ESSEX-UK-L Archives

Archiver > ESSEX-UK > 2008-05 > 1211269032


From: Anne Peat <>
Subject: Re: [Ess] Did he lie?
Date: Tue, 20 May 2008 08:37:12 +0100
References: <aa17fd700805191621v76c6b46avfc2e36ad2745d7be@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <aa17fd700805191621v76c6b46avfc2e36ad2745d7be@mail.gmail.com>


In the 1841 census ages of adults were rounded down to the nearest 5
years - so anyone aged 36-39 would have been registered as 35. Ages on
death certificates are unreliable unless it is a child and the parents
are giving the information. The person most likely to know is the
deceased! Also at that time people were far less clear about what age
they were. There weren't lots of paper records as there are now, and
nobody in ordinary families made a big thing of birthdays. If he was
orphaned early in life, he may genuinely not have known his exact age.

It may well be the right death cert - but you may have to look wider
afield in time and place for the baptism.

HTH
Anne
On 20 May 2008, at 00:21, 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: