Yorkshire family has 6 generations alive at the same time

[kiterunner]

Did the Guardian do any fact-checking? What about this? Or did she emigrate and it isn't mentioned in the article?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-together.html

[kiterunner]

Or this one, though I haven't found the original article yet:
https://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-86854701.html

[Merry]

Re the Vine/Sutton family - I've got fed up with them at the moment! Eliza says she had 13 children on the 1911 census but I've got 14 names just from the census and one more from the baptism records! I think I found her 'husband' single in 1851 (in Hackney?) so I don't know who the eldest two children belong to (Wm and George, whose ages vary even more than the other children!).

Eliza wasn't bap until 1831 (and nothing to suggest she wasn't a baby) and then to unmarried parents Joseph Vine and Eliza(beth?) Hills. I first thought some of Eliza Sutton's children had been registered with mmn Hills, but I see there are several families (or at least two!) with the Sutton/Hills combination.

I can't find Joseph Vine and his 'wife' in 1841 to confirm they have Eliza aged 10 with them, but they appear in later censuses. I can't find Eliza Sutton/Hills/Vine in 1851 to see if she already had those two sons (Wm and Geo). So many of the other children have variable ages and places of birth I found myself going round in circles. I thought if a family can't tell the ages of their children when they are teens and under what's the chances of them knowing how many generations of descendants they have!

[kiterunner]

Lol.

But from looking at those other articles, I don't think the Yorkshire family are the first in Britain in recent memory anyway.

[Mary from Italy]

Originally Posted by kiterunner

Did the Guardian do any fact-checking?

Doesn't look like it, does it!

[Merry]

No.

I've not read all the articles, but the one I did read didn't suggest, within the article, that they were the only or first British family of six living gens but the only current living family with that situation. The headline on the one I read did suggested a new British record though.

In 1868 George Sutton, master sweep of Sevenoaks, was charged with allowing his son Richard, a lad of twelve to ascend a chimney for the purpose of sweeping it. Richard was listed as aged 2 in 1861 and 12 in 1871, so I doubt he was 12 in 1868. (I have given up with their tree, but was just being nosy re the newspapers)

Wikipedia:

The Chimney Sweepers and Chimneys Regulation Act 1840 made it illegal for anyone under the age of 21 to sweep chimneys. It was widely ignored. Attempts were made in 1852 and 1853 to reopen the issue, another enquiry was convened and more evidence was taken. There was no bill. The Chimney Sweepers Regulation Act 1864 tightened controls significantly, by authorizing fines and imprisonment for master sweeps who were ignoring the law, giving the police the power of arrest on suspicion and authorizing Board of Trade inspections of new and remodelled chimneys. Lord Shaftesbury was a main proponent of the Bill.

George was fined 10s plus 2s costs.

[HarrysMum]

I had five in a straight maternal line. If my mother had been the eldest child, we could have got six.

My grandmother was born 1894, her daughter 1928, me 1955, my daughter 1973, my granddaughter 1990. Grandma died in 1991 and Mum in 1993.

[Kit]

I met all my grandparents, although I don't remember my grandmother. She died before I turned 1.

I have a 4 generations photo of my grandad, father, me and my 3 eldest kids.

I also have a 4 generation photo on my OHs paternal line but off hand can't remember which of my children were in it.

I just remembered I have met my paternal great grandma. Again I don't remember but I do have photos of the occasion. I don't remember if my Grandad was in any of the photos though.