Yes, (speaking like a UK family historian), the fact that something was
invented for the certificate is indeed primary evidence for **a deception
being employed**. However, the same words are only secondary evidence for
the **date of birth** (the original query).
I am with Adrian here - I think the nearest you can get with an age on a marriage
certificate is an approximation. My grandmother stated her age on the marriage certificate
as 26, and her husband 24. As I also have their birth certificates, I know that she was in
fact 28, whereas he was only 23!
So they both gave false information - maybe to hide the fact that she was still a spinster
at 28, maybe to hide the age gap, we'll never know.
However with your cousin, if he was indeed 22, then you should be able to find him as a
baby in the 1911 census ? - I have found that however much people lied about their ages as
adults, in census and other documents, the ages of babies in the census were usually
From: Dennis Hawkins <dennis.hawkins138(a)btinternet.com>
Sent: Monday, 3 February 2014, 20:47
Subject: [FHU] Primary Evidence
I have a Marriage Certificate showing that my cousin was 22 when he got married in July
1931. It may sound a bit strange but I consider that this is “Primary Evidence” that he
was born in “approximately 1909”. Is this correct?
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS-request(a)rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without
the quotes in the subject and the body of the message