« Reply #7 on: Wednesday 11 July 12 11:42 BST (UK) »
hello all, thanks for your assistance/input
the parents marriage in ross gives credence to the birth date supplied by keyboard.
on the 1891 census louisa is 23, i can't find her in 1901 but as she was a domestic she could be anywhere and not included by the head of household.
the 1911 census gives her age as 37 but born in 1874, which would be the correct age for that birth date, albeit 6/7 years older than she should be.
given the enumerator errors on these census returns and further mistakes by the transcribers i would accept that the 1911 date is incorrect.
on the 1913 marriage cert she is 43, so in 2 years 1911-1913 she has aged 6 years, which takes her back to a birth date of 1867/8.
she is a spinster and her husband, my wife's great uncle is 28. re-marrying presumably for convenience of both of them because he was a widow with a 5 year old child and she may have been given the boot when she became older.
(puts all modern talk about age differences into the shade)
tony
uk. beale, bateman, buss, bacon, pratt, purssell, reynolds, stamford, sumpter, sailsbury, turner, white nee phillips.
eire. carroll, connor, cronin, daly, fellowes, fitzgerald, gaynor, girvan, keogh, meade, moroney, reilly, whelan, white, winterlich.
scotland: mcavoy
