This is a classic mistake which I thought I'd share to show how assumptions can be dangerous!

I found the Stanbridge family in the 1841 census living in Albion Street, Rotherhithe, consisting of James (age 53) and Ann (52), Sarah (23) George (18) and Eliza (10). I make a quick assumption that these last three are the children of the first two, on the basis of age.

Now I go back to find baptisms for them all. I find another 5 children baptised to James and Ann of Rotherhithe, with James listed as a carpenter, and while Eliza is there too, Sarah and George aren't. There is an Ann born the same year as Sarah's stated age, so maybe she was known as Sarah? But no George to be found with James and Ann as parents.

Meanwhile, I have traced George's marriage and children through the censuses and still have him as James and Ann's son. With LMA's fantastic baptisms, marriages and burial records availabile via Ancestry, I am able to view George's marriage certificate to Elizabeth Lush in 1845, but who is his father? George Stanbridge, also a carpenter!! He is likely to be a nephew of James who may have been adopted or just staying with the familiy at the time of the 1841 census - that is to find out...

There is a serious lesson here. The 1841 census did not record relationship to head, although subsequent censuses did, so do not assume that just because householders share surnames, they are necessarily closely related... This was an elementary mistake, but one I'm sure many of us make too often.

I now need to find Sarah's marriage to find out who her father is.