> Further to my last, it is very odd that both in the 1881 census and at his > marriage Robert understates his age by some 4/5 years - he was 32/3, not 28 > (aged 2 at the 1851 census). It is also a bit odd that his mother in the > census is described as 82 - in 1851 she was 48. Although the > identification is by no means certain, I think (from the gravestone list > supplied by Sheila some time ago - you see how useful these things are, > Sheila!) that William died aged about 85 in 1860 & was buried in KPJ - that > is the recorded burial of a William M. on what appears to be a Swinefoot > grave. Statements of age, of course, have to be treated with considerable > reservations in the days before compulsory registration, but a five year > error does seem a bit peculiar! You have to remember census information is only as good as the person supplying info at the door. I was listening to my daughter the other day supplying Census information to the Census taker. Some ancestor 100 years from now, would not have been amused by some of her answers if I had not been there to correct her everytime she "Wandered from reality". I have one family where they could not even get the country of birth right let alone the age. I had to search for them on 3 seperate Census before I finally figured out where the guy was born. I have one gg-Aunt in TX who aged 8 years in 10 over a period of 40 years in Census records and then suddenly aged 50 years in 30 to die at the supposed age of 100, she was actually 92. People can be fairly strange about admitting their age sometimes. A point about Robert(are you sure it was the same one). Maybe the first one died and there was a 'replacement' Robert?? As to the accuracy of the Gilchrist MI's. I have one contact for my Beattie families where there are 5 mistakes in one MI for her family. They are not without error. My thoughts for the day. Sheila