I've never seen this before on a census

[Margaret in Burton]

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/2352/rg14_18199_0401_03?pid=21866380&treeid=&personid=&rc=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=UMX2909&_phstart=successSource

The ages are in years and months, the time married is also in years and month and it lists the youngest child as born 1st April 1911.

[kiterunner]

But presumably "grandfather" and "grandmother" should be "father-in-law" and "mother-in-law"?

[Margaret in Burton]

But presumably "grandfather" and "grandmother" should be "father-in-law" and "mother-in-law"?

Yes I presume so. Didn’t look into it as it’s the in-laws and I was looking at the Oldbury name

[JayG]

I can go one better than that, ages followed by day & month of birth.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/2352/rg14_29698_0079_03?pid=36437835&backurl=https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv%3D1%26dbid%3D2352%26h%3D36437835%26t id%3D%26pid%3D%26usePUB%3Dtrue%26_phsrc%3Daao3%26_ phstart%3DsuccessSource&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=aao3&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true

They also record a son who has passed away, although I know this isn't uncommon.

[Phoenix]

I suppose they started with the baby "under 1 month" and just applied the principle to everyone else.

Interesting that nobody has moved the children of the marriage to the correct line, or chased for that information on the Smarts.

[Margaret in Burton]

I can go one better than that, ages followed by day & month of birth.

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/2352/rg14_29698_0079_03?pid=36437835&backurl=https://search.ancestry.co.uk/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv%3D1%26dbid%3D2352%26h%3D36437835%26t id%3D%26pid%3D%26usePUB%3Dtrue%26_phsrc%3Daao3%26_ phstart%3DsuccessSource&treeid=&personid=&hintid=&usePUB=true&_phsrc=aao3&_phstart=successSource&usePUBJs=true

They also record a son who has passed away, although I know this isn't uncommon.

Brilliant

Yes I’ve seen deceased children listed

[Kit]

But presumably "grandfather" and "grandmother" should be "father-in-law" and "mother-in-law"?

Maybe they were just excited at being new-again grandparents?

I love details census, especially when they list any deceased children. I hate recording a child as unknown, dead before 1911, although it is better than not being counted at all.

[Nell]

On my ex's tree I found on 1911 census a list of children that made no sense till I realised the children were all dead. Several boys and girls with the same names who died under the age of 5. So sad, but at least they are recorded.