Perhaps this helps in understanding why I believe that we are discussing two separate couples i.e. why the 1871 marriage record of an Arthur and Elizabeth (Ballymanus) cannot be the same as my confirmed Arthur and Elizabeth (Ballinglen) in the 1901 census:
Elizabeth Byrne in the 1901 census in Ballinglen is 40 years old - thus born in 1861.
If you want to make these 2 couples actually the same couple (despite having different children!), then you are saying that Elizabeth was born 1861 and married 1871 at age 10! Even arguing for some age error this is simply improbable at best.
PS: again as mentioned previously, I do not as yet have certificates on the sisters - my grandmother (living) does recall them all and provided their names.
Don't know how to spell it out more clearly, but you do not appear to be reading my prior responses - these are two different families with Arthur and Elizabeth as parents, one in Ballymanus and one in Ballinglen with different children some with overlapping names - if you read my input you will see that this is simply NOT the same son Patrick. I are 100% positive as to Patrick's age (4 different sources at different ages and all agree) and whilst you keep promoting this other family and their son, I would ask you to read back through the points previously made. Don't mean to be be ungrateful and do appreciate your time.
My grandmother (daughter of Patrick Byrne the son of Arthur and Elizabeth) is still alive and from her we know for certain that Patrick was born in Ballinglen and that his brothers were Arthur and Denis and sisters were Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne. I have census, marriage and death records for Patrick that all validate his age which was 20 in 1901 hence born 1881.
No he wasn't!!
Born April 1879!!
Why don't you post the Certs for daughters Margaret, Elizabeth and Anne?? See what their Certs say....