15
« on: Saturday 06 April 13 12:48 BST (UK) »
I have been following the women of my family and thought that I had followed them to 1780.
The way I have been working is to get a birth certificate for a child to get the maiden surname, then a marriage certificate to find the father's name to find a birth certificate and so on.
But one lady was accidentally killed in 1910. Received the coroner's report of the inquest this week.
That proved that the family story of the accident was correct but threw doubt on the lady's date of birth.
Amongst the papers was a declaration by her son that she had been born in 1838. If that was correct she had been adding around 7 years to her age on every census after her marriage and on the marriage certificate.
On another page in the coroner's handwriting is the comment, birth certificate received and the date given in her son's declaration. If a proper birth certificate had been produced should it not be with the coroner's report?
Should I scrap everything and go back to the beginning again or is it possible that her son did not know her correct age?
Would like to know what others think and would do.
Thanks
Pip