Cassandra Austen in later life
Gentle readers, I am often asked questions by readers, some of which I answer and some of which go unrecognized. Be assured that if you are a student looking for me to do your research when all you have to do is poke into my pages, I shall remain silent. But if your question is intriguing enough, I might be stirred to action. Such is the case with Craig Piercey’s recent question, which goes like this:
Hi Vic
I was rummaging through the Census of 1841 when I came across something interesting. It lists Cassandra Austen of Chawton as 65 however, she died in 1845 aged 72 years. So, something is not right somewhere, either the census is wrong, there were two Cassandra Austen’s in Chawton (unlikely) or her age is wrong on her Grave Stone.
I enclose the census ledger – its on page 8 half way down. It has her listed as being of independent means.
Let me know your thoughts.
Cheers
Craig.
Ledger of the Chawton census, 1841
I could not give Craig an intelligent answer, for the first thought that came to me was that vanity had caused her to give the census taker a wrong age, but then I reasoned that perhaps an honest mistake had been made. I next thought of Tony Grant, who writes for both my blogs. Tony, a retired teacher, arranges customized tour packages for small groups of tourists. His resources are varied, and because he lives in England, he has quick access to historical registers and individuals who can help him. I asked Craig if I could share the question with Tony.
Hi Vic
Please feel free.
What confuses me is, somebody would have had to go round the houses in the village as it looks like the ledger was done by hand – no forms here… So, I’m guessing the nominated person must have actually met her and asked her her age. This would make the age on the Census probable but of course, not completely reliable. I seem to recall somewhere that it was originally clergymen who filled in the Census forms making her age being wrong even more unlikely as the clergyman at the time was her Nephew I think…
As for her grave stone… Well, I have never been to the church or the Great House, although I have been to her house and what I can say is that I have seen pictures of Cassandra’s grave and it look like it may have been moved as there was a fire in the late eighteen hundreds which gutted the original church and maybe the grave stones as well… Who knows, the age on the stones could be wrong… But, unlikely as there would have been family alive that would have known her intimately and surely would have noticed.
I would be interested to know the findings from this, maybe I’m just being stupid and have missed something obvious but, I think not.
Hope you are well, always a pleasure.
Craig.
After Tony returned from yet another of his tour excurions, I put the question to him. Still logy from his trip, he responded off the cuff:
Hi Vic
There were two Cassandras. Mrs Austen was also called Cassandra. This is off the top of my head…
Here’s a picture of the Chawton Church yard. Tell me if this answers the question.
No it doesn’t. Just checked Craig’s message. Need to look at this further.
Gravesite, Cassandra and Cassandra Austen
Tony then got in touch with the Hampshire records office in Winchester, and “asked them about the discrepancy between the census of 1841 and the inscription on Cassandra’s grave stone.” The answer came almost immediately.
Hi Vic,
Hampshire archives are on the ball today. They got back to me. Here is what they said:
Dear Mr. Grant,
Thank you for your enquiry.
Indeed Cassandra Austen was 72 at the time of her death, her birth being in 1773. I checked the 1841 census and I must admit Cassandra’s age does appear to be 65 on the census return. Her Brother, Henry, born in 1771, is correctly recorded as being 65 and Cassandra should, depending on the date of the census, be recorded as being 68. Either, the census enumerator recorded her age incorrectly at the time of the cenus or there could be a possibility that the number 65 is badly faded and the five was originally an 8 as the original copy of the census return is quite badly faded. Apart from this it is a mystery why she would record her age as 65.
I hope this is of some assistance to you.
Yours Sincerely
Steve JonesSteve Jones, Archives and Local Studies Assistant
Tony still wasn’t finished.
Closeup of the 1841 Census at Chawton
Hi Vic,
Just had a close look at the copy of the 1841 census you attached. There is no way that 5 was an 8. Somebody made a mistake in recording her age.They probably recorded Henry’s first,correctly as 65 and then got overawed by the domineering presence of Cassandra and either didn’t ask her her age or misheard out of confusion and recorded the same age as her brother.
You can just imagine the scene.
ANOTHER little dramatic episode one of our ,”writers,” could use.
All the best,
Tony
And there you have it, readers. Sometimes even the simplest question involves a great deal of thinking and searching. I am not sure we will ever solve the mystery, but I believe Tony and the Hampshire Records Office got as close to solving the mystery as anyone.
Update: But wait! The plot thickens. Who is the Henry below Cassandra Austen? If Henry Austen was born in 1771, he would have been 70 at the time of the census. Could the census taker have gotten the ages of both siblings wrong, or is this another Henry listed below Cassandra? I find it curious that his last name is not listed as Austen. The case becomes curiouser and curiouser.
Update #2: Laurel Ann pointed me to the site of the 1841 Census, which states,
Age and sex of each person:
Ages up to 15 are listed exactly as reported/recorded but ages over 15 were rounded to the nearest 5 years
(i.e. a person aged 53 would be listed on
the census as age 50 years).
If that is the case, what about Henry, who is already 70? His age would then be listed wrong, not Cassandra’s.
Thank you Craig and Tony for providing the content of this most enlivening and enlightening post! Vic
Update #3: Sarah Parry and Ray Moseley from Chawton House discussed the 1841 Census, as did Laurel Ann from Austenprose, which I featured on this post. Along with the comments below, we have a fairly comprehensive answer to the question. Thank you all for participating.
More about Tony Grant:
- Read his blog, London Calling
- Jane Austen Went to School
Jane Austen's World 
Vic – I LOVE this – fabulous sleuthing all around [thank goodness for Tony Grant! – a true Holmes at work!] – I think we can safely assume that Cassandra, like many a 68 year old, just stopped counting at 65 and gave her best answer to the census taker! Gotta love Craig for picking up on this…
Best,
deb
That was fascinating!
In my experience with censuses, you can never rely on them 100%.
I’ve been researching my ancestors for a while and I’ve found all kinds of things wrong on census reports, such as names spelled wrong or birth and marriage year wrong, or the person’s age is wrong.
I’ve come down to the conclusion that the census taker will just ask whoever answers the door rather than asking each person individually. They’ll take whatever name, years, etc that person gives them.
It’s frustrating, but it’s also kind of fun to do research and figure out the mistakes, such as what this post documented.
Couldn’t the ‘Do’ marked under Austen indicate short for "Ditto"? Hence the assumption it was Henry Austen might be quite valid.
I accidentally deleted your second comment because it came with a link. So sorry.
That might well be a mark for Ditto. Good catch!
Vic:
Based on the JASNA.org webpage, I believe the mysterious Eleanor who is listed under Henry’s name is Eleanor Jackson, his second wife who he married in 1820.
I tried posting this in a separate comment, but it did not like the webpage I tried to enter, even without HTML.
Meant to link to this page, sorry.
Agreed, ‘Do’ is a common abbreviation for Ditto on census forms. I find it interesting that Cassandra is listed first, as typically census takers will list first the head of household and then other family members/servants afterward, but maybe they were listed according to age. It appears they had four others in the household (FS = female servant, Ag Lab = agricultural labourer).
I may be reading too much into it, but it’s odd that so many individuals on that page are listed w/ages in multiples of 5. It makes me wonder if the Austens may not have been home when the census taker came around, and a neighbor estimated their ages as best he could (and got them wrong). That’s my wild guess!
How fascinating, Vic!
Who is the name beneath Henry?
At first I rationalized that it must be Elizabeth, Edward Knight’s daughter who was born in 1800 which would mean her age is spot on but she went by Elizabeth Knight surely? And the name looks more like ‘Eleanor’ as I don’t see the high stem indicating the ‘b’ or the curve of the ‘z’ as is shown so clearly three names above Cassandra’s.
If ‘do’ means ‘ditto’ who was Eleanor Austen? I’ve never heard of her!
The Austen Family Tree
My guess is that she was Eleanor Austen, nee Jackson, Henry Austen’s second wife.
Thank you Cinthia! I hadn’t realized Henry Austen married again. I’ve yet to do my research on him. ;)
What a mystery! I think it’s more likely that there is a mistake in the census documents than on the gravestone – the family would have checked the dates on the gravestone. I’m assuming that the census will have been done through a door-to-door inquiry whereby a clerk is sent out to interview the inhabitants of the village and interviews whoever is at the door – mishearing, writing errors and other mistakes are likely to have taken place.
Not to spoil all the speculative fun and mystery, but I have an answer. The census enumerator did report their ages correctly according to the government’s rules for the census of 1841.
If you notice that anyone older in age than 15 on the two pages of the census that you have included either end in 0 or 5. That was because the census ages were rounded up or down 5 years. Ages of children under 15 were listed exactly. It was not until the 1851 UK census that exact year of birth was used for adults. I am surprised that the Hampshire record office did not know this since they are the official representative for the Registrar General of the UK governmen.
The 1841 UK census was not compiled by the clergy. Prior to 1836 the church was responsible for recording births, marriage and deaths in their church records, Quakers being the exception. After 1836 government reforms, it was the duty of the new Registrar General to collect vital statistics and the census.
Not a smarty pants, promise. I have done extensive family research in England and spent many hours online looking a census records.
Here is a link to an introduction to the 1841 UK census. http://www.uk1841census.com/intro.php
Cheers, Laurel Ann
Thank you, Laurel Ann. Your answer provides an explanation. The 1841 census site states:
Age and sex of each person:
Ages up to 15 are listed exactly as reported/recorded but ages over 15 were rounded to the nearest 5 years
(i.e. a person aged 53 would be listed on
the census as age 50 years).
Just a question, though. Rounding off the ages makes sense for Cassandra, but not for Henry, who was already the rounded off age of 70. This means that his age would have been estimated wrong, if the “do” stands for Ditto.
The mystery continues! Last night I sent a query to Chawton House library. I am curious to see what their answer will be.
I LOVE these collective mystery solutions.
Laural Ann, thanks for that. I’ve e-mailed Steve at the Hampshire records office with the link. You are right. He should have known. Maybe he is just starting in the job. It does say he is an assistant.
Another thing. It just says that the ages were rounded to the nearest 5. If that was so, then Cassandra should be listed as being 70, she was 68 at the time. Obviously it means rounding down to the nearest 5. Imagine all those 18th century ladies if years were added to their real age. The suffragette movement would have begun a century early. Revolution would have been in the air.
I wonder if the mysterious ‘Eleanor’ could be Henry’s wife, based on the following line from the jasna.org webpage:
(Link-
http://www.jasna.org/persuasions/printed/opno1/grey.htm)
“Henry had remarried in 1820. His wife was Eleanor Jackson, a long-standing acquaintance of the family. Cassandra considered her “an excellent wife” but noted that she suffered from poor health.”
Well this goes to show that even first hand documents are not always trust-worthy; especially when and/or if human vanity gets involved. In what year was this census recorded? In 1840? Or did I miss the census date?
1841 :)
Rounding on a census! That’s frustrating for family historians! My ancestors were illiterate Irish who mined coal in PA. In one cenus they might be 85, in the next 77. Sometimes they aged 20 years in ten. Their ages were in the Bibilical sense in that over 80 was of a great age and that was all you needed to know.
Tony, Did you have your Sherlock Holmes’ hat on and a magnifying glass?
Thanks, Vic. You went to a lot of trouble to answer that question.
Thanks, Mary. I must really thank Craig for spotting this curious mistake (or not) in the first place. When I enlisted Tony’s help, I had no idea that answering Craig’s question would be so hard!
My! What fun! Congratulations Craig for spotting the mystery in the first place!
Hi Guys
Pleased my discovery gave so much enjoyment – I love stuff like this.
Also, pleased the mystery appears to be solved – thanks to all involved. I’ll have to try and dig up some more stuff, now I have excellent resources in all of you to fall back on.
Cheers
Craig.
[…] age, which was 68 at the time the census was taken, but was listed as 65. To review the situation, click on this link and read the emails sent to explain the […]
The 1841 census instructions to the enumerators was to round down to the next 5 year increment for all those over the age of 15.
A very useful website for those searching the 1841 census is at:
The section titled, “1841 Enumerator’s Instructions” is very useful.
Regards,
John
Did you ever find out any more about the Eleanor Austen living in the same household as Cassandra Austen in 1841?
In the 1851 Census there’s just one record of an Eleanor Austen (Widow) born 1796 and she is living at Little Grove House, Tunbridge, Tunbridge Wells, Kent.
This Eleanor Austen was born in the City of London and her occupation is listed a “Fund Holder”.
Cheers
Ruth
Just to really confuse matters about the 1841 census, a large proportion of the census enumerators didn’t understand their instructions (1-15, actual age, >15 round down to nearest 5, so 68 becomes 65 etc.) but entered the actual age! It really was a bit of a mess.
I wasn’t in the least bit surprised that Cassandra’s age was a bit off. I’ve have the same experience with census info being inaccurate up through the 1930’s. Dates of immigration, ages, etc, varied across a 40-year period by as much as ten years. Sometimes, initials are substituted for names on a census which contains very little other info, like the one above. Very frustrating when your ancestor isn’t related to someone famous. I can imagine that the process involved visting more families (with many more children) than would be the case today and a lot more walking/fatigue.