Make that 2 lumps ......... > Hi Jean et all, > > I have found the 1881 ( and the 1851 in one case ) census ages to be pretty > accurate, with the possible exception of one John Bryan "retired due to ill > health" who would appear to have lopped a few years off his age in 1881. I > suspect he was intending to marry his "housekeeper" at the time. Marriage > certificate ages can be wrong - people lie about their ages for various > reasons, probably to become "of full age" i.e. 21! Birth and death > certificates should be right, of course, at least date wise, but the age on > a death certificate may well be inaccurate, relying on relatives memory ?. > People knock the IGI, my only comment is "if it didn't come from the parish > register - it's probably wrong ! Avoid sealing records like the plague". One > shouldn't confuse christening dates on the IGI with birth dates , people > weren't always christened/baptised as babies! > > Has anybody else found a high occurrence of "21" as the brides age at > marriage ? The groom always seems to be a few years older! > > Regards > > Dave > > > An interesting exchange on accuracy of information re BMDs on the Cheshire > > list. The information about age on my Ggrandparents HADFIELD is completely > > contradicted by their birth certificates and the 1881 and 1891 census > > information. The latter three sources are in agreement. > > > > Jean in Nova Scotia > > > > jphwhite@ns.sympatico.ca > > > > > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 25-Jan-01 > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 25-Jan-01