Genealogy Chat

the reason i ask is this------my g.grandfather was born in 1865--on his marriage cert for 1897 it says he was aged 30!! should'nt he have been 32? on his death cert of 1925 it says he was aged 55!! again----should'nt he have been 60?? my g.grandmother [his wife] on the marriage cert it gives her age as 26, she was born 1874, should'nt she have been 23?? or am i doing my sums wrong?? i wasn't very good at maths in school,but i can add up!! chris.

No, they were often unsure of their exact age, ages did not mean as much to them in those days, as it does today. Jennifer

Age at death is only as accurate as knowledge of informant Jay

Chris, my grandfather (who was killed in 1930} has a headstone and death cert which says age 62 (born 1868)....I think my gran thought he was that age....but I think he was actually born 1859. I don't think they really cared....too busy putting food on the table.

People didnt really celebrate birthdays (I remember my dad saying he didnt know what a birthday was) - and so many of their parents died when the kids were young, probably just having a rough year was good enough for them. Am not saying that every one of them had no idea of their right birthday, but a fair number I should think!

What about the censuses? How does his age compare on those? Rose

on 1891 census he was 26, 1901 looks like 38,but there is a line through it, should of been 36.

I have some who gain 15 years from one census to the next, and then others who only age by 5 or 6 years. I think I'll go for aging just 5 years in the next 10. Kath. x

I have been searching for my Great Granda for three years now. His census age changes as does is age when he marries. I recently found his death cert. I knew he died in between two family weddings but didnt know what district. He should have been aged anywhere from 55 to 65 but when I found his death cert his son registered him as aged about 72 years old. Still cant find his birth ha ha ha, he could have been about 102 when he died for all I know ..........

On the early census, (e.g. 1841/1851) the census takers were told to round ages up and down (I don't know why) but this is contained in the introductory notes to each of the census - this is yet another reason why there are differences - not always our ancestors faults. Wendy

In less bureaucratic times, people wouldn't be filling in forms all the time the way we do. They wouldn't be joining a public library, opening a bank account, setting up credit cards, getting a passport, applying for jobs in writing, filling in pension claims etc the way we are. They might never have needed to write their birth date down. Not surprising if they lost track a bit. Mind you, the winner has to be a distant connection of my husband - 1841 Emma Dennison 4 1851 Emma 13 [9 years older than previous census] 1861 Emma Denison abt 21 [8 years older than previous census] 1871 Emma Dennison 28 [7 years older than previous census] 1881 Emma Denison 31 [3 years older than previous census] 1891 Emma Denison 40 [9 years older than previous census] 1901 Emma Denison 52 [12 years older than previous census] 1903 Denison, Emma Age at death: 76 [informant spitefully made Emma 10 years older than she really was, perhaps to make up for the porkies told in 1871 & 1881!]