> Hello Richard and list. You have made an assumption that is > wrong. I never said that a pension was paid for the childern under > any age. I said: the childern of my GGrandfather were listed BY > birth date and place AND by the mothers >>>>>>>> ALL THREE of them, > eight children in All. HE applied for a pension in 1898. The > question asked was "How many children do you have", he then lists > them ALL!!!!, Phil > > "Phil Stevens" <joephil@nwlink.com> Phil, this repetition is getting tiresome. Yes, your great- grandfather left a pension file with an uncommonly full description of his wives and children. Does this mean that our readers can and should expect the same from any given pension file search? Once again, I say no. For the third time this month, by my count. In all fairness, Richard was not the one who invoked the limitations on support from statute and normal disclosure limitations on children's identities -- I was. And all I meant by this statement, general as it was, is that few pension files will be characterized by the same level of completeness as your great-grandfather's. I sincerely trust that this is not unwarranted assumption. But even if it is, Richard should not take the blame for it. Finally, without consulting other sources, how can you be certain that these eight are all the children that your great-grandfather had? As in a case that I cited recently, children might have been passed over because they died very young. Moreover, even your great-grandfather may have suffered from faulty memory when he reported his children's births to the pension board or compiled the record of births in the family bible. (Families were known to compile their bible records after the births of several children and to estimate birth dates from ages -- and thereby get them wrong.) For this reason it is still advisable to seek original, independent birth or baptismal records, if available, or confirmation of parentage elsewhere. Austin W. Spencer "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinWSpencer@cox.net>