2 is my lowest also, father aged 10 months on 1911 census.
Hi Liberty, if you click on Type at the top of the Search page, it will sort everyone in order. You then need to scroll down to Direct Ancestors.
I love this feature and wouldn't have embarked on this thread if we didn't have access to it. I've also just had another look at the new feature that allows us to see the order in which we enter cousins. My very first entry, a family I marked, in properly hesitant fashion, as "possible relative", is still one I can't properly identify.
My lowest is also my father - age 6 - on the 1911 census. My highest is 62. I have a lot of gaps in the numbers because a quarter of my ancestors were Scottish.
My 3xgt-grandparents - 6 sets on Lost Cousins - were all born in the 1780s and 1790s, so my family have somehow squeezed in an extra generation compared to yours, Gillian. My father was 43 when I was born, so I suppose most people of my age would expect to find grandparents rather than a parent in the 1911 census. My grandfather, on the other hand, was only 20 when my father was born.
I do so agree and have been doing just that recently, following the movement of several brothers, including my 2xgt-grandfather, and their families from a village in Somerset to Portsmouth in the late 1800s. They started as smiths of one sort or another - black-, gun- or bright smiths - and ended up as engineers, some in the navy. It's also been a thrill finding great-aunts and great-uncles, whom I remember well from my childhood, on the 1911, 1901 and even the 1891 censuses when they were young themselves.
Just picked up on this thread. I'd never sorted by type before, so thanks for the tip. My highest number is 238 (b. 1771) and my lowest is 4 (as both my parents were born after 1911). My husband's highest are 194 and 195; this couple were both in their 90s in 1841 (b. 1747 and 1750).
I would be surprised if anybody has because they would be 108 years old now.
