RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => The Lighter Side => Topic started by: softly softly on Tuesday 15 September 20 08:50 BST (UK)
-
Weird dream last night. Whilst looking through the 1939 reg found my ancestor who died in 1836. Woke up this morning wondering who was the oldest person I could find on register with an evidenced birth and death after 1939. As I say do you have time on your hands. Credit for to the winner for all of those who take part.
John
-
Oldest I can see is born 1832 and it actually states centerian although a mistake was made at first by writing she was at school! This lady appears to have died the following year.
( There is an entry where the year of birth clearly shows as 1828 but I cannot see a corresponding death).
I think it is safe to say that someone transcribed as born 1824 and said to be actively seeking work does not count!
William
Added There are a number of articles in the newspaper archive about this lady in 1940 re her celebrating her 108th birthday( she was born during the reign of William IV!) and following her death. One states she was "believed to be the oldest woman in England".
-
Oldest I can see is born 1832 and it actually states centerian although a mistake was made at first by writing she was at school! This lady appears to have died the following year.
( There is an entry where the year of birth clearly shows as 1828 but I cannot see a corresponding death).
I think it is safe to say that someone transcribed as born 1824 and said to be actively seeking work does not count.
1832 woman was pretending to be a scholar to avoid being called up for war work.
1824 "actively seeking work" was demonstrating willingness to serve his/her country.
;)
-
Have a look at Mary Davey born 1832 in the deaths index in 1940 and in Sussex newspapers in 1940. I think you will see that the crossed out scholar in the 1939 was a rather unfortunate mistake!
William
-
slightly o/t
a neighbour aged 80 - born 1940.
His father was born in 1868 and his grandfather in 1819.
-
Wow - so his father was apparently 72 when he was born? Makes his grandfather positively young at 49 when the father was born. ::)
-
Oldest person I have seen in 1939 was someone aged 104 so born 1835. So if that is accurate, he was born 2 years prior to civil reg. I think back then, even as late as 1939 when it was becoming more required to give DOB, many people knew the day and month of their birthday but the year they were more casual about as they got older, due to ages not being as important back then.
-
Wow - so his father was apparently 72 when he was born? Makes his grandfather positively young at 49 when the father was born. ::)
Highly unlikely but I wonder if anyone living today has a grandparent born in the C18.
-- pushing it a bit but could be possible.
-
I presume you mean the 1800s but for someone to be alive today if born in 1899 they would be 121. So very unlikely I would think.
-
I presume you mean the 1800s but for someone to be alive today if born in 1899 they would be 121. So very unlikely I would think.
I recall reading a couple of years ago that the last person to live through every day of the 20th century had died so nobody born in the 1800s is still alive.
None of my great grandparents were born in the 19th century. They were all born in the 1900s.
-
My g.g.grandparents, g.grandparents and grandparents were all born in the 1800s. I'm so used to researching in the 1800s that it doesn't seem so far away to me!!
-
Wow - so his father was apparently 72 when he was born? Makes his grandfather positively young at 49 when the father was born. ::)
Highly unlikely but I wonder if anyone living today has a grandparent born in the C18.
-- pushing it a bit but could be possible.
Say someone born in1799 had a son born in 1860 and this son went on to father a child born in say 1930. Now this child aged 90 could rightly claim a grandparent born in the C18.
-
Wow - so his father was apparently 72 when he was born? Makes his grandfather positively young at 49 when the father was born. ::)
Highly unlikely but I wonder if anyone living today has a grandparent born in the C18.
-- pushing it a bit but could be possible.
Say someone born in1799 had a son born in 1860 and this son went on to father a child born in say 1930. Now this child aged 90 could rightly claim a grandparent born in the C18.
Not impossible, not sure there is anyone though. I have 2 grandparents born in the 19th Cent.
My Mum's oldest grandparent was born in 1848 so still quite a way off C18
-
Wow - so his father was apparently 72 when he was born? Makes his grandfather positively young at 49 when the father was born. ::)
Highly unlikely but I wonder if anyone living today has a grandparent born in the C18.
-- pushing it a bit but could be possible.
One of the grandsons of US President John Tyler, born in 1790, is still alive. There were two, but one died a few months ago. See here: https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive (https://www.mentalfloss.com/article/29842/president-john-tylers-grandsons-are-still-alive).
-
Not C18. But my paternal grandfather was born in 1836, before Registration. He was fifty when my father was born, my father fifty six when I was born, hence the 106 years between my grandfather and me.
-
My grandparents were born three 1866,one 1870.
But my parents were older than usual , Mum born 1896 ,was 41 when I was born in 1937.
Viktoria.
-
I was trying to check out a local death of a man who missed out the 1939 register but died in March 1938 just before his 107th birthday.
The newspaper article claimed he was from Brighton, the youngest of 21 children.
He had 17 children with his first wife, but she and 11 children died in a typhoid epidemic.
Married again and had 6 more children.
He claimed to be 70 in 1911.
Could not verify birthplace nor birth year.
-
Chempat - If the man claimed to be 70 in 1911 then that gives a birth year of 1841. What was his name and where was he in 1911?
Just being nosy ::)
-
James Henry Miles living in Shirley (Southampton) in 1911, ladder maker.
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01q5z/
His second marriage, I think, was in 1888 when he claimed to be 44, but his bride was 25 (and had been married before), so lies could have been told.
Henry James Haylor (head of house in 1911) was a step-son.
Does not match with all the children claimed in the article.
-
So in theory this death?
MILES, JAMES 106
GRO Reference: 1938 M Quarter in SOUTHAMPTON Volume 02C Page 115
-
My grandparents were born in 1877, 1892 and 1893. My fathers stepfather in 1895. Still working on his biological father, but I believe between 1859 and 1884. Depends on whom it was. My parents were 31 and 35 when I was born.
-
Well there is a baptism for a James Henry Miles on 3 January 1836 at St Mary's, Chatham, Kent. Parents are William and Ann. This is from a transcript.
The 1911 gave a birth place of Kent. Is this James or a different one??
-
His birth was claimed as March 17th, and he died just before his birthday yes, that death in 1938
.
This was from a New Zealand paper in 1936:
-
Sorry, I did not keep my notes from looking him up, as the discussion went in a different direction and I did not think that others were that interested once it was realised that he was not local.
e.g. comments on which steps he fell down - there are some notorious ones involving footprints painted from a statue to the steps at top of public lavatories one New Year Eve
I have put 'James Miles might also have been called Harry Miles and was a publican at the 6 Bells in West Drayton, still trying to check that out.' so I think he used either and both names at different times, and was not a ladder maker until later in his career.
Cannot now remember if he always claimed Kent
I had been trying to find 17 children, and lots of deaths together, but that did not happen, and I got interested in other things.
-
Yes, newspaper stories can be somewhat exaggerated at times ::) I did find the one in the Hampshire Advertiser 19 March 1938 Page 7. I assume that is the one that you found.
Presumably you have now put it to one side to possibly follow up again at some point in the future.
-
Yes, to 1938, and need to revisit, this is a good one clipping also:
-
I wonder just how many people knew their real age, given that on some census returns, some of my relies ages vary as much as eight years in some cases.
Carol
-
I wonder just how many people knew their real age, given that on some census returns, some of my relies ages vary as much as eight years in some cases.
Carol
I don't think they do. I mean I sometimes have to think about about my age and back then people were asked their age and date of birth a lot less often than we are today.
-
I wonder just how many people knew their real age, given that on some census returns, some of my relies ages vary as much as eight years in some cases.
Carol
I agree Carol. My great great grandfather was 40 in 1841, 60 in 1851 and 1861 but the closest I can find for him was baptised September 10, 1797. He wasn’t sure where he came from either, but at least they were in the same general area.
-
I have no problem with my age .......................... as long as I have my calculator close by.
And of course regarding the ladies one never asks. Day yes when you buy them a present but never the year.
-
It can be difficult researching people from rural Ireland. They never seem to give consistent ages. Working out which decade they were born is as close as I have got in some cases. If they have an unusual name you stand a chance of locating a baptism, but there is much variation of spelling. Soundex won't help with gaelic spellings.
Then there are those who downright lied. Losing 10 years between censuses rather than gaining them is not unheard of.
People lied about their ages for many reasons. When young they claimed to be older to get a job, or a better one. When older, they claim to be younger, in order to keep a job.
-
Being casual about their ages makes you often doubt whether it is the same person, so you double check to make sure they are the same guy, and often you may not get definitive evidence. But many also did not know 100% how old they were. Today it seems you need a DOB to open an envelope nowadays. ;D
I have an ancestor who died in 1832 said to be aged 58, but he had a rare forename and surname, and the only baptism I can find is in 1761. And no burial or marriage for the 1761 has been found. He was deffo part of the same family but I cannot seem to find a namesake first cousin. If there was one, they would have been double first cousins as their fathers were brothers (the only surviving ones) who wed 2 sisters.