The discrepancy between ages (especially in the older age group) in the ten years between 1901 and 1911 can often be explained by the introduction of Old Age Pensions in 1908. The Old Age Pensions Act 1908 introduced a non-contributory pension for 'eligible' people aged 70 and over. It came into law in January 1909 across England, Wales, Scotland and Ireland. To be eligible, applicants had to have an income of less than £31 and 10shillings per annum (£31.50), and had to 'be of good character'.
________________________________ From: Roger Cousens via CoTyroneList <[email protected]> Sent: 05 October 2021 09:26 To: CoTyroneIreland.com Mailing List <[email protected]>; [email protected] <[email protected]> Cc: Gordon Wilkinson <[email protected]>; Roger Cousens <[email protected]> Subject: [CoTyroneMailingList] Re: [EXT] Re: An interesting read We have noted such discrepancies in census ages repeated. Does it show the distain they held for the census and authority, or is it simply that they did not pay much attention to birthdays back then? Or when the census man came to call, whover was in the house just guessed at everyone else's age? Back then it was the assessor who filled in the form, not the householder. I can understand losing track of age as one grows older (I have to stop and think!). My mother was always 5 years out in her age, as she had lied to my father when they were courting - she was a widow with two children...... Roger Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36> ________________________________ From: ECardwell via CoTyroneList <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, October 5, 2021 8:17:02 PM To: [email protected] <[email protected]>; Gordon Wilkinson via CoTyroneList <[email protected]> Cc: Gordon Wilkinson <[email protected]>; ECardwell <[email protected]> Subject: [EXT] [CoTyroneMailingList] Re: An interesting read External email: Please exercise caution ________________________________ Highly recommended. Evelyn Cardwell Get BlueMail for Android<https://bluemail.me> On 5 Oct 2021, at 04:09, Gordon Wilkinson via CoTyroneList <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: It was a typical Spring day on Friday ... blustery weather with occasional showers, when the eagerly awaited, long anticipated book arrived: Bill Roulston's Researching Farming Ancestors in Ireland. I'm already well into it now, but had barely started, when the author used his own family as an example when discussing Irish Censuses. Researchers, particularly new comers to genealogy, could be interested in his discussion of the census records of his great-great-grandfather. In brief ... In the 1901 return, the census shows his g-g-grandfather as an unmarried 30-year-old-farmer. Bill then goes on to caution the researcher to always treat ages with caution - even in census returns! Roulston's ancestor, Charles, was in fact 35 in 1901! Moving on to the 1911 census, Chaarles had married and his age in the Census was given as 50, when it should have been 45!! (He hadn't aged 20 years in 10). His wife was suposedly aged 30, when in fact she was 33, so what appeared to be a 20-year age gap between them was in reality 13 years! (ref: para 2.3.2 Census Returns 1901-11; Household Return (Form A), p27-8) 'Nuf said. Enjoy, Gordon ________________________________ Send a Message to the List - [email protected] List Archive - https://list.cotyroneireland.com/empathy/list/cotyronelist.list.cotyroneireland.com Join the list by sending an email to - [email protected] To receive the Digest version, send an email to - [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to - [email protected] ________________________________
================================= Send a Message to the List - [email protected] List Archive - https://list.cotyroneireland.com/empathy/list/cotyronelist.list.cotyroneireland.com Join the list by sending an email to - [email protected] To receive the Digest version, send an email to - [email protected] Unsubscribe by sending an email to - [email protected] =================================
