From: G6JPG-255@255soft.uk   
      
   In message , Richard Smith   
    writes:   
   >On 06/06/18 19:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:   
   >> In message , Richard Smith   
   >>  writes:   
   >>> On 06/06/18 17:25, Norfolkman wrote:   
   >>>> Would it have been common to baptize a child around the age of 9 in   
   >>>>the 16th   
   >>>> century?   
   >>>   
   >>> I think it would be pretty unusual.  I don't recall having found any   
   >>> instances of late baptisms in the 16th century in my family.   
   >>   
   >> How would you know, unless the age was given in the record?   
   >   
   >There are lots of other records that can either tell you a persons age   
   >or give a clue as to it.  Inquisition post mortems, wills that indicate   
   >the person is under 21, burial records, monumental inscriptions, the   
   >years when a woman was bearing children, university admission records,   
   >even occasionally chancery cases.   
   >   
   >Richard   
   >   
   I meant, from the baptism record. I think Norfolkman (where in Norfolk?)   
   was basing his assumption of around 9 on the fact that she was married   
   only 12 or 13 years after baptism, so he assumed that she was much older   
   than 0 when baptised. Which wasn't necessarily the case - females could   
   marry at 12 until 1929.   
   >   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of   
   them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for   
   science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)