Ooops! Re my message below. I have just realised that I had the wrong woman. The one below was the Aunt of the other and this one was indeed 31 in 1906. So the info on the marriage and death certificates was correct and my message below is complete nonsense. "Just a postscript to the recent discussions on the accuracy of information on BMDs (re message from Johan Lochridge about John Stevenson b1785). I have just come across someone who was entered on her marriage certificate as 15 years older than her actual age. This woman was 16 when she married in 1906. I have seen her birth certificate. She was born in 1890, and there is no question that the woman on the 1906 marriage certificate is the same person (same parents and her sister was one of the witnesses). But she is entered on her marriage certificate as aged 31. Her bridegroom was 29 (on the marriage certificate). I thought her age might be a slip of the pen but when she died in 1966 her age was recorded as 91 (when she was actually 76). I have no idea whether she lived a lie all her married life, or whether the informant used the marriage certificate as proof of identity. I will have to wait for the 1911 census to find out. But I find it difficult to believe that any woman would want to be taken as 15 years older than her actual age. It would be almost impossible to find this woman's birth certificate if all you had was her marriage and death certificates indicating that she was born in 1875". Rhoda