Find Ancestors

thomas kight born c 1808 in south cerney gloucs, cant find him on 1841 census or his marriage, he had a daughter sarah born 1823 in south cerney, please HELP

There is a tree on ancestry, she married William Olliver. In 1841 she is a servant to a farmer. The tree has Thomas in 1861, widower, servant to a man called Edmund Hopkinson age 74, I can't make out his occupation, but there are a lot of servants for one man!

thank for that, but im still struggling with thomas marriage, i know he married a mary, ive searched the census but im at a loss, thanks for your reply anyway
best wishes jane

But do you think this is your Thomas in 1861? And your Sarah in 1841? Did yours marry a William Olliver? Saves me looking for others if this seems right.

Confirming information you have might be important to the search.

I have lots of Knights in my tree; most of them are from Newent. Unfortunately I don't have a Thomas born in 1808 in South Cerney. I'd like to help but may not have the info you need.

yes, ive got the right kight, sarah did marry william olliver in london, on the marriage cert it gives thomas as sarahs dad, i wonder if this is a classic of thomas perhaps being his second name. thanks for your help.

I have the Gloucestershire Marriage Index 1800-1837 and there is only one marriage for a Thomas Knight and a Mary:

21 July 1821 at Berksley
Thomas KNIGHT
Mary Ann KING
Banns

This would not fit with a birth c1808 (neither does his fathering a child at 15 in those days !!)

If born in 1823 she would have been 19 when she married in 1841

thankyou so much for your input. i have been in contact with the glouc family history records office and they tell me that the birth date given is rounded up or down to the nearest five years, so it is possible that you have it correct, i will research more and once again thanks

Jane, what birthdate is rounded up or down? The ages of adults on the 1841 census are rounded down (if the enumerator did his job as instructed), so a person age 20-24 would be recorded as 20, and a person age 15-19 would be recorded as 15. But your Sarah was recorded as 18 (born 1823), so we can assume the enumerator did not obey instructions.

Thomas Kight is age 56 in 1861, so born 1805 - just old enough to be her father. So in 1841, again if the enumerator was working to rule, Thomas would be listed as age 35, born 1809.

Corinne and Elizabeth, the surname is Kight, not Knight, though could have been mis-spelt.

why didnt they be more precise, im researching thomas and mary king at the moment, you have helped me alot thankyou

Ah-sorry about that-my mistake-Kight NOT Knight gives us this:-

Marriage-26 May 1817 at South Cerney
Thomas KIGHT
Mary LITTLE
by Banns

elizabeth, youre a star, thank you so very much
best wishes
jane

But that makes him only 12 on marriage. That's if the one found in 1861 is him.

i think he was born 1800. this gets so confusing
regards jane

Then he might not be the one we found in 1861, but ages can be out by a few years. Pity we can't find him in 1851, or a death.

i think it might be a case of back to the drawing board dont you?

Perhaps. I'm not sure which drawing board though.