Birth order in census

Question

I DID try to search before posting this, but couldn't really see that it had been asked before.

I've got an ancestor where in the 1850 and 1860 Censuses, his children are listed in descending birth order ... how I typically expect to see it.  But then there are 3 more children at end that don't follow the order.  The 3 themselves are in descending order but don't mix in with the rest.  In the 1860 census, the order is maintained exactly the same except one additional was placed on very bottom (and some older children had moved out).

Does this imply that those 3 (or 4) actually AREN'T his children but perhaps the children of one of his grown daughters living in the same house?  Or perhaps adopted from another relative?  Thoses censuses didn't specifiy relation, only gender.  And dittoes are used all the way down for the last name.

Anyone have any thoughts?

Comments

It would help if we knew Mother and Father names,date birth and where they lived.

---

There's no firm rule about it. but it often does mean that they're not the children of the head of the household.

---

I've found the current children of the most recent marriage will be listed first.  Below will follow children of a previous marriage for instance in the death of the first wife.

---

Yes, it would REALLY help if I knew their parents, haha, that’s why I’m doing this in the first place!  :) Here’s the actual data, I probably didn’t explain well enough.

1850 Census

Elias Brown Age 52

Susannah Brown Age 42

Lavica Brown Age 25

Mary Brown Age 22

Elizabeth Brown Age 20

Thomas Brown Age 19

James Brown Age 17

Hardin Brown Age 15

Lucinda Brown Age 13

George Brown Age 12

Arminta Brown Age 10

Sopha Brown Age 8

Hamilton Brown Age 6

Lafayett Brown Age 4

Alexander Brown Age 2

Martha Brown Age 7

Matilda Brown Age 3

Elender Brown Age 0

1860 Census

Elias Brown Age 63

Susannah Brown Age 52

Lavica Brown Age 34

Elizabeth Brown Age 28

Arminta Brown Age 19

Hamilton Brown Age 16

Lafayett Brown Age 14

Alexander Brown Age 11

Martha Brown Age 16

Matilda Brown Age 12

Manerva Brown Age 8

Sarah Age 5

If you notice in both, the age order “resets” after Alexander.

My question is … does this type of entry suggest the children listed after Alexander aren’t Elias’?

---

and thanks for all the quick replies.  I think I' ve got what I needed to know ... most likely not their direct children.  So now I'm going down a bunch of rabbit holes.  FWIW ... I have found a Matilda Upton of the right age in the neigboring county in the 1870 census with a Martha Brown in the same house as a housekeeper also the right age.  When I looked up Matilda's headstone the entry listed her as Matilda Brown Upton ... so maybe, just maybe ... reaching out to others for more info.

thanks again!

Answer 1

It could mean children or grandchildren or nieces or adoptees.  It's risky to draw conclusions from the census order.  Maybe you can find the 3 or 4 in later censuses or other records, for a better picture.

Comments

And some families where there was clearly only one set of children - every two years like clockwork -  they are not listed in order.  I always wonder if the older ones just arrived home from school or work....   or perhaps their parents didn't think of them as "children" if they were of working age and so they were an afterthought.  Sometimes it's more clear that a baby and a two-year old are more likely to be  the children of the 23 year old daughter than the 45 year old mother, but I'd continue to look for more info before making that assumption.

Answer 2

You might also consider other relationships. My great-grandfather's parents died leaving their children orphans. My grandfather, who was only 4, and one older sister went live with someone who is, I believe, their step-uncle or step-grandfather. Two other children went to live with an older half-brother. People then seem to have been really good about stepping up when the need was required to take in orphaned children. Often when the census was taken, the people responding to the enumerator didn't see the need to give correct surnames of children who may or may not have been their own biological children. This is why it's so wonderful when we can find other records to support any theories we might have. Best wishes on solving your mystery!

Answer 3

There was an actual policy about it in the census instructions for some years. For instance, in the 1850 US census, they were supposed to list the children of the head first, with "other inmates" following.

"The names are to be written, beginning with the father and mother; or if either, or both, be dead, begin with some other ostensible head of the family; to be followed, as far as practicable, with the name of the oldest child residing at home, then the next oldest, and so on to the youngest, then the other inmates, lodgers and borders, laborers, domestics, and servants."

https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/technical-documentation/questionnaires/1850/1850-instructions.html

Answer 4

I think it must have depended on how the enumeration interview went. I have seen instances where all of the children were children of both parents (because I had already found their birth records which said so), but, in some cases, the boys were listed first, and then the girls¹. In other cases, most of the kids were listed, and then one or two older children got added, almost like an afterthought, which makes me wonder if the person who answered the door just counted up the kids in the house, and only then remembered that Ferdinand Junior was out working his after-school job or something.

1. Which makes me want to cry "sexist!", but I've already got a hate on against enumerators because so many of them had atrocious handwriting and/or spelling, so I should probably try to pick my fights.

Answer 5

You can't really make any assumptions based on census order. I've seen too many variants. Birth order, all boys then all girls, all girls then all boys, random. The separation might be meaningful but those census records can't be used to infer anything other than they were in the household and an approximate age. With other evidence, they might lend some support to a hypothesis but nothing by themselves.

There are a lot of possibilities:

• Could be Elias's but for some reason that is the order they are thought of.
• Could be Elias's and Susannah is a second wife and the children are listed in family groups.  Given Lavica's age, Susannah would have been 17 when she was born so a second marriage is a possibility.
• Could be grandchildren
• Could be children of a brother or cousin of Elias
• Could be children of Lavica

Too many possibitlies.