Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
which would you beleive???
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Margaretfinch | Report | 6 Feb 2004 16:26 |
|
Hi Which would you beleive A marriage cert. which sates he is 24 or the census 10 years later which say's he is 44, I cann't find a birth cert. for him at all Margaret |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Elizabeth | Report | 6 Feb 2004 16:41 |
|
I found someone who is 30 on a census, but when he gets married 5 years later is 29. Presumably he didn't want his 23 year old wife to know he was 35! Maybe yours is a similar thing? |
|||
|
AnninGlos | Report | 6 Feb 2004 16:59 |
|
Can you check other censuses to see if they are consistent with the one you have? Ann Glos |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Irene | Report | 6 Feb 2004 19:52 |
|
Similar expericences, I have a death certficate which states he is 58 but in the church records he is 48. also marriage certficates, the church copy which is on fiche and the copy from the indexing the ages are different. I must add that this would be 150 years ago, but I would believe the church records as the information on the certficates from the indexing were only copied by hand back then. Irene |
|||
|
Geoff | Report | 6 Feb 2004 20:46 |
|
I had a couple whose right ages were on the 1881 and 1891, but on 1901 he had aged by 7yrs and she by only 5! |
|||
|
Geoff | Report | 7 Feb 2004 23:00 |
|
Regarding ages, on the 1841 census (I'm not sure when the practice stopped) the emumerators were instructed to record 14s and under as the correct age, 15-19 as 15, 20-24 as 20 etc. Sometimes they forgot and put the correct age in anyway. |
|||
|
Lisa J in California | Report | 7 Feb 2004 23:31 |
|
An Essex ancestor and his family were listed with their exact ages; wasn't "rounded" like it could have been. However... On a Canadian census I have an ancestor who put down 1840 because his wife was born in 1851 or 1852 (he should have been 1837). A relative lied to get into the military (too young) and lied again when he was too old to be allowed (he got in both times). My mum's father lied to get into the military. A close relative has lied all her life because she doesn't want people to know her true age! Good luck! |
|||