There’s lies, damned lies, and then there are census records.
Census information is only as reliable as the informant and the reliability of the informant can vary greatly.
There’s a myriad of reasons why an informant may intentionally incorrect information.
- intentional deception
- ignorance
- indifference
- inability to understand the question
There’s a host of reasons why a census taker may have to guess or make up information.
- inability to understand the informant
- informant’s unwillingness to answer questions
- refusal of the household to answer the door
One of my ancestral couples nearly tripled the amount of time they had been married.
Others shaved years off their ages or gave places of birth that were totally incorrect.
And then there are others whose enumerations are consistent from one year to another and with other, more reliable records.
It depends.
But remember–there are not just lies, damned lies, and statistics.
There’s also lies, damned lies, and census records.
Robin Realmuto says:
It’s funny that you’ve just posted this! I’m going through this right now. To try to shorten this, one of my great aunts from California (Charlotte Moore), had married Edward Thatcher. Edward made his living by becoming employed to mainly banks and rob them, across the country. They were busted in Miami. Edward went to jail- Leavenworth, San Quintin and Folsom. Charlotte went back to California and went by the name of Peggy Janney. Edward served just a few years in all the prisons. When he got out, he married Charlotte’s sister, under the name of David Douglas. Comparing the sister’s marriage certificates, brought it all together, as Edward used his mother’s maiden name: Rose Whalley on both. Whew!
Joe Starkey says:
Wow, that’s a crazy yet amazing story, I had a great grandfather that had a brother inlaw that did some what the same thing. Thanks for sharing
Fred Hinke says:
And then there is the random case where the census data is correct and the Vital Document lies. A somewhat distant family member’s marriage record has both the bride and groom as being 21 years old in 1920. They weren’t, he was only 18, she was only 14 and the 1930 census lists their ages at first marriage as 18 and 14 which is also consistent with other sources.
Kristy Gravlin says:
I had a maiden aunt who watched all her siblings marry…while she became younger and younger. Finally she managed to find a spouse and suddenly she became the age that made sense to her birth date on those early records. I have wondered how many others noticed…or didn’t notice…those unusual dates. My assumption is that she did not want to be an “old” old maid so she just kept nudging her birth year by several years each time the possibility arose.
Kaye Emerson says:
This post gave me reason to chuckle, I didn’t realize I wasn’t alone where these census records are concerned. I knew women would say they were widowed rather than husband ran away,etc. I’m hooked on genealogy no matter how often I feel like screaming. Thanks
Susan Hughes says:
Very interesting post and responses. I have encountered 2 women, both first wives in the early 20th century, who reported on the census as still being married to their husbands when it appears the husbands had already remarried. In one case, I can document the man’s second marriage 2 years prior to the census in which wife #1 claims him as her husband. There were several children from this first marriage and they were aware of their father’s remarriage, even visiting with him and his second wife. In the second case, it is possible the husband and wife #2 were never legally married as I can find no divorce record, marriage record for the second marriage, or birth record for the child of this second marriage. Wife #1 reported ‘married’ for the next 3 census rolls all the while living with her parents. There were no children from this marriage, so why not report ‘widowed’ if she was trying to avoid the stigma of desertion or divorce? We’ll never know.