Family Historian User Group

I have just finished entering details about a person who died at the age of 44, a couple of days before her 45th birthday. Her burial came after the date of her 45th 'birthday'

If I add 44 as the age at burial, FH thinks that this age is incorrect and inserts a ! next to the age. I would have thought that in fact the age is still 44 as surely the clock stops ticking when you die! Or am I wrong in that assumption?!

If I remove 44 from the Age field, I get a calculated age of 45 (I think that is actually incorrect). If I omit calculated ages, it means that I don't the other (useful and correct) ages in the remainder of the record.

FH is clever enough to spot that the date I enter is after the date of death, so shouldn't it automatically carry across that the age at death is the age at burial?

ID:2269

I would have thought that an age at burial is a nonsensical fact. Age is a term used to indicate number of years a person is when alive, when dead age doesn't mean anything.

Either FH should omit references to age on the burial event or do as you say and stop the clock at death.

The age next to the burial event is to record the age shown in the burial register, before 1837 this is the only record of age at the time of death. FH should be able to record it.

I always record the dates given on documents such as marriage or death certificates even if I know they are incorrect, notes can be added against the event itself or in the source to explain discrepancies. I don't think it is good practice to ignore or disregard primary source information just because I don't agree with it.

Ages on death certificates, headstones and in burial registers can be wildly inaccurate. I have found several people recorded as 80 years old when they would only have been in their 60s.

Irene B