the age of 35. If she had just 2 or 3 children, it could be she married later in life.

Yes, just looking at one of mine who married in 1781 and had children until 1804.  One can make a good guess of the range of her birth year by this.  Poor woman had 11 children, 7 died young, and I can't trace three of the others.

[coombs]

I have one who wed in Norwich in 1725 and she only had 2 known children, maybe she was about 35 when she married. I found a likely burial in 1768 aged 80, so born c1688. Then again we should never wholly rely on ages given in records, especially ones that have a "landmark" figure age at burial like 70 or 80, maybe the informant estimated their age.