Wee white lie?.....

Post by **emanday** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:32 pm

After many unsuccessful attempts to find an MC, and only getting it by using the bride's name only, I have been presented with another problem

On the MC the bride has given her age as 25. However, on the IGI she is shown as having been born in Mullaglass, Armagh in 1873, making her 28/29 on her wedding day

Since the groom (his second marriage) was 35, why the deception?

I have tempered my confusion with this though...

Her mother is shown as Mary Jane m.s. Creally on the MC, but the IGI has her as Mary Jane m.s. Crilly. Seems like a likely spelling version to me. What do you all think?

LesleyB · Post by **LesleyB** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:45 pm

hi Mary

why the deception?

Maybe she'd just lost track? I'm not trying to be flippant here..

I do think we are far more aware these days of exactly how old we are than folk were back then. I think if I were to look at all the marriage entries I have downloaded I have a feeling there would be a lot which were "near enough" on age, not necessarily spot-on accurate. I must try it, and see how many really were accurate!!

Does she start "slipping" on the census, or is it only when she marries that her age is inaccurate?

Her mother is shown as Mary Jane m.s. Creally on the MC, but the IGI has her as Mary Jane m.s. Crilly. Seems like a likely spelling version to me. What do you all think?

To me, just saying that one out loud easily explains the spelling variation & in addition it is an unusual name which is, in my experience, more prone to mispellings than those surnames which are very familiar to most people. On top of that, there is always a chance it has been mistranscribed on IGI? A look at the OPR would let you make your own mind up about the spelling.

Best wishes
Lesley

Post by **emanday** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 2:59 pm

Unfortunately, Lesley, the marriage was in 1902, and I have been unable to find her on any previous censuses so far.

I think I might have to pop in to the Family Centre here in Bristol and have a look at the film myself. To be truthful, I do have a bit of a list they might be able to help with.

Ancestry Ireland has one Mary Jane Crilly marriage, but none of the James Watson entries match the year and it is too expensive to look at just one entry when there is no matching entry for the possible groom.

You're right, of course, about the age thing. As to the mother's maiden name; it is very unusual and I think I should accept that it is one and the same person.

sheilajim · Post by **sheilajim** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:11 pm

Hi Mary

Who knows why they lied there ages? It seems that it was a common thing to do, to fudge their ages a bit.

My mother told me that her mother was 16 years old when she got married. From a letter I have from my mother's sister to my mother, I can tell that my aunt also thought that her mother was younger than she was.

On my Grandmother's Marriage Certificate, she gave her age as 19. The information from her Birth Certificate shows that she was actually 20.

It probably seemed a harmless little fib for them to tell at the time.

Post by **Tracey** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 10:20 pm

Worst of all it always seemed to be the ladies who fibbed about their age. I think chivalry played a big part if the man was younger than his bride or it seems to on a few of my certificates

Post by **emanday** » Tue Aug 22, 2006 11:15 pm

Tracey wrote:Worst of all it always seemed to be the ladies who fibbed about their age. I think chivalry played a big part if the man was younger than his bride or it seems to on a few of my certificates

Don't know about that, Tracey. On the 1891 and 1901 censuses my Grandad knew exactly what his age was, but a few years later he'd knocked a couple of years off on his MC

and his bride was still younger than him. I suppose 28 did seem better than 30

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 2:13 am

Hello all

My paternal grandparents were married in 1913, grannie was down as aged 20 and grandfather 19. Well I finally found my grannies BC the other day and you guessed it she was born in 1892 not 1893 as I was told by my aunt, my aunt gave me the correct month and day but year given was 1893

Post by **paddyscar** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 5:31 am

Just as reading and writing was not available to all, could any of the incorrect ages be a reflection of little or no education? Numeracy is definitely made easier if you are literate.

Just a thought,

Frances

ninatoo · Post by **ninatoo** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:56 am

Hi emanday,

I have a few Crilly ancestors, but I know little about them. Bridget Foley Crilly married Frederick Cotterill in about 1934. Her paents were James Crilly and Isabella Duffy.

I didn't know the surname was unusual, since I have not tried to find them yet on any censuses.

Nina

Post by **joette** » Wed Aug 23, 2006 10:50 am

My Aunt by marriage has a sister who married a Crilly.Did not realise the name was unusual either.
Re ages sometimes I have trouble remembering my age-I have been known to add a few years! This before I started with "mature moments".
I was never much good at Arithmetic & sometimes my additions are out.
I don't suppose our ancestors celebrated their birthdays as we do & if they had no documentation with date of birth on it then it must have been hard to keep track off!!