1901 - 1911: The longest 10 years in the Irish State

Bicycle

So, the Old Age Pension was introduced in 1908, in between the two censuses..

My great grand mother, God bless her, aged a full 13 years between 1901 and 1911. She was 44 in 1901, 57 in 1911 :D:D

So for those of you tracing relatives, keep an eye out. The age, particularly of those in middle age, may not be entirely accurate.

funnyname

haha, no wonder I saw many differences in age between the two.

eden_my_ass

It says a lot about how we were and how we are doesn't it. Nothing has changed, as a culture we like to pull a fast one, and the bigger shame is being the "fool" who can't work the "systems" of their time.....the acceptance of widespread fraud like that only mirrors the complacency with which we as a people accept the fraud and unethical behaviour of our political (and corporate) establishment.

Or I am making 2 + 2 = 5 ??

pinkypinky

The truth is that age was nowhere near as important 100 years ago. Nowadays we are identified by things like birthdate but then it wasn't relevant. It first became relevant in 1908 when they introduced a pension for those over 70 and it is the main reason that people age excessively in the 10 years. However I found some of my people in their late 30s in 1901 and mid-50s by 1911 - pensions don't answer that!

brianthebard

Agree with pinky, although there were obviously many people who aged a few extra years to claim the pension most people in those days wouldn't even have known their birthdays or years. It wasn't celebrated or made an issue of back then, you were just lucky to survive. After all to be 70 in 1908 would mean being born before the famine, having escaped numerous epidemics, etc. If you were close enough to claim it then why not? In addition if the government itself didn't keep records to begin with they could hardly accuse people of not being the right age since they had no way of knowing themselves.

eden_my_ass

brianthebard wrote: »

Agree with pinky, although there were obviously many people who aged a few extra years to claim the pension most people in those days wouldn't even have known their birthdays or years. It wasn't celebrated or made an issue of back then, you were just lucky to survive. After all to be 70 in 1908 would mean being born before the famine, having escaped numerous epidemics, etc. If you were close enough to claim it then why not? In addition if the government itself didn't keep records to begin with they could hardly accuse people of not being the right age since they had no way of knowing themselves.

If only the earlier census records had survived, we could watch these amazing aging people evolve! Point taken, but I still see it as somewhat of a view into social reasoning as valid to todays society as it was then...you said it yourself "if you were close enough to it then why not"...its in our blood to chance it

ejmaztec

Checking my Mayo great grandmother's ages, dates etc, she seemed to knock five years off her age on a Scottish marriage cert.

Bicycle

Sorry folks, I didn't want to cause a riot!!

I was just highly amused by the ageing pills my great grandma took

And I suppose, to make people aware that there are age discrepancies between the two census returns.

Wyldwood

By contrast, I have a gr-grandaunt who lost 8 years between the 2 censuses because she married a man 8 years her junior and didn't want to appear older than him I presume. Female pride!

QuiteInterestin

Was going to post something simalar to the OP, my great great grandmother was 48 in 1901 and her husband was 53 and by 1911 they were 65 and 68 so they gained an extra 7 and 5 years respectively. Their childrens ages seemed to have remained consistant but I'm inclined to go with the 1901 census as correct as the 1911 results would have meant she was still having children at the age of 50. On the other side of the family there were 7 years between my great great grandparents in 1901 (43 and 50) and by 1911 the gap had extended out to 21 years (53 and 74) whatever she was doing to him :rolleyes:

Have a theory for some of these anomalies. Many of the head of households of my relatives are registered as being able to read and write but haven't signed their name but instead have signed with an x with the constable/enumarator signing as a witness. Also when comparing the handwriting, it seems more than likely that it was the constable/enumarator that filled it in the data on their behalf. If you'd a stranger calling to the door and filling in lots of personal data on you, you might be reluctant to admit the real age difference between you and your wife and so might shave a few years of yourself. With the 1911 census asking for data on how long you'd been married and the number of children you had, this became a bit harder. Just a theory

sweet-rasmus

I have to agree. Between 1901 and 1911 my great grandfather aged 15 years (60 -> 75) and his wife only aged 9 years (40 -> 49). This pension at 70 makes sense as they lived in the slums. I knew it had something to do with the pension, I just didn't know the age they were meant to be. I also presume that a lot of guessing of ages went on...

Good thread

brianthebard

eden_my_ass wrote: »

If only the earlier census records had survived, we could watch these amazing aging people evolve! Point taken, but I still see it as somewhat of a view into social reasoning as valid to todays society as it was then...you said it yourself "if you were close enough to it then why not"...its in our blood to chance it

I don't know; I view it more in the sense of slippage than an out and out chancer attitude. Names and spelling were also likely to change in this period, one of the papers I'm researching atm uses four different spellings/variations on a name to refer to the one person during about a month or so of coverage. I think in a lot of ways we've been codified and normalised in the past 100 years in a way which was not possible the previous 100 or more.

BeckyBloomwood

I noticed this too, my great great grandfather aged 15 years (from 65 to 80) and my great great grandmother aged 13 years (60 to 73) between 1901 and 1911, while everyone else in the household manages to age only 10 years. I'd love to know which year was closer to the truth. It's really interesting to see the discrepancies between the two years though, my great uncle's place of birth changed from America in 1901 to Co. Cork in 1911...he did only age ten years though. :)

owenc

yea i found my other great great? granda and he was 36 in the cenus but i think he was like 33 or something.

Bicycle

Well, this is interesting

The woman I initially posted about was my Dad's Dad's Mum (Great grandmother) in the midlands.

I looked up my Mum's Mum's Mum (Great grandmother)in the South East and she aged 14 years between 1901 and 1911. She was 30 in 1901 and 44 in 1911. But her husband only aged 10 years.

NOW, another interesting but potentially worrying thing.

My great grandfather in this South East family was James, with a brother John a year younger living next door. But he was written down, it appears according to the writing, by the ennumerator, as being John in 1901.

And this is where people may have problems. If they are looking for e.g. a James Ryan and they can only find a John Ryan then they may hit a dead end.

But I was lucky in that all the surnames are not very common and my great, great grandmother who was the head of James' household has a very unusual name and I know for a fact they are who they are.

owenc

eden_my_ass wrote: »

If only the earlier census records had survived, we could watch these amazing aging people evolve! Point taken, but I still see it as somewhat of a view into social reasoning as valid to todays society as it was then...you said it yourself "if you were close enough to it then why not"...its in our blood to chance it

Was there any earlier census, that you can look at like that??

shanew

1911 and 1901 are the only two surviving complete Irish ceneus returns


Shane

Fighting Irish

eden_my_ass wrote: »

It says a lot about how we were and how we are doesn't it. Nothing has changed, as a culture we like to pull a fast one, and the bigger shame is being the "fool" who can't work the "systems" of their time.....the acceptance of widespread fraud like that only mirrors the complacency with which we as a people accept the fraud and unethical behaviour of our political (and corporate) establishment.

Or I am making 2 + 2 = 5 ??

And then the politicians do the same thing and the country is in uproar :pac:

DamoRed

shanew wrote: »

1911 and 1901 are the only two surviving complete Irish ceneus returns


Shane

Is that for all census in the 1900s, Shane? I came on here to ask if there was any projected plans for 1920s, 1930s and onwards. But if 1901 and 1911 are the only surviving, then that's going to mean a lot of gap filling potential is lost.

Damo

Bicycle

Damo, the 1926 census details will be revealed in 2026, thats 16 years time.

But for many of us, by then, we will have lost those who are currently providing us with information.

My aunt (the last surviving member of my Dad's family) is 85, my Mum is in her mid-70s. These are the people that are providing the validation for many of us.

My Mum is enjoying the stories I'm telling her, and she in turn is passing on the family stories.

DamoRed

Bicycle, I'm not going to shoot the messenger when it's not the info I wanted to hear! But that is bad news. I was afraid there would be something like that. Is it because of laws only allowing records to be released 100 years after? Why was the next census in 1926 and not in 1921?

I'm at something of a disadvantage, in that my Ma, who is 86, gets rather upset and irritated whenever anyone mentions family history. So I don't want to upset her any further by asking again. The information she holds would be invaluable, but not at any cost.

I remember as a 3 year old, which is not any time in the recent past, I can assure you, going on the back of my Ma's bike, where we went into a house and saw an old woman in a bed. As a little boy, this frightened the whatsits out of me, and I didn't say a word, but just looked on. This woman turned out to be my paternal grandmother, known in the family as Nan. Even if it wasn't the most enjoyable experience for a little lad, I'm ever happier that I did at least see her. She died soon after, and that was literally her on her death bed.

A couple of times I've taken the urge to do this, but now with the 1901/11 records online, I may take it further this time and not be as easily discouraged.

Damo

Bicycle

Damo, no worries

I wasn't sure how Mum would react either, so I just started finding snippets of information and letting them drift... didn't tell her I couldn't find the family in 1901 until I'd finally found them.

I've been drip-feeding her stuff about my Dad's family (there wasn't a lot of love lost between the two families :D:D)

But if your Mum is that adamant, maybe there's a secret, maybe something that she doesn't want told.

Do your research. I'm only an amateur, a blow-in here, but Pinky and Brian and Shane and others are brilliant. They can help.

Ask the other aunts, ask about different stories.

My Mum's Dad was in Croke Park during the "massacre". He didn't talk about it until near his death. Didn't say anything because he was so upset.

Good luck....

shanew

DamoRed wrote: »

...
Why was the next census in 1926 and not in 1921?
.....

because of the War of Independence and Civil war

Depending on area you are interested in you can sometimes locate other details in street directories or electoral registers. e.g. the 1939 voter register for Dublin City is available at : http://dublinheritage.ie/index.php


Shane

Joeface

Ah yes the strange family information one gets to mock there parents with

My mothers family had there three servants ,(we always knew she had opinions of her self , airs and graces )

And then the odd name changing , Grandfather was 3 in 1901 and was Bryan
and in 1911 he was Now called Bernard .(still no clue as to why but my Great Grandfather filled both forms out ) he too found aged 20years in a 10years spell . strange that.

Some of the detail in these forms is class to see. been doing a family three for years and this stuff has really helped with dates and information on family history that's missing.

pinkypinky

The worst age mistake I have seen is on a return that is riddled with inaccuracies.

It has a married woman with a 7 year old son, a servant. No problems there. The 7 year old cannot read or write and has no job, as you'd expect.
Then there's another "7" year old listed as a visitor, with literacy, an occupation and a birth place in England. And then a niece listed.

I know who all these people are from other records and the "7" year old is actually 70 and the married woman's father. The niece is also listed at her own family home, which leads me to wonder if there was an extra daughter.

Absolutely infuriating!

Pretty_Pistol

pinkypinky wrote: »

Absolutely infuriating!

It really is. I feel like I've gone cross eyed the amount of time I'm spending trying all the different variations of names, ages and locations.

ollaetta

Like everyone else I'm finding the discrepancies between the 1901 and 1911 records both facinating and frustrating. It's now clear to me that my grandfather was not born where I had always been told he was born. As my Dad died just last year I will now never know the exact story.

On the topic of the 1926 census it's a total bummer that we will have to wait another 16 years to see it. It seems crazy that such info must be withheld for 100 years.

pinkypinky

I don't think a 100 year census rule is crazy, especially now in Ireland with most people living into their 80s. The censuses are increasing detailed. Think about what information you divulged on the 2006 one: not just the basic snapshot of your life that 1911 showed but details of education, languages spoken, the way you commute, right down to how many toilets you have. While I don't mind complete strangers knowing some of these facts, we're being honest with the census because we know it won't be available for public consumption in our lifetimes (most likely).

They relaxed the rules for 1901/1911 because there was no previous complete surviving census but they didn't exactly make it easy for people to access it. Microfilm was cutting edge technology in the late 50s but was and is a complete pain in the *ss to look at, not forgetting the eye strain! It was the mid 60s before anyone was allowed to look at them but I'd wonder just how much genealogy was done then. People may have used 1901 to prove their age, if a birth cert could not be found. We have records of people doing that with earlier censuses, after the pension started in 1908.

Incidentally, the statistical extracts are available for all the 20th century censuses on the CSO website. I used them to compare populations in a few towns with 1911.

There is a campaign to release the 1926 census early.
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/1926C

I can't see the State spending the money now when they could defer it and hide behind legislation. 15 years is a big gap in our history, especially at a crucial time but I'd rather wait and have it released at the proper time, already digitised and ready to be parsed online on 1st Jan 2027 than trawl through paper returns now.