Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

18 years age variation?

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

  • 18 years age variation?

    In 1881, John and Mary Sullivan are at 9 Jerusalem Court Clerkenwell with children - John 14, William 12, James 10, Fanny 8 and Morris 4. This gives John a birthdate of c1867 and the 1871 supports this.

    In 1891 the family (minus Mary who is in Holloway) are at Frye's Buildings, Pentonville. John, William and James are not at home but the remaining children are Fanny 16, Morris 14, Lizzie 12, M (daughter) 10, George 7, Sarah 5 and Betsy 3.

    I can't find the family in 1901 but in 1911 Mary Ann Sullivan is at 34 Pickering Street Buildings, Islington aged 65 with unmarried children James, 38, Sarah, 23 and Catherine 18.

    In his army records in 1914, John Sullivan gives his birthplace as Clerkenwell and his age as 29 - so a birthdate of c1885. His next of kin is Mary Ann Sullivan of 34 Pickering Street. Also with the next of kin info is mentioned elder sister Fanny Platt, address unknown, and younger brothers James of 34 Pickering Street and Maurice of Pentonville Road.

    But it *has* to be the same person doesn't it?

    And does that mean I can knock 18 years of my age?
    Asa

  • #2
    was he christened John William Sullivan ?....allan;)
    Allan ......... researching oakes/anyon/standish/collins/hartley/barker/collins-cheshire
    oakes/tipping/ellis/jones/schacht/...garston, liverpool
    adams-shropshire/roberts-welshpool
    merrick/lewis/stringham/nicolls-herefordshire
    coxon/williamson/kay/weaver-glossop/stockport/walker-gorton

    Comment


    • #3
      Morning

      I haven't got any baptisms for any of the family yet - they are probably christened RC.
      Asa

      Comment


      • #4
        just been on freebmd and Clerkenwell RO ceased in 1869 and then was succeeded by Holborn....so the most probable births for Johns Birth registered in Clerkenwell would be John Sullivan ,1866 Clerkenwell Ref No 1b 573 Sep Qtr....or
        John Sullivan 1868 1b 606..
        ...ONE registered in Holborn in 1867 ..John William Sullivan 1b 631....judging by the 2 census returns I would plump for the 1866 sept qtr John Sullivan....good luck...allan;)
        Allan ......... researching oakes/anyon/standish/collins/hartley/barker/collins-cheshire
        oakes/tipping/ellis/jones/schacht/...garston, liverpool
        adams-shropshire/roberts-welshpool
        merrick/lewis/stringham/nicolls-herefordshire
        coxon/williamson/kay/weaver-glossop/stockport/walker-gorton

        Comment


        • #5
          Thanks Allan but I'm not looking for a birth cert for him - there probably isn't one. There are plenty of Johns Williams and James but Fanny isn't there so the chances are they didn't start registering until it became compulsary like a lot of other Irish immigrant families -it looks as if Morris/ Maurice is registered in 1877.
          Asa

          Comment


          • #6
            then get maurice's birth. it will still tell you the maiden name and father's occupation.

            of course you knock 18 years off asa!! but if i did i would be worried!!
            Last edited by kylejustin; 29-03-09, 08:50.

            Comment


            • #7
              Thanks Kylejustin but that isn't what I'm after.
              Asa

              Comment


              • #8
                Lots of men lied about their age when they joined up, Asa, maybe he did too.

                Or perhaps the first John died and his parents named a younger son after him.
                Gwynne

                Comment


                • #9
                  that's a good thought guin. asa, have you looked at all possible births and deaths for your man?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Thanks Gwynne:-) It is possible - it's a mammoth task sorting out John Sullivans in London but they do seem to have consistently remained in the Holborn/ Islington area. It would help if I could find them on the 1901...

                    But, there isn't a younger John on the 1891 and he does say that James and Maurice are his younger brothers.
                    Asa

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hmm.

                      He's obviously yours, so you can claim him, but the age thing is an annoyance. On balance I'd say he just lied, as others did.
                      Gwynne

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Ta muchly - I will go and trawl the Sullivans just in case;)
                        Asa

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Or whoever recorded the information made an error.

                          My ex's Jewish family are 20 years older in 1851 than they are in 1841 - in fact there are 3 separate families where this occurs. I can only assume that the 1841 enumerator didn't understand the idea of rounding down ages!
                          ~ with love from Little Nell~
                          Chowns, Dunt, Emms, Mealing, Purvey & Smoothy

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Does it say Mary Ann (as next of kin) is his mother? Might she be some other relation who is this (younger) john's next of kin?

                            Anne

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Well, the Army has never been all that fussy about ages when recruiting for war, but...EIGHTEEN YEARS difference!

                              Personally I'd be a bit worried about this and would suspect he is possibly a grandson brought up as a son.

                              OC

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                i would think he would round it down to not seem so old. he was around 40 wasn't he?

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  No, he was 47!

                                  OC

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    exactly oc!! they prob would've thought him to old. and if they didn't, he prob thought that!!

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      I think you're being a bit premature in claiming him.

                                      It does look possible, but you said he says in his service record that Fanny was his older sister, which doesn't fit with the census information.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        It's difficult isn't it?

                                        Mary is down as mother in 1914 and the brothers as his "y brothers" and Fanny as his "E Sister" - I can't find anything of Fanny after 1891 but yes, Fanny is erroneously down as his elder sister when she would have been a couple of years younger.

                                        It's possible John could be a grandson but then slightly bizarre that he would call his uncles his younger brothers?
                                        Asa

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X