Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 23 of 23
  1. #21
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Norfolk
    Posts
    1,359

    Default

    I wouldn't be put off by inconsistencies in ages of ancestors, ie 51 in 1861, 58 in 1871. Unlike today, ages weren't that important. And for reasons people could knock off years or add on years when marrying. When I first began genealogy I used to take ages at face value until I realised that ages were not as important and people were quite casual with their age.

  2. #22
    Iain
    Guest

    Default

    Hi all,

    Sorry for the delay in responding. I am certain of my starting point of the 1911 census. My Mother in Law can identify the whole family, including her mother, Elsie May Myatt. RG 14 Piece 16898 refers. Richard is aged 39 and Elizabeth is aged 37.

    I have the marriage certificate for Richard and Elizabeth dated the 13th of April 1891, which has no fathers name for Elizabeth, hence my origianl question. Here Richard is aged 24 and Elizabeth is aged 20.

    Elizabeth's birth certificate says she was born on the 12th of October 1871, which ties in with the age on hte marriage certificate.

    Have I gone wwrong?

    Thanks

  3. #23
    Famous for offering help & advice
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    SW France
    Posts
    1,018

    Default

    In 1901 census Richard is age 31 and Elizabeth age 29 (which is exact going by her birth certificate). Looks like they both wanted to appear younger in 1911 :-)
    RG13/2658/87/25
    Last edited by Mona; 21-03-2012 at 11:16 PM. Reason: add ref.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Select a file: