I've never seen this before on a census
 

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interacti...=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.

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

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

https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interacti...&usePUBJs=true

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

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.

Brilliant

Yes I’ve seen deceased children listed

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.

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.