|
Do not merge this page with Person:Hannah Badcock (1).
Disputed death date [9 July 2011]
The phrase "in the 67th year of her age" means she was 66 years old not 67. This would correspond to her birth in 1661 not 1660--Scot 12:42, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
- Technically, I agree with you entirely (the possible range of birth dates would include roughly 4 months of 1660, but to the point, not May 1660). I am not sure what point you are trying to make, as age at death was notoriously inaccurate. There was a noted tendency towards inflation (doesn't seem to be so in this case), it was necessarily second-hand, it is subject to math errors (I have worked with several that appear to be exactly 10 years off which is an obvious example), literacy and schooling was not universal, and then the usual human errors on top of all that. For example, the family, who may or may not have been able to read, tells the stone cutter she was 67, and he carves his usual flowery inscription "in her 67th year". Maybe they didn't have her birth date and they had to rely on what they remembered her to have last said as her age. Who knows? If it was more like 3 or 5 year discrepancy, I might be concerned. The validity of this match will turn on identifying an alternate widow Hannah Dyer who could have married Joseph Morse, or alternately identifying the 1726 Hannah Dyer gravestone definitely as the widow of Joseph. But not on this discrepancy. --Jrich 14:15, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
My mother's grandmother would greet her on her birthdays with "Now you are in your nth year." My mother was in high school before she realized she was a year younger than she thought. When she died, my father was remarried within four months. I don't think it unreasonable that Joseph would remarry that quickly, especially if he had been left with an infant daughter. Not to say he did, but it is reasonable that he would.--Scot 17:10, 9 July 2011 (EDT)
|
