Page 303 - Just another English family (Sep 2019)

families – Elizabeth (c.1782) is a visitor in the household of William Williamson, while Samuel (c.1834) is a lodger in a separate household. Of the males mentioned in this paragraph, only Sam (c.1834) could be expected to have appeared in the 1841 Census, but there is no such individual immediate apparent. The only real contender is Samuel (c.1829) – the son of Thomas and Elizabeth – but a five-year age discrepancy seems too big to overlook without further evidence that these two Sam/Samuels are the same person.
Of the other males in the 1851 Census whom one would have expected to be in the 1841 Census, there are eight contenders – James (c.1819), George (c. 1829), David (c.1833), Benjamin (c.1841), Frederic (c.1839), Squire (c.1841), James (c.1784) and John (c.1810). Only David (c.1833) has a direct equivalent in the 1841 Census, while George (c.1835) in the 1841 Census could be the same person as George (c.1829), but a six-year age discrepancy is again too much to overlook at this stage.
David (c.1833) shown in the more authoritative 1851 Census – where relationships are definitely indicated – is displayed as the son of John (c.1805) and Hannah (c.1806) – but David (c.1833) is shown in the 1841 Census as the grandson of David (c.1775) and Judith (c.1771). I had previously assumed that David was the son of Thomas (c.1813) and Ellen (c.1805) who were also based in this household in 1841, but perhaps this assumption is misplaced. Or perhaps there are two Davids (c.1833)!
So, of the 13 males in the 1851 Census who could reasonably have been expected to feature in the 1841 Census, only two – William (c.1827) and David (c. 1833) – actually did so. There were tow others – Squire and Benjamin – who were actually born in 1841 but, as the census usually comes quite early in the year, the likelihood of these two appearing in the 1841 Census is somewhat diminished.
But what of the females who appear in the1851 Census? Of course, 299