Leah Isaacs (Harris) - Birthdate change

Started by Sharon Doubell on Wednesday, April 17, 2013

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Showing all 9 posts
4/17/2013 at 1:24 AM

Following this info on her profile by Private User:
=Leah Isaacs (nee Harris)'s marriage certificate dated 6 December 1837 says she was a Minor - which means she was under 21 at the time - so she was born AFTER 6 December 1816.

She is described on her marriage certificate as a minor, spinster, of 6 Elliston Street, Middlesex Street, daughter of Solomon Harris, General Dealer.

In the 1841 census (notoriously inaccurate for ages) she is 22 - at Harrow Alley, St Botolph Aldgate, London

In the 1851 census at 5 Harrow Alley she is 33, which would put her as born about 1818+

I am changing her birthdate to c 1818. Thanks for the research work, Private User.

4/17/2013 at 1:28 AM

Previously entered birthdate was: 2/6/1816, London.

Private User
4/17/2013 at 11:17 AM

I'm surprised at the early dates - it might mean that my extended family came earlier to the UK than my immediate ancestors.

It is also feasible that Leah Friedlander (nee Harris) was named after her predecessor Leah Isaacs (nee Harris)

Kind Regards,

Joanne

4/18/2013 at 1:40 AM

Thanks for responding Private User. Private User can you engage on these thoughts? Between us we should be able to come up with the 'most likely' scenario we want to be represented on the profile.

4/18/2013 at 9:05 AM

The reason for a public discussion, David, is to log the research process for next time.Otherwise we can end up having the same conversations year in and year out for every new manager merged in etc.
Nothing is particularly controversial here, so not much point in keeping it private, I'd say?

8/1/2013 at 2:31 AM

According to the prayer book of her great nephew Barnett Harris (my Great Uncle), the correct date of birth for Leah Harris is 2nd Jan 1816.

Hope this helps

Regards

Chris

8/1/2013 at 3:25 AM

Thanks Chris - I'll change it there. So much for 'minor' spinster on her marriage, hmm? Maybe she just looked young - or the registering officer couldn't add? :-)

Private User
8/1/2013 at 4:17 AM

The significance of being a minor is that a minor would require parental consent for marriage, while a bride or groom above the age of responsibility could marry without parental consent.

There were many cases of younger brides and grooms claiming to be older than they actually were, in order to avoid getting parental consent. Claiming to be a minor and hence requiring parental consent when the bride was actually older and not requiring parental consent would be odd to say the least.

8/1/2013 at 4:21 AM

True - I was thinking that perhaps he just wrote it, assuming without asking? It's a puzzle.

Showing all 9 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion