Ages on Scottish Statutory BMD Records.....

[DavidWW]

This inspired by a post in another thread.............

"Massaging" of the age(s) on marriage register entries is far from uncommon, particularly when there was an age difference in the ages of the bride and groom of more than a couple of years.

Just recently I've come across a spate of such, - I guess that it's a statistical thing, - every other record in the last week or so has involved an age difference from the real age of anything up to 6 or 7 years, - but that still doesn't match my personal record a couple of years ago of 17 years being trimmed off an age, but then there was a 40 year difference in ages But I've also had runs of marriage register entries where the ages were spot on

Just y'day I had a groom aged 23 showing himself as 20, with the bride showing her age as 17 when she was really 15

Most often it's only one age which is massaged by more than 2 or 3 years, and most often a reduction, but far from uncommon to be an increase. Again, most often just the one age, but, again, far from uncommon to be both.

Especially for people born before 1855 remember that they wouldn't have a birth certificate. While they, or rather their parents may have had a baptismal certificate, who's to say what had happened to this

Even for people born in 1855 or later, as with the spelling of their surnames, they weren't that bothered back then about their exact age, - in other words, it should not be automatically assumed that all instances of marriage register "wrong" ages are the result of an attempt to deceive.

The analogy that I'd draw is that I'm sure that many researchers are familiar with families where consecutive census entries are immaculate in their accuracy; but, with other families, many of the ages vary a bit, or more than a bit, from census to census Again, I'd argue, most often not an attempt to deceive.

Remember the whole marriage register entry procedure - in the sense that, for the majority of register entries, all that the registrar did was to transcribe the information from the marriage schedule filled in by the couple and the minister, and signed by all three parties. In other words, no proof of age was required by the registrar.

While I'm sure that some ministers/priests required the groom and bride to prove their age, or he knew the ages already, exact or approximate if he didn't refer back to his parochial register, since he had baptised them, - or maybe when it was before his ministry, there was no statutory requirement on him to do so, and, in any case, just how many ministers were that bothered about being absolutely accurate ?!, especially if it appeared to be the case that the couple were roughly of the ages given

In terms of age, when I remarried in Kilwinning in 1993, all that I had to prove in terms of marital status, via the divorce details, was that I was free to marry As far as I'm aware it's always been so in Scotland, outwith situations where it was the case that an age greater than the current legal minimum had to be demonstrated .....

In general, as far as both statutory and census records are concerned, ages, most especially on death register entries when the informant is not a sibling or the spouse, need to be treated with a degree of caution.

That's not to say that other informants in the case of death register entries, family or instituional, didn't get it exactly correct, but the probability that this is the case decreases as the "distance" of the family relationship increases, or the informant is the governor of an institution, or a neighbour, or, - one of my favourite relationship descriptions, - "intimate friend", - which had a rather different meaning back then

Omigawd , - I feel another article coming on ..........

Last thought, - the only statutory record on which the age can be guaranteed to correct is the birth register entry

David

[Cathy]

Hi David,
are you sure about that last thought?
It is probably more of a guarantee nowadays, with most births already noted in hospital or by a midwife.
But way back then? What if daddy got "lost" (via the pub) on his way to the registrar and couldn't remember exact details. Didn't people used to get fined for not registering within a certain period, so may have messaged the details?

[DavidWW]

Hi David,
are you sure about that last thought?

99.99%

It is probably more of a guarantee nowadays, with most births already noted in hospital or by a midwife.

But way back then? What if daddy got "lost" (via the pub) on his way to the registrar and couldn't remember exact details. Didn't people used to get fined for not registering within a certain period, so may have massaged the details?

Indeed , there are indeed reported instances of birth registrations outwith the 21 day allowed period, failing which a "20s" penalty applied, - £1 in today's money. - but there are very, very few where the eventual registration was so much later that the year of the registration was different from the year of birth.

David

[JimM]

Hi David
If someone was liable to be fined for late registration, could they have avoided penalty by simply not bothering to register the birth
I have records of children born in 1855 and 1857, neither have been registered but thanks to poor relief records I know the dates and even the streets they were born in.

Jim

[DavidWW]

Hi David
If someone was liable to be fined for late registration, could they have avoided penalty by simply not bothering to register the birth
I have records of children born in 1855 and 1857, neither have been registered but thanks to poor relief records I know the dates and even the streets they were born in.

Jim

Jim

Of course they could do this, but then they became liable for much higher fines. The registrars were required to be proactive in seeking out information, obviously much easier in a country parish as opposed to a large city parish, - in fact, in the latter probably not practical.

By some time in the late 1800s, at very least the early 1900s it would have become a problem not to be able to show a birth certificate when required in certain situations.

Incidentlally, do the kids born 1855 and 1857 show up in the 1861 and later censuses?

David

[annpa]

I've just been a victim of ancestors massaging the figures!

On the general discussion board I've just posted the saga of finding my greatgrandmother.

but another problem I had was that nowhere in the censuses did her stated age agree with any other, it was generally rounded down 8 - 10 years.

She and her second husband really outdid themselves though on their second marriage in 1900 when she stated she was 33 (actual age 50!) and he stated his age was 34. The next year 1901 on the census they both state their age as 40.


I'm afraid my grandmother gave the game away when she stated correctly on my greatgrandmother's death certificate that she was 70 at the time of her death in 1920.
Cheers all
Annpa

[JimM]

Incidentlally, do the kids born 1855 and 1857 show up in the 1861 and later censuses?

David

Hi David
The Parents were William Menzies and Mary Buchanan.
James Menzies was born in 1855 at Muirhead street Gorbals
Alexander Menzies was born in 1857 at Canning street Barony
Both are on the 1861 census living at Stockwell (street?) in Glasgow age 6 and 4 years - this fits in with the ages given in poor relief record from 1865.
I have tried all the likely names on SP, but none match. that's why I think they were never registered.

Jim