Ages - civil vs parish records

Hermy

When trying to figure out the estimated year of birth of someone for whom no birth or baptismal record is available is there one source that you would deem more reliable than another?

In one instance I have a death in Longford in 1879 where the civil record gives the age as 48 but the parish record gives it as 55.

My hunch in this case is that the parish record might be more reliable as the priest would have had access to baptismal records [since destroyed!] whereas whoever registered the death would only have been reliant on their notion of how old the person was.

In another instance I have an English civil marriage record from the mid 1800's which records the bride [English] and grooms [a Longford man] exact ages.

Again I'm wondering if his Irish baptismal cert would have come into play making this a reliable source.

Mick Tator

Gravestones tend to be correct IMO (although my GGF's is out by a year!).

I always opt for the older age; people (especially females) tend to understate their ages. In one period (after 1903 to +/- 1930s) the age sometimes can be exaggerated/increased in order to obtain the OAP.

The mid-1800’s English marriage record – I agree with you, the baptism record probably would have been arequested. Sometimes you see the marriage date entered alongside the baptism entry (when there is a diligent priest/clerk!) This usually happens if the marriage takes place in the baptismal church or another parish.

I once had a lucky break when researching a Napoleonic-era Royal Navy officer; details of his 1787 birth were given in a ‘Certificate of Baptism’ signed by his local Irish clergyman in 1808. That church register no longer exists and it also confirmed his parents’ names. It was among the papers he submitted to the Admiralty prior to sitting the Lieutenant’s Examination. (The baptismal record was necessary as those who were not members of the Established Church were ineligible at that date to hold a Commission.)

VirginiaB

Age is definitely a conundrum if there is no birth or baptismal record. I have found errors and outright lies on death certs and gravestones so can't count on them. I rely on the earliest possible record found as they are more likely to be accurate, if not exact. With women, childbearing can be an important clue—when it started and when it ended.

In your example, Hermy, the priest might have also been guessing as an 1879 death with a person about age 50 might easily have no baptism record from 1829 or so.

Hermy

My question is specific to a branch of my tree and another persons interpretation of that branch which I'm certain is wrong and unfortunately has been copied by dozens of other Ancestry users.

I'm trying to get all my ducks in a row before I contact that other user to see what they say about the age discrepancies they've had to ignore in order for their tree to work.

pinkypinky

Difficult. You can't actually say with any certainty. You can just go for a range of years and show your evidence (e.g. 1911: 50 inferred birth year 1861

1901: 46 inferred birth year 1855

Age at death in 1923: 67 inferred birth year 1856

Hermy

That's it pinky - I can't be certain.

However, this involves the ages of three siblings and their parents rather than any one individual.

Going by their ages from various sources the three siblings are born between about 1821 and 1831 and their mother and father born in about 1787 and 1788 respectively.

By the other persons reckoning the parents were married in 1835, they had 8 children, the last in 1860, and all in a neighbouring parish.

Even as I type this I feel too much has to be ignored or overlooked in order to make the second version worked.

I'm going to research that family from the neighbouring parish and if I can trace them forwards I'll have my answer.

pinkypinky

Sounds like two sets of different people.

Parents sound too old for children born in the 1820s.

Mick Tator

I’d say the other person’s tree is wrong and s/he probably has mixed/combined two generations or cousins. People born in 1788 rarely married aged more than 28, so that would mean for a person born 1788 a marriage in 1816 latest. If I’m correctly interpreting what you’ve written, a marriage in 1835 would make the bride 47yrs old, certainly past childbearing age for a first child. To assert the last child was born in 1860 (mother aged 72!) is daft.

Another case of 'Welcome to online trees'

Hermy

Daft it is Mick!