Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
1901 - 1911: The longest 10 years in the Irish State
Options
-
04-06-2010 3:07pm#1So, 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.
2
Comments
-
-
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 ?? 0 -
-
-
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 0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
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
0 -
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 0 -
Advertisement
-
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.0 -
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.
:) 0 -
-
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.0 -
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??0 -
-
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:0 -
-
-
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.
Damo0 -
Advertisement
-
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....0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement