Assumptions

[SiriusB]

Now that Family Tree research is much easier due to computers & the advent of the Internet. Does anyone make assumptions, bearing in mind that being digital, one can delete/amend/detach/attach as & when further info become available?

I ask because I've obtained correct info regarding one of my aunts & due to info already held, hit an issue. I normally assume that my female relatives marry between 17-21, & that has been the case with many of them. With the marriage details of Aunt M in 4th Q 1945, I've had to revise that assumption (Will be ordering marriage cert next month as hit the budget for this one).

My paternal grandparents were both married previously with grandad having 5 kids & grandmum having 3. They then went one to have a further 6. Dad was the 5th with Aunt H being the oldest of the 6 born in 1923. That upset my assumption that Aunt M was born in 1925. Based on info already held, I've assumed that she was born in 1918/19.

Would it be safe to assume that she is now deceased (until confirmed of course) as she would be 101/2 this year?

[KGarrad]

First, I never make assumptions!
Second assuming marriage as a minor (i.e under 21) seems strange? If I had to assume, I would assume a "normal" marriage age between 20 and 30.

Check births on FreeBMD.org.uk.

[SiriusB]

True, but where current & past generation is concerned, it has been true for my family. I should have stated assumptions based on knowledge rather than just blind assumptions. Using that, I applied for 6 certificates on Xmas day, they arrived yesterday. They were not wasted, they were all family. The only doubt I had was for one uncle. The Irish records only provided 2 births (b)1918 (d)2001 & (b)1927 (d)1991. The deaths were in the UK (info gleaned from the GRO).

I discounted the 1927 birth due to being a year younger than Aunt T & place of death. I (correctly) assumed the 1918 birth because of place of death. I knew his sons still reside in that part of London, so it proved. Lucky? Maybe, but actual knowing the people helped.

[Ayashi]

I think patterns within families should not be an 'assumption' as much as a starting guideline to work from. For example, where families have had many children, I tend to use two calculations to estimate a woman's date of birth- that she was between 35 and 45 when the last child was born (based on my own family tree) and that she was around 24 at the time of marriage (which is the average age for a woman at marriage in my family tree). Usually these two estimates more or less align- the one time they didn't I later found out my ancestor was around 15 or 16 when she married. This would give me a date range to begin my search within, and then widen that search if necessary. Even if a lot of your ancestors follow the same pattern there can be anomalies so someone who doesn't fit the mold isn't an "issue", not unless they appear to be steadily having children through their 60s or something.

Personally I would say that although it is not impossible for someone of that age to be alive, the odds would be against it. I don't know what Rootschat would rule. I guess if in doubt leave it out?

[chempat]

Although the odds are against her being still alive, there are many many people over 100 living now, so you cannot assume she has died.

I do not think that any of my close female relatives have married in range 17-21, and I usually look for a marriage from 16-30, but there are always some late marriages to keep one on one's toes.

[SiriusB]

Thanks. I asked because the odds of having a relative of that age is unusual as many passed away between 60-85. So I'm safely going to assume she is deceased & mark it as such on the program.

Rather just blindly assume, where my paternal side is concerned, I assumed the birth years due to knowledge of others, for example, Uncle Sonny (always went by that) was the 3rd of grandmothers 1st marriage & we sent dad home for his funeral in 1990, & many others attended as well due to his being the last of the family in Ireland & there was property involved. He was 70, so entered his year of birth as 1920.
Aunt M was one of 5 of granddad's 1st marriage. The 1st being Uncle D born in 1914 & died here in 1985 & was 71.

With all that info, I safely assumed that Granddad & grandma married in 1921/22 as Aunt H was born 1923 & died a couple of weeks before her 72nd in 1995.

I'm going to have to play round with the GRO indexes as they only allow a +/- of 2 years. From what I can see, Aunt M was a "normal" marriage, as she married 4th Q 1945.

@Chempat. Agree, I'm mainly referring to my parents generation as have fairly extensive info, many married at 18/19/20.

[chempat]

Thanks. I asked because the odds of having a relative of that age is unusual as many passed away between 60-85. So I'm safely going to assume she is deceased & mark it as such on the program.

If you expect people to die between the ages of 60 and 85, you are writing off many of the people who contribute to this, and many other, boards.

You seem to be neglecting the increase in longevity in the past few decades.

[SiriusB]

I'm not. I can safely say that of my parents generation, not all. The death certificate received yesterday for my uncle clearly showed him as the oldest of that generation to pass away to date. He was 83.

[Albufera32]

I think it depends what exactly you mean by "assumptions". If you are simply assuming that children were always born in wedlock, that everyone married relatively early and that they all lived to roughly the same age without any evidence to back it up, I suspect you are setting yourself up to have a tree filled with errors and inconsistencies.

If on the other hand you mean you are using "typical" family info to form an educated guess to help with searches for "paper" evidence, then yes, taking the marriage age as similar to that of other children in the same family may help to shorten the time spent searching.

In general, the only assumption I would suggest will prove valid in the long run is to assume you will be surprised by some of the things you find.