Parrettd Posted 26 May , 2016 Share Posted 26 May , 2016 Can anyone tell me why a soldier would give their age as 21 when they are 20 on enlisting in 1902 in Glasgow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 26 May , 2016 Share Posted 26 May , 2016 No need for parental consent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnumbellum Posted 27 May , 2016 Share Posted 27 May , 2016 I am not sure whether parental consent was ever required for recruits over 18; at one time the Army required it only for recruits under 17 years six months. It is possible, however, that the recruit in question was under the impression that permission would be required. A more likely reason is that the recruit was genuinely unsure of his age. It was common in poorer and less literate families not to pay for a birth certificate, and in a social context where little attention was paid to exact age confusion would sometime arise. A third possibility is the custom in some localities to cite age at the next birthday rather than the previous birthday. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrettd Posted 27 May , 2016 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2016 Thanks magnumbellum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyH Posted 27 May , 2016 Share Posted 27 May , 2016 I have found quite a few CWGC records that give an age 1 year older than I know it to have been. And local newspaper reports often used the term "died in his 25th year," so I have come to the conclusion that it may have been pretty common at the time to use the age at next birthday? BillyH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonbem Posted 27 May , 2016 Share Posted 27 May , 2016 (edited) I am not sure whether parental consent was ever required for recruits over 18; at one time the Army required it only for recruits under 17 years six months. It is possible, however, that the recruit in question was under the impression that permission would be required. A more likely reason is that the recruit was genuinely unsure of his age. It was common in poorer and less literate families not to pay for a birth certificate, and in a social context where little attention was paid to exact age confusion would sometime arise. A third possibility is the custom in some localities to cite age at the next birthday rather than the previous birthday. My Dad has "two" birthdays because he was one of 18 children in an agricultural family and his mother couldn't be sure if it was the 6th or 10th of the month when he was born as it was a few weeks later when his birth was registered. The "official" one is the 6th. (and of course there was no TV!) Edited 27 May , 2016 by jonbem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaybee9 Posted 27 May , 2016 Share Posted 27 May , 2016 Perhaps no more unusual than the many examples of men being out by a year when giving date of marriage or birth of a child. Jaybee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrettd Posted 27 May , 2016 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2016 Thanks everyone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now