ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2008-05 > 1211240685


From: "" <>
Subject: Re: [Ess] Did he lie?
Date: Mon, 19 May 2008 18:44:45 -0500


And also if I remember correctly...the 1841 rounded the age off...can't
remember for sure how that worked, though.

Lainee

> [Original Message]
> From: <>
> To: david moss <>
> Cc: Essex mailing list <>
> Date: 5/20/2008 6:40:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ess] Did he lie?
>
> 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?


This thread: