For the Society, I'm currently recording the monumental inscriptions in a local cemetery.
I've taken the opportunity to compare the facts given in the Church burial register to the facts on the memorial headstones.
In twenty eight cases ( 6% ) I’m very surprised that the age given in the burial register is different to that given on the memorial.
I've only looked at cases where the age is actually stated, as opposed to calculating the age from the difference between the birth and death years.
In twenty three cases, the age given in the burial register is 1 year different to that on the memorial.
For example, a lady is stated as being 102 years old in the burial register but her memorial states
she was 103.
In two cases, the age given in the burial register is 2 years different to that on the memorial.
In another two cases, the age given in the burial register is 9 years younger than that on the memorial. Both ladies who were 9 years older than thought!
Also in one case, the year of death in the burial register is 1 year earlier than that on the memorial.
They are not transcription errors, I have photographs of the registers and the memorials.
The phrase, which can sometimes cause confusion, "in his 80th year" isn't often used.
These are recent Registers and memorials where the writing is very clear. 1940 to 2009.
It seems that even in this ‘modern’ age, friends and family don’t know our age.
Gwynne
http://www.rafbridgnorth.org.uk
Hello Gwynne
That is really interesting. I suppose the discrepancy between the burial register and the grave stone can to some extent be explained if there is a considerable time lag between the burial and the erection of the stone and of course the two events may not have been organised by the same person. It would be interesting to see what ages are recorded in the Civil Registration Indexes for these people.
With regard to the older people being buried I think there comes a time when you quote your next birthday rather than your last one so this could explain a few.
Mike
I agree with Michael on the explanation of some discrepancies. In Montgomeryshire it was common for MIs to recite death, say “in her 70th year”, while investigation often shows that this really meant “aged 70”.
MGS, through David Petley-Jones and his team, have always compared MIs against burial registers, and so it is delightful to learn of Gwynne’s similar standard. Ideally many parishes’ MIs could do with review, if stones remain legible. Perhaps readers might care to pinpoint some where gross errors are known. I might start off with Kinnerley and Meole Brace. But at least the old (meaning former) Women’s Institute teams will have recorded much that is now lost.
I do not follow Mr Dodd’s reference to “charade”. Inconsistencies in ages at Census are a different and well-known matter.
Beg to differ on the charade. Reducing their age was a deliberate effort by some people and consistent across consecutive census and quite often apparent on the marriage certificate as well.
I am not talking about random variences.
I currently have 16,000 relatives in my family and have done a lot of research for others for many years and have seen this deception in Australia, the UK and the USA.
I would not dispute Mr Dodd's perceived facts, but would challenge the assertion that there was some fraudulent motive behind such errors. Many people must have been uncertain of their year of birth. Close to home, a highly respectable great-grandfather consistently overstated his age by two years, and this was carried into his MI. There was a clear reason - the earlier age was that of a sibling of same name who died as an infant. (I personally do not wish to pursue this topic, nor to compare experience in research and achievements).
Had to check French dictionary to see what a charade is ! (it is a guessing game) & even now, don't understand the significance of its use here...
In my mumble opinion, half the time they had NO IDEA ! how old they were ! No schooling, hardly able to read and write, no computers or telephones; the fartherst most of them travelled was to the local fair, once a year... Plus, bad memory being an age-old problem (did I say that ?) and particularly with a Census, there must have been a lot of guesswork and just lacadaisicalism (esp if one had been "volunteered" as household clerk...).
To maintain a "charade" as to one's age, repeatedly, without electronic storage means, over DECADES would, IMO, take LOTS of doing (-: In this case, the correct term would appear to be, effectively, "deception", but again, that would imply having to demonstate the intent to deceive... ). No doubt there WERE cases of deception, but personally, given the amount of OTHER parameters in this equation, I certainly would not want to be outright buying the idea of deception being so widespread...
I do not propose to broadcast my research laurels neither: suffice it to say that I got my old grandma on 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911, and none of them are right (and she certainly was not a deceitful lady (-:
morrisonman
I quoted my genealogy research experience to show that I am not some amateur misinterpreting their actions, not to get into an argument about who has the best credentials.
Documented facts are what I use.
Known age correct in census and other documents (such as military attestation) before marriage.
Mistated age on marriage certificate or parish record.
Mistated age on subsequent census to match that on the marriage.
Sometimes corrected age at the time of burial.
It is evident they knew what they were doing and did it deliberately but like a lot of genealogy research, it is speculation no matter how much documentation you have.
I have found other reasons for deliberate fudging of age including trying to get into the military, avoiding seperation when placed into a workhouse etc.
Most of those do not continue beyond the immediate need but they do show an awareness of their age.
I have not seen any evidence that illiteracy makes it likely somebody would not know thier own age!
My ggg grandfather "narrowed" the gap between his and his wife's age (she was 9 years older). Both the informant for the death certificate and the cemetery was the daughter-in-law who no doubt said what she thought was true as best she could. (She was 6 years out.)
Peter
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It seems to me the older they married, the younger they were!
The biggest gaps between fact and reality occur when the spouse is quite a bit younger and it is time to enter age details in the Parish register.
From that point on the charade can be seen in the census returns.
If the younger spouse dies first, then they sometimes have their correct ages listed in the subsequent census and tombstone.