Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this the right family? (age discrepancy)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this the right family? (age discrepancy)

    I have just received a marriage certificate:

    Francis Pearson / 20 / Bachelor / Labourer / Lichfield St. / Francis Pearson / (cannot read profession)

    married

    Ann Whitehead / 22 / Spinster / Machinist / Lichfield St. / James Whitehead / Labourer

    at St. Editha's Church, Tamworth, Staffs, on 28th September 1874

    Witnessed by Joseph Pearson (probably Francis's brother, found them on census records) and Eliza Whitehead.

    I was initially really pleased to find out the name of Ann's father - my 3 x great grandfather, but I'm now a bit frustrated because I can't definitively find them in the census records.

    The problem is that the only Ann Whitehead in the area with father = James was, according to the 1871, 1861, and 1851 census, born several years earlier. It can't be a mistranscription issue because this Ann appears on the 1851 census when my Ann shouldn't have been born yet.

    1851: Class: HO107; Piece: 2013; Folio: 481; Page: 19;
    1861: Class: RG9; Piece: 1971; Folio: 16; Page: 1;
    1871: Class: RG10; Piece: 2912; Folio: 73; Page: 9;

    Note the presence of an Eliza in the household in the 1871 census, cf. witness to marriage. In addition, the father's occupation matches.

    I'm not concerned that the address is not Lichfield St. - this is where Francis lived before his marriage, and in the same parish as the church where he and Ann were married.

    The age is really bothering me though. Did she maybe knock 5 years off her age because Francis was several years younger? The census records for 1881, 1891, and 1901 show her DOB as 1852 / 1854 / 1852 respectively.

    In addition, I can't find a birth that fits for either the Ann Whitehead born in 1847/48 or the Ann Whitehead born in 1852.

    Please can someone help me get my head round this?!

  • #2
    "The age is really bothering me though. Did she maybe knock 5 years off her age because Francis was several years younger? "

    Quite possible - I have several instances of a bride bringing down her age when marrying a younger man.

    Jay
    Janet in Yorkshire



    Genealogists never die - they just swap places in the family tree

    Comment


    • #3
      also the numbers 2 and 7 can be confused
      ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

      Comment


      • #4
        I don't have the ancestry anyomore so i can't check the census

        Re the witness Eliza, would she be a sister to the bride?
        Does an Eliza appear in the same household on the census returns you have looked at for Ann/James? just seen you mention the 1871 :o

        As for "Did she maybe knock 5 years off her age because Francis was several years younger? "

        It's perfectly possible and she wouldn't be the first, older brides have been known to knock a few years off to make things look a little more "decent" shall we say.

        It could be she was illigitimate (been registered under her mothers maiden name?). James may be a fictitious name and there is always the possibility she was never registered at birth.
        http://www.flickr.com/photos/50125734@N06/

        Joseph Goulson 1701-1780
        My sledging hammer lies declined, my bellows too have lost their wind
        My fire's extinct, my forge decay'd, and in the dust my vice is laid

        Comment


        • #5
          People did tell lies or make mistakes. Or others, writing down information, made mistakes.

          My husband has a branch of his family who appear to have aged 20 years between censuses and a gt x lots aunt who aged only 7 years in 3 censuses!

          I think it quite likely your bride lost a few years to be nearer her groom's age.
          ~ with love from Little Nell~
          Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks for all the input. I've taken a closer look at the 1871 census and discovered that Eliza's age has been mistranscribed - she is down as 14 but it looks like 17 to me. This is important, because if she had been 14 in 1871, she would NOT have been of age to witness her sister's marriage in 1874.

            In addition, although I can't completely read the occupation of the Ann Whitehead I found in the 1871 census, it begins with 'Tailor's...', which would fit in with her occupation of 'Machinist' on the marriage certificate I have.

            I'm not sure how I can prove that this is her family, though...

            Comment


            • #7
              I'm not so sure about the age of the witness, i have a couple of marriage certs where the witnesses were sibs to either the bride or groom and were only 14-15 years old,
              http://www.flickr.com/photos/50125734@N06/

              Joseph Goulson 1701-1780
              My sledging hammer lies declined, my bellows too have lost their wind
              My fire's extinct, my forge decay'd, and in the dust my vice is laid

              Comment


              • #8
                Really? That's interesting. I'd assumed that you had to be of age to witness a marriage.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Glen in Tinsel Knickers View Post
                  I'm not so sure about the age of the witness, i have a couple of marriage certs where the witnesses were sibs to either the bride or groom and were only 14-15 years old,
                  A witness to my gt grandparents' marriage was a 12 year old
                  ~ FOR PHOTO RESTORATIONS PLEASE SCAN AT A RESOLUTION OF 300-600 WITH THE SCALE AT 100% MINIMUM ~ http://restoreandcolour.brainwaving.co.uk

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X