People are living longer now

Jellybaby_1

Watching the news recently, and seeing the (very sleepy) French nun who is 116 years old. I also know a few people well into their 90's and still doing very well health wise. It looks like genealogists in the future might be waiting even longer than us for records to come online.

Hermy

Sadly, watching the same news recently, all I could think about were those who didn't live longer or whose records will never come online because of nuns.

VirginiaB

Jellybaby_1 wrote: »

It looks like genealogists in the future might be waiting even longer than us for records to come online.

The US census estimates a life span as 72 years so next year the 1950 census should be made public. Needless to say, millions of people born by that date are still alive and kicking. That's a lot of personal data to go public for well or ill.

Mick Tator

Jellybaby_1 wrote: »

Watching the news recently, and seeing the (very sleepy) French nun who is 116 years old. I also know a few people well into their 90's and still doing very well health wise. It looks like genealogists in the future might be waiting even longer than us for records to come online.

I look at it a different way. I have a 99 year old (sharp as a pin!) who has been of immense assistance to me in genealogical research. Had she not lived to that age a huge lore of genealogical information would have been lost as I’m the only one interested enough to record it! I agree that ‘official’ records are not available, but for the moment I see nothing wrong in placing people in a tree on the basis of BMD newspaper records. The GRO one can come, eventually.:)

Jellybaby_1

Sadly I'm not getting enough information from my elders, one can't remember a (second) marriage name which I so desperately need.

paddysdream

Another issue is that the generations seem to be coming quicker now so family memories will not stretch back as far in the future.
The phenomenon of the man marrying at 40 plus to a much younger woman and having children for the next 20 years is almost non existent.
Not sure if that's good or bad but from a genealogical point of view it might not help future generations.
Had an elderly neighbour born 1930's whose father was born in 1871 and grandfather in 1830's.
Two generations and back to someone who was an adult during the famine.
Bit of an exception I know but this person was a fount of knowledge and a serious help regarding local family history.
Very sure of their facts and could tell you 2nd 3rd cousins and more for near about every local family.
Tried a few times to " catch them out " but a waste of time as their memory was prodigious.

Stuff that happened 80/100 years ago was as real to them as todays news.

Garlinge

I am saddened by people starting families later these days. My mother's first grandchild was born when she was 50. She now has 7 great gran kids and still with us. I am getting on now and no grankids yet. It is direct lineage that is most of interest. I think of all the loss of life in world wars that left no family after them.

I think USA census 1950 might be available soon? UK 1921 next year but then none for 1931, I believe suffered bomb damage.

L1011

The UK is about to enter a comparative black hole of records releases after the 1921 GB release:

* There is no 1921 NI census.
* 1926 NI census is AWOL
* 1931 England & Wales destroyed (NI wasn't even taken due to the 1926 one)
* 1941 cancelled


The 1939 Register is available online for England & Wales; and is extant for NI and Scotland but you need to do FOI requests that are slow and/or costly and also make it basically impossible to just stumble on a record. There is also a low on information (even compared to the 1901/11 censuses) 1937 NI census that will presumably be released... in 2038. So depending on where you are looking for in the UK the next releases will be in 2022, 2032, 2052 (Scotland); 2037, 2052 (NI) or 2022, 2052 (England/Wales)

Whereas we're going to have a release in '27, '37, '47 and '52.

pinkypinky

Excellent summary, L1011, but my understanding is that our 100 rule doesn't require the 100 years to be complete, so in theory, these censuses should be available in 2026, 2036, 2046, 2051, etc. Entirely contingent on the CSO/NAI establishing a team to digitise and make them ready. I dream of seeing a revamped census website with 1926 newly in the drop down in the first week of 2026 - now only 5 years away!!

Reminder to sign the petition if you haven't! CIGO is hoping to do some work on this again this year.

Waitsian

L1011 wrote: »

1926 NI census is AWOL

I remember reading somewhere that in fact it had been destroyed.

Jellybaby_1

paddysdream wrote: »

Another issue is that the generations seem to be coming quicker now so family memories will not stretch back as far in the future.
The phenomenon of the man marrying at 40 plus to a much younger woman and having children for the next 20 years is almost non existent.
Not sure if that's good or bad but from a genealogical point of view it might not help future generations.
Had an elderly neighbour born 1930's whose father was born in 1871 and grandfather in 1830's.
Two generations and back to someone who was an adult during the famine.
Bit of an exception I know but this person was a fount of knowledge and a serious help regarding local family history.
Very sure of their facts and could tell you 2nd 3rd cousins and more for near about every local family.
Tried a few times to " catch them out " but a waste of time as their memory was prodigious.

Stuff that happened 80/100 years ago was as real to them as todays news.

Thanks for sharing that, it is just amazing to have that, Paddy.

PokeHerKing

The less we procreate the better for the planet as far as I'm concerned. We've moved past survival as a race, we're now a cancer to the earth. Either we reduce our impact or we kill the planet.

Jellybaby_1

PokeHerKing wrote: »

The less we procreate the better for the planet as far as I'm concerned. We've moved past survival as a race, we're now a cancer to the earth. Either we reduce our impact or we kill the planet.

Totally agree. Just watched one of Simon Reed's travel programmes about the mess we're making of this world.

L1011

Waitsian wrote: »

I remember reading somewhere that in fact it had been destroyed.

Its almost definite that it has been destroyed, yeah. There's just no record of when/where/who did it.

But we can all live in hope of someone stumbling over a forgotten (but perfectly temperature/humidity controlled) warehouse in the UK National Archives, with it in it. And copies of the missing Irish censuses and the rest of the PRO while we're at it. :pac:

Jellybaby_1

L1011 wrote: »

Its almost definite that it has been destroyed, yeah. There's just no record of when/where/who did it.

But we can all live in hope of someone stumbling over a forgotten (but perfectly temperature/humidity controlled) warehouse in the UK National Archives, with it in it. And copies of the missing Irish censuses and the rest of the PRO while we're at it. :pac:

Quite a dream there!

paddysdream

Jellybaby_1 wrote: »

Thanks for sharing that, it is just amazing to have that, Paddy.

Quick example of things that someone like that could help with.

Read on a message board re. person supposedly hung in 1798.Name pretty common in this area.
Person posting believed that they may have been a distant ancestor.They had a location (townland) taken from a very well regarded book on 1798 rebellion.
I replied that there were 2 such named townlands in Carlow but both were now part of villages.Ballyknockan townland which is townland village of Leighlinbridge and townland village of Fenagh.
No joy as regards any clues etc.
Asked my elderly neighbour and his reply was "well the book is wrong"
Ah he said simple enough one.They were from adjoining townland to ours but after 1820 family moved to farm in Ballyloughan where X family now live.They firstly lived on farm beside us where Y now has and one (a brother) was a priest trained in France and another (a nephew) was among the first RC lawyers in Ireland (1840/1850 ).Another branch move about 3 miles away as well.Also the family were prayed for in our local Parish church up to about the late 1950's although gone from the county since pre 1920.

And as a sweetener they were related to a couple of other families.Also said the person hanged in 1798 was hung in Leighlinbridge with 3 other people whom he proceeded to name and give me their seed, breed and generation.
After some searching the poster came back to me and said everything was 100% correct.
Found family headstone and lawyer erected it and mentioned his uncle the priest who died c.1840 in France.Bit more research on hangings and all as told to me,names ,birthplaces etc where given.
To my neighbour stuff like that was bread and butter knowledge.Biggest job was trying to stop him going off on a tangent.Stuff like his grandfather dealing with said lawyer in the 1870's.

JJayoo

A local student, as part of a project, recorded all the details from headstones in an old graveyard. A lot of people in the area were well into their 90s which I found surprising in the early 1900s

paddysdream

JJayoo wrote: »

A local student, as part of a project, recorded all the details from headstones in an old graveyard. A lot of people in the area were well into their 90s which I found surprising in the early 1900s

Wonder were the ages given accurate though ?

Think there could be a bit of competition ,neighbourly rivalry etc as to whose parent etc had the biggest age on headstone.Was always told here that local tradition up to perhaps 1950's or so was to, I think ,increase the deceased age by 2 years on headstone.
Well know the 2 year bit and from memory it was to increase it but not 100% certain.No idea as to the reason why though.
Must look at family ones sometime and see as have baptism dates so should be easy enough to check it.

jimmycrackcorm

Hermy wrote:

Sadly, watching the same news recently, all I could think about were those who didn't live longer or whose records will never come online because of nuns.

What a rubbish statement to make without anything to actually back it up.

I presume you referring to Tuam. Going back to that era, what was the mortality rate?

What exactly did the nuns do to those children that didn't happen outside? TB was a huge killer in those days, do you think it only happened when nuns were around?

Your just posting a blase statement without any critical thinking.

Hermy

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What a rubbish statement to make without anything to actually back it up.

I presume you referring to Tuam. Going back to that era, what was the mortality rate?

What exactly did the nuns do to those children that didn't happen outside? TB was a huge killer in those days, do you think it only happened when nuns were around?

Your just posting a blase statement without any critical thinking.

I must have imagined it so when my birth mother had her children taken from her.

pinkypinky

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

What a rubbish statement to make without anything to actually back it up.

I presume you referring to Tuam. Going back to that era, what was the mortality rate?

What exactly did the nuns do to those children that didn't happen outside? TB was a huge killer in those days, do you think it only happened when nuns were around?

Your just posting a blase statement without any critical thinking.

Please don't post if you're going to be rude to other posters. Everyone is entitled to their experience and we should all be considerate of people's backgrounds.

The recent Mother & Baby home report showed that mortality rates in many of these homes was substantially higher than elsewhere.

crossman47

VirginiaB wrote: »

The US census estimates a life span as 72 years so next year the 1950 census should be made public. Needless to say, millions of people born by that date are still alive and kicking. That's a lot of personal data to go public for well or ill.

I think its more accurate to say they estimated a life span of 72 many years ago and have stuck with it. Its much greater now,

VirginiaB

crossman47 wrote: »

I think its more accurate to say they estimated a life span of 72 many years ago and have stuck with it. Its much greater now,

Neither the US census nor I say 72 years is accurate today. Just that that is what they use for releasing the info.

Nqp15hhu

I find this idea of early deaths odd. Nearly all of my ancestors, even in the 1800’s lived to their 80’s.

Charles Babbage

Nqp15hhu wrote: »

I find this idea of early deaths odd. Nearly all of my ancestors, even in the 1800’s lived to their 80’s.

The ones that died young had no descendants.

paddysdream

Four grandparents and their siblings (born c. 1875 to 1920 )

Age at death;

Family 1 Family 2 Family 3 Family 4
45 female 32 male 79 female 68 male
1 male 74 male 82 male 0 female
74 female 71 male 0 male 0 female
0 female 0 male 78 male 58 male
52 male 0 male 76 male 82 female
84 female 75 female 16 male 22 female
75 male 87 female 53 male 69 male
96 male 52 female 0 male
89 female 79 female
76 female
84 female

Average age is ;
Family 1 61.45
Family 2 52.22
Family 3 54.85
Family 4 37.37

Must do the great grandparents next !!!!