Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Age at death - your opinions, please..

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

  • Age at death - your opinions, please..

    One of my ancestresses was buried in Battersea in 1803. The burial register gives her age as 65, which makes her birth year 1738.

    She had her first child in 1767 and her last child in 1788. If she was really born in 1738 she'd have had her last child at age 50. This is not impossible, but highly unlikely... or is it?

    Your opinions/thoughts, please: do you have female relatives who've given birth at a similarly late age? Or is the balance of probability that the burial register is wrong and that she was born quite a few years after 1738? (There's a 1741 birth that might be her, but still makes her quite a mature Mum...)

    Thanks,

    Belinda
    Looking for Bysh, Potter, Littleton, Parke, Franks, Sullivan, Gosden, Carroll, Hurst, Churcher, Covell, Elverson, Giles, Hawkins, Witherden...

  • #2
    Is it a definite 6..on the 65...?
    55 would seem more reasonable.
    Age wasn't so important an issue then I guess, so it would be easy for a wrong age to be given at burial.
    Not impossible to have a child so late though it would be unusual.
    Many of my ancestors were long dead by then !

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Gwyn in Kent View Post
      Is it a definite 6..on the 65...?
      55 would seem more reasonable.
      Yup, it's definitely a very clear 65. I wonder if the vicar, when he was writing in the register, asked a friend of hers, rather than a close family member, and the friend guessed....
      Looking for Bysh, Potter, Littleton, Parke, Franks, Sullivan, Gosden, Carroll, Hurst, Churcher, Covell, Elverson, Giles, Hawkins, Witherden...

      Comment


      • #4
        My 3 x ggm died in 1874 and her age was given as 103!! (there is an interesting note in the buirial register that says "said by some no more than 96/97". She's in the 41/51/61/71 census but gives a different age in all of them!!!
        Even if she was 96 when she died that would make her year of birth c1778 and her last son was born 1827 so she would have been 49...... Until I find her marriage and know what her maiden was I have no way of checking. I think it's quite likely though and not that uncommon for women to have children quite late in life.

        Comment


        • #5
          103? Wow! I've got an ancestress who gives completely inconsistent ages in every census. Maddening, isn't it?
          Looking for Bysh, Potter, Littleton, Parke, Franks, Sullivan, Gosden, Carroll, Hurst, Churcher, Covell, Elverson, Giles, Hawkins, Witherden...

          Comment


          • #6
            i guess its possible, did the entry list a husband's name? or some other clue that you could use to prove her?

            Comment

            Working...
            X