lookup - Clement Okey, haddenham, ely

[bedfordshire boy]

If we assume that the records of age at death are correct, ..............

Burial ages are notoriously unreliable, particularly the older the deceased was. This isn't an assumption that I would make

[jbml]

I agree in principle, Bedfordshire Boy - but in this case BOTH recorded ages at death imply a year of birth which tallies with the dates of baptism; and I am therefore much more willing to accept them as accurate. Quite possibly, Haddenham had a diligent parson who actually looked up his parishioners' baptismal records to satisfy himself of the accuracy of the ages he was recording!

[bookendart]

Thanks jbml, for bringing this thread to the forefront!  I'm also suspect of ages of death in burial registers and those carved into grave markers. But, in looking back through earlier posts, I see AnneB posted a transcript of a monument inscription for the Clement who died in 1838.

The text of the AnneB's transcription indicates this Clement was the son of Clement and Elizabeth.  My question, is that what was actually carved into the marker? If so, it would seem to support jbml's supposition that Ann, wife of Clement, not widow, must have been married to the OTHER Clement, son of John.  Am I on track with this thinking?

Claire

[jbml]

Claire -

That looks right to me. All the evidence is pointing the same way, and I would be inclined to trust it rather than distrust it on the grounds that certain of the evidence is of a type which has a tendency to be unreliable. If it was not corroborated, then I would certainly retain an open mind. But it IS corroborated.

So are you descended from "my" Clement Oakey, or "the other one"?