Hi Jean Yes, It's interesting this age thing. The web site will eventually represent two cousins stories of tracing their ancestors, and hopefully, will be typical of what it's like to do the tracing. My grandmother in Sunderland, when she married in Dec 1897 said she was 21 - one witness was her twin sister Margaret ( another mystery also 19 !) . We know Mary Jane was only 19 at the time ( a registry office wedding ). Dad Daniel McLaughlan was still alive and living in the area ( my mother remembers him , and she wasn't born 'till 1916 ) . Gran had only known my grandfather for a few weeks, so maybe there's the answer. Mind you, the first <recorded> child , my aunt Ethel wasn't born until October 1898. Ethel decided to marry and not tell anybody - unfortunately my grandfather was the cabman who took her to the church ! Now there's a story ! Mother you'll never guess what happened today ...... I also wonder what the odds are for having 3 sets of twins ? Well done Daniel ! ( and 2 different wives to boot ) The age thing is quite simple - if you're 21 then you don't need dad's permission ............ A fascinating story ...... regards Dave ------------- I enjoyed your web site, Dave. You are right about the age on marriage certificates. The ones in my family have no resemblance to the actual ages. In one case everyone was underage for marriage so I suspect that is why the ages were inflated. Jean in NS ----- Original Message ----- From: "Dave Allen" <dave@cdcatalogues.co.uk> To: <NORTHERN-ENGLAND-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 6:34 PM Subject: Re: [NTH-ENG] Dating old photographs The URL is http://212.19.69.91/ancestors/ --- 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