Being short seems a very plausible reason. These days boys may not grow much after 18 if at all, but 100 years ago, it is possible that poor nutrition would delay completion of growth. My maternal grandfather joined the navy as a "boy" in 1897 or 1898. He did not meet the height requirement, even allowing for his being only 15, but was overweight. The recruiting officer said "never mind, lad, we will soon roll that out". He did grow a little but was always short. If the people with ancestors falsifying their age downwards looked at the height recorded on the attestation forms (i am pretty sure this was recorded), then it may be clear if being short was the reason, as on enlistment they would be recorded as under (or perhaps more likely just on) the height limit. The only issue is- what was that limit? If any really tall ones turn up, another reason needs to be sought. Dave Beakhust On 14 April 2014 07:31:56 carole.eales@talktalk.net wrote: > My own grandfather did exactly the same in 1906...he was small for his > age and wished to persuade the Army that he was still growing. I > assume from what he told me, there was a minimum height restriction. > > Carole > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Bruce <abruce@madasafish.com> > To: sog-uk@rootsweb.com > Sent: Sun, 13 Apr 2014 21:45 > Subject: [SOG-UK] Under-declaration of age on entry to the Army > > > Just looking at two of my distant relatives who joined the British Army > in > the 1820s. Joseph Bateman joined the 6th Dragoon Guards at Manchester > on 1 > March 1828, claiming to be 18, when he was (based on his baptism) at > least > 19y 10m old. His brother, Samuel Bateman, joined the 53rd Foot in March > 1831, claiming to be 18 years 10 months old, when he was more like 20y > 10m > old. > > (Both sets of data from their discharge data on FindMyPast, though > Samuel > was indexed as James! Their identity is clear as both are recorded in > the > Army papers as coming from the small village of Haslington in Cheshire) > > Can anyone suggest if there is any reason why anyone should > under-declare > their age on joining the Army? I could believe ignorance, except both > do it, > which makes it slightly less believable. Was there, perhaps, an upper > limit > on age? > > I note that Joseph was to receive a bounty of £2 12s. Always tricky to > evaluate but comparing to average earnings, the MeasuringWorth web-site > suggests that this amount in 1828 bore the same relation to Joseph's > earnings as £1,940 would to an average worker in 2013. (Although he may > only > have had 2s 6d in cash). Could it be that this bounty was payable only > to > 18y olds? > > Grateful for any thoughts... > > Adrian Bruce > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to SOG-UK-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message