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.
Results 21 to 23 of 23
Thread: Possible illegitmate child?
-
20-03-2012, 2:23 PM #21
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
- Location
- Norfolk
- Posts
- 1,359
-
21-03-2012, 8:42 PM #22IainGuest
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
-
21-03-2012, 11:15 PM #23
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- SW France
- Posts
- 1,018
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 :-)
RG13/2658/87/25Last edited by Mona; 21-03-2012 at 11:16 PM. Reason: add ref.
Helping you trace your British Family History & British Genealogy.
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:50 AM.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5
Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.
Bookmarks