From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On 2025/9/28 8:36:29, Charles Ellson wrote:   
   > On Sun, 28 Sep 2025 07:06:42 +0200, Steve Hayes   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:26:39 +0100, Peter Johnson   
   >>  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>>> The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed   
   >>>> there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual   
   >>>> age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the   
   >>>> legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.   
      
   If by "it" you mean the words "and upwards", it certainly adds no   
   information: what it does is add _doubt_, or _take away_ certainty,   
   about the age in question.   
      
   >>>   
   >>> Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or   
   >>> birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were   
   >>> told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been   
   >>> right.   
      
   Indeed.   
      
   >>   
   >> Yu just have to look at census records for that. Children's ages given   
   >> at censuses often do not tally with their date of birth, if known, nor   
   >> with their age at the next or previous census.   
      
   Yes. With hindsight, it would have been better - certainly in more   
   recent decades/centuries when perhaps such things had been better known   
   - to ask for year of birth rather than age (as in fact was done in the   
   1939 register [and has it been in censuses since?]).   
      
   >>   
   >> The clerk filling in (up, out) the form (whether in holy orders or   
   >> not) might simply go by appearance, and would be saying that the   
   >> person was over 21. But if they looked 50, it would be silly to say   
   >> they were "21 and upwards" so they would write "50 and upwards".   
      
   True. Plus, I'm guessing, since those words were preprinted on the form   
   anyway (bond forms I mean, mostly), even if the age was known exactly   
   (well, to the nearest completed year which is all we're talking about),   
   I guess only the most conscientious clerk would think to _cross out_ the   
   "an upwards" words - and some may have thought they weren't supposed to   
   do anything like that.>>   
   > If you are legally required to record the fact that somebody is over x   
   > years then that is what you record (in previous years with the simple   
   > word "full" for their age) to avoid later legal confusion or argument   
   > over what was being recorded or the purpose for which it was being   
   > recorded.   
      
   Yes, on marriage certificates (where the "and upwards" _isn't_   
   preprinted), that is often used. (IME, usually, when I see "of full age"   
   or similar, I usually assume that they actually weren't, and check other   
   sources - and I'm often right! I. e. they were lying about being old   
   enough.)>   
   > I have encountered the occasional "over 21" but never "over  else>" for an adult.   
   Not in (for example) marriage certificates, no. But in marriage bonds,   
   where the "and upwards" is preprinted, I've often seen what I guess is   
   the actual age (a number above 21) entered, but the words not crossed out.   
      
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny   
   individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.   
   - Ayn Rand, quoted by Deb Shinder 2012-3-30   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)