ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2008-05 > 1211240428


From: <>
Subject: Re: [Ess] Did he lie?
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 11:40:28 +1200
References: <aa17fd700805191621v76c6b46avfc2e36ad2745d7be@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aa17fd700805191621v76c6b46avfc2e36ad2745d7be@mail.gmail.com>


The age on the death certificate relies on the person giving the
information to the registrar, and they could be upset at the death of a
loved one, or not know the true age of the deceased or know any other facts
they are required to give. I always regard death certificates with the
utmost suspicion (and he probably did lie......)


On Mon, 19 May 2008 16:21:31 -0700, "david moss" <>
wrote:
> JAMES MOSS said he was 35 on the 1841 census, so b.1806. Said 44 on the
> 1851 census, so b.1807. Did not appear on the 1861 census and wife was
> "widow". The only James Moss who died between 1851 and 1861 in the right
> location (Essex, Great Stambridge, where his widow lived in 1861) died
> 1859
> aged 58, so b.1801. There is a headstone in the local church saying just
> that. His second wife was 15 years younger than he was and their last
> child
> was born 1860 right at the end of his life (?). Did he lie about his age
> on
> the censuses because of his young wife? *More important*, is the age on
> the
> death certificate generally the *most* reliable? Or, have I got the
wrong
> death? Anybody got any ideas as to which data I can trust?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Any problems, please contact the List Admin:
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: