Why would the ages on a 1877 Marriage Certificate be so wrong?

Question

I wasn't expecting to find this when I received a marriage certificate in the post today.

The year of marriage is 1877 in the registration district of Exeter.

Mary Ann Vickery, age 22 which make her year of birth 1855 approx. William Brown, age 21, which would make his year of birth around 1856.

I can show a snippet from the certificate if required but the text is quite clear.

In my tree I have:

Mary (born 1852). William (born 1859).

Mary's birth is consistent in Mary ways:

• I have her birth certificate and it is 18 April 1852.
• Based on the census logs I have found to day they too coincide (1881, 1891, 1901, 1911).
• The year of marriage fits in with the birth of her children.

For William I only have two census logs for now (1881 and 1901).

On the 1901 image the areas are very clear:

Clearly Mary is 48 and William is 43.

OK, OK, one might ask:

• Is this marriage certificate the right one for this couple?
• Or, are the census logs the correct one for this couple?

I am going on the basis that these persons are the same. They got married in a Registry Office.

According to my records they would have been:

William - 1877-1859 = 18 years. Kind of young but I guess the age could have massages either way, most likely to being a bit older, but 21?

Mary - 1877-1852 = 25 years.

Was it common at this time to have such differencing with the facts (as in taking the birth certificate as fact)?

---

I agree with one of the answers provided in that census data can't be relied on by itself to establish ages.

• 1861 Mary is 10 and a servant but it says she was born in a different place in Devon.
• 1871 Mary is 19 and a servant but it says she was born in Taunton, Somerset.
• 1881 Mary was 28 (calculated 1853) - born Whimple:

• 1891 Mary was 38 (calculated 1853) - born Whimple:

• 1901 Mary was 48 (calculated 1853) - born Whimple:

• 1911 Mary was 54 (calculated 1857) - born Whimple: (oops - note that she died on dementia in early 1930s).

I should point out a Military pension record snippet for their son Robert Brown in 1907 that tells me these are correct (note the address):

I don't know why William Brown was not listed on the 1901 census log.

Interestingly on Mary's death certificate from 1932 it says that her husband was a "Tanner, Journeyman":

I think that William is then later found on the 1939 register as a Widower with his daughter (married) but I do not have the official images etc for that.

So I figured that maybe he was just travelling in 1901.

Answer 1

Two common reasons for lying about age at marriage were:

1. Pretending to be over 21 (and so not needing parental consent)
2. Adjusting your age to be closer to your partners.

Possibly you have examples of both.

Answer 2

The simple answer is probably the obvious one, that they were "creative" with the ages they gave the registrar when getting married, probably because of the age difference, or because William was under 21 so would have needed parental consent if he gave his true age.

Answer 3

I have several thoughts on this:

1. Ages given on census rolls are not accurate and can be as much as 10 years off either way. Compare ages in different census rolls for the same people and you'll see what I mean. I would have to think that much of the time, the census taker did not ask the people their age but simply guessed it. The birth certificate is definitely much more reliable than ages on census rolls.

2. The name William Brown is extremely common and there could be many William Browns married to Marys living in the same city. The verification would need to be other information in the record, e.g. the names and birth order of the children, birth places, address, etc.

3. You say the marriage year is 1877 and you show the 1901 census image. You say you have the 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911 census for Mary, but you only have the 1881 and 1901 census for William. You don't say what is on the 1891 census. Is William not on that? If not, why not? Were sons Robert and Hugh who should have been about age 2 and age 1 on that census? If not, why not? If William and Mary were married in 1877, then under normal circumstances, you should find them together on the 1881, 1891 and 1901 censuses.

Answer 4

I'm adding this as a new answer regarding the census information and images that were added to the question after I had given my earlier answer.

You show the 4 census records for Mary for 1881, 1891, 1901 and 1911. I believe the record for 1901 is a different family, because:

• 1881 and 1891 give her first names as Mary Ann. 1911 gives her name as Mrs. M. A., but 1901 list her only as Mary. It would seem that she wanted to be known as Mary Ann. Why not in 1901?

• 1891 she has children Elizabeth who is 5, Albert who is 4, Robert who is 2 and Harry who is 1. In 1901, she has Robert who is 12, Hugh is 11, and Sidney is 3. What happened to Elizabeth and Albert? Harry and Hugh are not the same names. In 1911, Albert was still at home at age 25. What happened to Sidney who should be 13?

If the 1901 record is for a different family, then the Robert Brown listed in 1891 would be a different person than the Robert Brown listed in 1901. Your Robert Brown "snippet" lists the mother as Mary Ann as does the death certificate.

I would conclude that you have the incorrect 1901 record and suggest you look for a different one that includes Mary Ann Brown and children Elizabeth (15), Albert (14), Robert (12), Harry (11) and maybe Richard (19).

And that would explain why the ages on the 1877 marriage certificate are so different from those in the 1901 census.