I've recently solved this case from the spreadsheet @beaumont posted in this thread:

Blaze Driver, a barber, died on 24 July, 1801 (and was buried the same day) at Kirkleatham, North Yorkshire, at the claimed age of 102 years, and 334 days.

There is a baptism record dated to 11 August, 1698 from Northallerton, North Yorkshire for an infant named Blaze Driver, whose father bore the same name.

If the baptism record is a match, then Blaze Driver would have been 102 years old, but at least a few days older than claimed.

And now for the big question - Can the baptism record be connected to the burial record?

Although there is no marriage recorded in the parish register for Kirkleatham, a burial record confirms that Blaze Driver's wife was Elizabeth Driver, who was buried 22 March, 1775 at Kirkleatham, recorded as "wife of Blaze Driver, barber."

On 16 January, 1764 the marriage of John Snowden and Alathea Weatherald at Kirkleatham is witnessed by John Bulmer and Blac Driver.

On 21 October, 1760, the marriage of John Clarke and Elizabeth Richardson at Kirkleatham is witnessed by John Bulmer and Bese Driuer.

The couple had at least 5 children:

Hannah, bapt. 12 June, 1725, Kirkleatham

Jonathan, bapt. 17 November, 1727, Kirkleatham

Jane, bapt. 10 December 1730, Kirkleatham, married James Unthank on 10 September, 1759 at Kirkleatham, buried 22 September, 1790 at Kirkleatham (age 59)

Elizabeth, bapt. 18 April 1735, Kirkleatham, buried 6 January 1743/4 at Kirkleatham (age 9)

Blaze, bapt. 28 November, 1738, Kirkleatham, buried 29 January, 1741/2 at Kirkleatham (age 3)

Initially, it appeared that there was a risk that the Blaze Driver buried in 1801 was the individual baptized in 1738,

but since the wife of the Blaze Driver baptized in 1698 is not recorded as being a widow in her burial record, in addition to the fact there is seemingly no evidence suggesting that the Blaze Driver baptized in 1738 survived to adulthood,

it appears that the Blaze Driver who was buried in 1741 at Kirkleatham was in fact the infant baptized in 1738, and the man who was buried in 1801 was in fact a centenarian when he died.

(Kirkleatham parish register)

This man in 1938 (who was my great-great-great-grandfather’s 5th cousin) was 107 years and 223 days old when he passed away.

Posted by: @charlesm09

↑

-- attachment is not available --
-- attachment is not available --

This man in 1938 (who was my great-great-great-grandfather’s 5th cousin) was likely 107 years and 223 days old when he passed away.

 

If so, there is a good change he was the WOLM at the time of his death.

@fish amazing research! I'll have to look into it in more detail myself but a huge discovery if true. Another 1600's born centenarian, extremely rare.

Fish referred to my spreadsheet, here's the latest version if anyone's interested.

That is a fantastic spreadsheet - let alone a huge amount of research work Beaumont.

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

Another 1600's born centenarian, extremely rare

Not to mention he was likely one of the earliest people to live across 3 centuries!

I am currently researching another early centenarian, who appears to be a mostly complete case, but is currently missing an important piece of connective evidence.

To specify - There is a specific document which I am currently unable to access which could be very helpful in further confirming that the located documents are for the centenarian.

Posted by: @fish

↑

another early centenarian

And here is that case, who is also listed on @beaumont's spreadsheet:

Margaret Turnbull passed away on 20 October, 1838 at Hunwick, Co. Durham, at the claimed age of 100, and was buried on 22 October, 1838 at Auckland St. Andrew, Co. Durham.

There are two marriage records from the parish of St. Hilda, South Shields, Co. Durham dating to 21 and 22 June, 1765 for Francis Turnbull, age 29, and Margaret Hymers, a 28-year-old widow.

Francis Turnbull was baptized at St. Hilda, South Shields on 22 December, 1734 (OS) / 2 January, 1735 (NS) and likely died at Hunwick sometime in 1781, and was buried sometime in 1781 at either Bishop Auckland or Auckland St. Andrew.

Looking further back in the St. Hilda parish register reveals two marriage records dating to 31 January and 5 February, 1757 for Anthony Hymers, age 31, and Margaret Hudson, age 22.

The couple had at least two children:

Elizabeth, bapt. 2 January 1759, St. Hilda

Margaret, bapt. sometime in September 1759, St. Hilda, married Stephen Atkinson 12 December, 1782 at St. Hilda, buried 4 November, 1798 at All Saint's Church, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland (age 39)

Anthony Hymers was baptized at St. Hilda on 12 (OS) / 23 (NS) May, 1724, and was buried in the same parish on 6 March, 1764.

There is a baptism record for an infant named Margaret Hudson daughter of Richard Hudson, who was baptized at St. Hilda on 8 (OS) / 19 (NS) March, 1736.

If the baptism record is a match, then Margaret Turnbull would have been 102 years old when she passed away, rather than 100 years old as she claimed.

The main issues with this case is the fact that the burial record for Francis Turnbull's burial record has yet to be accessed, and so it is currently unknown whether or not he is listed as a widower on his burial record, as well as the possibility that the woman who passed away in 1838 could have been Margaret Turnbull, daughter of Peter Turnbull, baptized on 2 (OS) / 13 (NS) January, 1741 at Auckland St. Andrew.

Posted by: @fish

↑

it is currently unknown whether or not he is listed as a widower on his burial record

If Francis Turnbull was widowed by 1781, there is a possible burial record for the Margaret Turnbull born in 1736.

Margaret Trumble/Turnbull, a resident of Hunwick, buried in 1776 in the Auckland district.

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

North East England Centenarian Database - Unverified and Debunked-3.pdf

@beaumont

I have two questions -

1. What issues are present in the Martha Tomlinson case?

2. Are there any confirmed siblings of Edward Colvill?

Posted by: @fish

↑

Posted by: @fish

↑

another early centenarian

And here is that case, who is also listed on @beaumont's spreadsheet:

Margaret Turnbull passed away on 20 October, 1838 at Hunwick, Co. Durham, at the claimed age of 100, and was buried on 22 October, 1838 at Auckland St. Andrew, Co. Durham.

There are two marriage records from the parish of St. Hilda, South Shields, Co. Durham dating to 21 and 22 June, 1765 for Francis Turnbull, age 29, and Margaret Hymers, a 28-year-old widow.

Francis Turnbull was baptized at St. Hilda, South Shields on 22 December, 1734 (OS) / 2 January, 1735 (NS) and likely died at Hunwick sometime in 1781, and was buried sometime in 1781 at either Bishop Auckland or Auckland St. Andrew.

Looking further back in the St. Hilda parish register reveals two marriage records dating to 31 January and 5 February, 1757 for Anthony Hymers, age 31, and Margaret Hudson, age 22.

The couple had at least two children:

Elizabeth, bapt. 2 January 1759, St. Hilda

Margaret, bapt. sometime in September 1759, St. Hilda, married Stephen Atkinson 12 December, 1782 at St. Hilda, buried 4 November, 1798 at All Saint's Church, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland (age 39)

Anthony Hymers was baptized at St. Hilda on 12 (OS) / 23 (NS) May, 1724, and was buried in the same parish on 6 March, 1764.

There is a baptism record for an infant named Margaret Hudson daughter of Richard Hudson, who was baptized at St. Hilda on 8 (OS) / 19 (NS) March, 1736.

If the baptism record is a match, then Margaret Turnbull would have been 102 years old when she passed away, rather than 100 years old as she claimed.

The main issues with this case is the fact that the burial record for Francis Turnbull's burial record has yet to be accessed, and so it is currently unknown whether or not he is listed as a widower on his burial record, as well as the possibility that the woman who passed away in 1838 could have been Margaret Turnbull, daughter of Peter Turnbull, baptized on 2 (OS) / 13 (NS) January, 1741 at Auckland St. Andrew.

Aren't the English deaths records make a distinction between maiden and married names?

It's hard to believe that a claimed 100-y.o. woman was actually 102..

Posted by: @guillaume

↑

Posted by: @fish

↑

Posted by: @fish

↑

another early centenarian

And here is that case, who is also listed on @beaumont's spreadsheet:

Margaret Turnbull passed away on 20 October, 1838 at Hunwick, Co. Durham, at the claimed age of 100, and was buried on 22 October, 1838 at Auckland St. Andrew, Co. Durham.

There are two marriage records from the parish of St. Hilda, South Shields, Co. Durham dating to 21 and 22 June, 1765 for Francis Turnbull, age 29, and Margaret Hymers, a 28-year-old widow.

Francis Turnbull was baptized at St. Hilda, South Shields on 22 December, 1734 (OS) / 2 January, 1735 (NS) and likely died at Hunwick sometime in 1781, and was buried sometime in 1781 at either Bishop Auckland or Auckland St. Andrew.

Looking further back in the St. Hilda parish register reveals two marriage records dating to 31 January and 5 February, 1757 for Anthony Hymers, age 31, and Margaret Hudson, age 22.

The couple had at least two children:

Elizabeth, bapt. 2 January 1759, St. Hilda

Margaret, bapt. sometime in September 1759, St. Hilda, married Stephen Atkinson 12 December, 1782 at St. Hilda, buried 4 November, 1798 at All Saint's Church, Newcastle upon Tyne, Northumberland (age 39)

Anthony Hymers was baptized at St. Hilda on 12 (OS) / 23 (NS) May, 1724, and was buried in the same parish on 6 March, 1764.

There is a baptism record for an infant named Margaret Hudson daughter of Richard Hudson, who was baptized at St. Hilda on 8 (OS) / 19 (NS) March, 1736.

If the baptism record is a match, then Margaret Turnbull would have been 102 years old when she passed away, rather than 100 years old as she claimed.

The main issues with this case is the fact that the burial record for Francis Turnbull's burial record has yet to be accessed, and so it is currently unknown whether or not he is listed as a widower on his burial record, as well as the possibility that the woman who passed away in 1838 could have been Margaret Turnbull, daughter of Peter Turnbull, baptized on 2 (OS) / 13 (NS) January, 1741 at Auckland St. Andrew.

It's hard to believe that a claimed 100-y.o. woman was actually 102..

 

In an era before birth registration, people frequently lost track of their exact ages throughout their lives. While it's statistically more likely for someone claiming to be a centenarian to be younger rather than older due to the older ages being rarer, it isn't strange at all for this to have occurred.

Posted by: @guillaume

↑

Aren't the English deaths records make a distinction between maiden and married names?

Back then, English burial records usually left out maiden names, but they did record martial status of individual buried, and occasionally other bits of information, such as cause of death, relatives, or a short biography.

For example, a burial record from back then could look like this -

"Anne, a resident of this parish, age 76, wid. of John Smith, farmer, 29 January"

@fish 

Martha Tomlinson I have as 'Category 3' simply because it's proven she was a widow of a man (The Rev. Dr Robert Tomlinson) who'd died 20 years earlier at the age of almost 80, suggesting she perhaps was a similar age. I don't have any other evidence at the moment, but it's certain Robert Tomlinson was rector of Whickham as early as 1695, so it's likely he probably was born in the 1660's. So, if his age was about right, it increases the chances that his wife's was, but I can't be sure at this time.

I have no more info on Edward Colvil unfortunately, and I did spend a considerable amount of time looking into him.

@beaumont

Thanks!

Regarding Martha Tomlinson: There is a marriage record from 8 April, 1702 at East Ardsley, Yorkshire for a Robert Tomlinson and Martha Ray.

I have checked very well for any other possible marriage record matches, but it seems that there wouldn't be a Robert Tomlinson who would marry anyone named Martha until the 1760s.

I have also checked very well for any possible previous marriage records for Martha Ray, and it appears that there are none.

I then thoroughly searched for possible baptism record matches for Martha Ray and it seems that there is only one plausible match - Martha Ray, baptized 13 July, 1668 at St. Peter, Birstall, Yorkshire, daughter of John Ray, a resident of Gomersal.

The baptism record connection is apparently mentioned in this book from 1895.

Regarding Edward Colvil: There appears to be two possible relatives who lived in the same place as Colvil -

John Colvil, a baker and brewer who lived at Newcastle-upon-Tyne from 1670 to 1689, and Alexander Colvil, a waterman, who lived there from 1682 to at least 1694.

I also found two possible baptism records for Edward Colvil:

Edward Colvin, son of Adam Colvin, bapt. 23 July, 1654 at Gainsford, Co. Durham

Edward Collier, son of Edward Collier, born at Penshaw, Co. Durham (date unspecified), bapt. 6 July, 1645 at St. Michael, Houghton-le-Spring, Co. Durham.

Posted by: @fish

↑

Edward Colvin, son of Adam Colvin, bapt. 23 July, 1654 at Gainsford, Co. Durham

Apparently this Edward could be more likely to be the Edward Colvil who died in 1750, as there is possibly evidence suggesting that his father was in fact Adam Colvil.

(Source)

@fish 

That family pedigree for Martha Tomlinson (Ray) is very persuasive. I did see the marriage from 1702 previously, but there was no obvious link between the locations, and the fact she would've been in her mid-30's at the time put me off the idea.

However, seeing the same Martha from the pedigree being directly linked to the Martha from the 1769 death, makes me think they are actually the same person. Obviously we will never know her exact date of birth, but a baptism of 13 July 1668 would make her at least 101. I will dig a bit deeper into the pedigree before verifying.

OK IT IS HER

I found the will of Martha Tomlinson, dated 22 August 1768 (she would have been at least 100 at this point).

She lists numerous beneficiaries that link in *exactly* with the pedigree.

"To my neice Elizabeth Dawson, daughter of John Dawson of Manchester" - listed in pedigree (her great neice)

"To my neice Catherine Williamson, wife of John Williamson ofn the same place [Manchester]" - listed in pedigree (her great neice)

She also leaves £300 to "Robert Ray son of the Reverend John Ray late vicar of Nether Warden deceased", she doesn't specify a relationship, but we know from the pedigree John was her nephew, and Robert his son.

So here are the facts -

1. Martha Tomlinson died on 16 December 1769, reportedly aged 102. There are various other ages claimed for her in other sources (some as high as 105), but most settle on 102. Her death date is verified by local records and her burial was three days later on 19th December.

2. She was the widow of The Rev. Dr Robert Tomlinson, who died 24 March 1748, aged 79.

3. The Martha Tomlinson who died in 1769 is linked directly to Martha Ray in the 1895 published pedigree of the Ray family, stating her baptism as 13 July 1668 in Birstall, West Yorkshire.

4. We can establish it's likely her maiden name was Ray due to the marriage in East Ardsley on 8 April 1702 to Robert Tomlinson. Another pedigree (this time of of the Tomlinson family), corroborates this marriage as being the correct one.

5. The baptism mentioned in the pedigree can be verified to exist after checking the parish records. In the records of the Parish Church of Birstall, in the July 1668 section, it lists "Martha, daughter of Mr John Ray of Gomersal, on the 13th day".

6. The pedigree mentions a brother Robert, which is verified from the same parish records in the August 1669 section: "Robert, son of Mr John Ray of Gomersal, on the 27th day".

7. The pedigree mentions the brother Robert was at Gray's Inn, London, in 1695 and married Elizabeth Broadhead. This is verified by the marriage license issued on 24 June 1695 - "Robert Ray, gentleman, 23, London, and Elizabeth Broadhead, spinster, 18, of Batley - at cathedral".

8. The pedigree lists seven children for Robert and Elizabeth - Robert, Edward, John, Catherine, James, Martha and Ann. Some of these can be verified from parish records in and around Batley in the years following the 1695 marriage. Catherine (1697), John (1698), Martha (1704) and Edward (1706). Can't find Robert, James or Ann, but it's common at this time period for the records not to be perfect.

9. The pedigree lists the son, John, as marrying "... daughter of ... Combers", which is likely Ann Combers, as there is a marriage between John Ray and Ann Combers in August 1720 in London. The pedigree states this John became Vicar of Nether Warden, Northumberland, a fact direcrly corroborated in Martha's 1768 will.

10. The pedigree says John and his wife had an only son, Robert, who is also mentioned in Martha's will.

11. Catherine Ray (1697) can be found to marry John Dawson of Manchester on 10 May 1717, another fact that matches with the pedigree, and Catherine's daughter from this marriage, Elizabeth (baptism found 26 January 1720), is mentioned in Martha's will as a spinster, which the pedigree also states.

12. Catherine had another daughter, Catherine (baptism found 27 January 1722), who married John Williamson of Manchester (marriage found for 18 April 1750), both of these facts are stated in the pedigree and corroborated by Martha's will.

13. The pedigree also states the elder Catherine had a son, Robert Dawson, who married Mary Hargrave and died in 1766, two years prior to Martha's will. This is corroborated in Martha's will, as she leaves money to "Mary Dawson, widow of Robert Dawson".

14. Going back to Martha's baptism on 13 July 1668, it's unlikely she was born much earlier than this, as her parents (John Ray and Catherine Marsh, both listed in the pedigree) are found to have been given a marriage license in September 1666, meaning Martha won't have been born prior to this.

In conclusion, I could find no evidence that cast doubt over the claim that the Martha Ray baptised in 1668 is the same person as the Martha Tomlinson who died in 1769. The will in 1768 establishes clear and evidenced links between the pedigree of the Ray family (which can also be verified with parish records), and Martha Tomlinson, widow of The Rev. Dr Robert Tomlinson, rector of Whickham, Co Durham.

So, I can say with a high degree of confidence that Martha Tomlinson (née Ray), was baptised at Birstall, West Yorkshire on 13 July 1668 and died at Whickham, Co Durham (present day Gateshead) on 16 December 1769, aged *at least* 101.

Wondering if anyone might be interested in helping put together a database type thing for early centenarian research? Would probably keep to the same parameters as the original list hosted on OIB (105+ born before 1850; 100+ born before 1780). There's also heatwave's Gerontology Wiki list but a lot of claims are unsourced. 

Having gone through the England/Scotland death indexes I've already amassed circa 150 claims to 105+ born before 1850 whose age I have researched and considered likely to be valid, as well as sprinklings of claims from other countries. 

I'm still in the process of adding cases, but there's a link to the database here

I'm only adding cases currently if I've researched them myself and concluded that the documentation is of a high enough standard to justify their inclusion - or alternatively if they've been researched by a reliable third party. 

Note that I've started off just with 105+ cases: once the 105+ data is "complete" enough I'll start bringing in the pre-1780 100+ cases. 

Nice beginning. May I ask what is your "reliable third party" for Catherine Delplace? Because this is a false claim.

Posted by: @guillaume

↑

Nice beginning. May I ask what is your "reliable third party" for Catherine Delplace? Because this is a false claim.

https://eeuwelingen.blogspot.com/p/eeuwige-ranglijst.html

I had assumed all the historical claims on here were reliably researched - unfortunate if that's not the case.

It's a very tricky case actually, resulting from a confusion between two sisters. The first Catherine born in 1738 died in 1829 and the second, who swapped her date of birth with the one of her older sister, was born on 10 July 1756 and thus, was only 88.

Posted by: @fish

↑

Blaze Driver would have been 102 years old, but at least a few days older than claimed.

I've discovered that Blaze Driver's actual date of birth is 29 July, 1698. 

Apparently his parish was already recording births by the 1690s.

@fish what is the source for that birth date? I've found the original baptismal register and the only information it has is:

August 11 - Blaze son of Blaze Driver

The record is from the Northallerton parish register and records "A Childe", the son of "Blaze", who was born on 29 July, 1698. It was originally sourced from the North Yorkshire County Record Office.

@fish There are only two issues I have with the Blaze Driver case, which is preventing me from verifying.

From the records, it appears Blaze Driver (Snr) was born 1671, married Eliza Jackson in 1692, and had a son Blaze in 1698.

All those events took place in Northallerton.

As we know, Blaze Jnr was born 29 July, bapt 11 Aug 1698 in Northallerton.

The records show a Blaze Driver Snr was buried 22 Nov 1705 in Northallerton.

But, there is an unresolved burial here. There is another burial for a Blaze Driver in Northallerton, this time on 4 Apr 1715. How do we know for certain this isn't the 1698 Blaze?

Also, we have to consider the location switch from Northallerton to Kirkleatham. Fair enough both locations are in the same county, but they aren't particularly close (around ten hours on foot).

'Our' Blaze Driver pops up in Kirkleatham in the 1720's with his wife (we don't have a marriage record). There's no definitive origin for him. Also, we have the burial of Blaze Driver in 1741/42 who we are assuming was his son. But, we don't know that for certain. Other children buried in the same year (on the same page even) are listed as 'son of', whereas the 1742 burial just says 'Blaze Driver', which seems unusual. An infant would usually be identified by their parent in a burial in this era.

Also, it seems convenient it's around this same time that Blaze Driver stops having children. Could be a coincidence, but that worries me. I agree the 1775 burial for Elizabeth Driver does state 'wife of Blaze Driver' and not widow, but I feel uneasy verifying a claim of such magnitude based on one word in one record.

There's no evidence to definitevely say for certain that the true series of events isn't this:

- Blaze Driver was born in 1698 in Northallerton, and died in 1715 in Northallerton, aged 16

- Another Blaze Driver from a different branch of the same family (born maybe c. 1695-1705) married in the early 1720's and started having children in the 1720's/30's in Kirkleatham

- One of those children is another Blaze Driver (born 1739)

- The senior Blaze Driver dies in 1742, aged around 40

- The younger Blaze Driver dies unmarried in 1801 aged around 62 (claims 102)

HOWEVER there is one crucial fact that could save the day. It appears the Blaze Driver born in 1671, was also the son of another Blaze Driver, who married in 1660, and was likely born around 1635-40. Could it be that the 1705 burial was for this Blaze, and the 1715 burial is for the 1671 Blaze? I can't be certain, but this certainly is possible.

Also, Elizabeth Driver (b. 1735) is buried in 1744 as 'daughter of Blaze Driver', which could support he was alive at this time.

I want to verify this case, I really do, and there's a lot to make me feel confident here, but also a lot to make me wobble...

@beaumont

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

But, there is an unresolved burial here. There is another burial for a Blaze Driver in Northallerton, this time on 4 Apr 1715. How do we know for certain this isn't the 1698 Blaze?

(All dates below are in their original Julian format.)

Blaze Driver #3's mother, Elizabeth Jackson died in 1702 (buried 26 April), and his father, Blaze #2, married Mary Bean on 20 August, 1702 at Topcliffe, not too far from Northallerton.

From this marriage, they had 3 children, all from Northallerton :

• Michael, born 28 Sept 1704, bapt. 9 October — bur. 10 April 1705
• An unnamed child, born on 6 July, 1706
• Anne, born & bapt. 6 November, 1707.

The child born in 1706 does not appear to have a baptism record, implying that they passed away not long after being born, but a burial record has not been located for them.

On 8 August, 1715, a Mary Driver married William Green at Northallerton.

As there is no other contemporary Mary Driver to be found at Northallerton who could be the same person who married in 1715, it is strongly indicated that Mary Driver was indeed the widow of Blaze Driver #2, and so proving that the Blaze Driver born in 1698 was NOT buried in 1715.

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

It appears the Blaze Driver born in 1671, was also the son of another Blaze Driver, who married in 1660, and was likely born around 1635-40. Could it be that the 1705 burial was for this Blaze, and the 1715 burial is for the 1671 Blaze? I can't be certain, but this certainly is possible

Blaze Driver #1 was baptized at Ganton on 12 September, 1630 as the son of William Driver (who was buried there in July 1635).

He married Isabel Scarlet(t) on 1 May, 1660. Isabel was the daughter of Francis Scarlet(t), and was baptized on 4 November, 1632. The marriage record records Blaze as a resident of Ganton.

The couple had 5 children, all of Northallerton:

• Elizabeth, bapt 5 April 1661
• John, bapt 17 February 1665/6, died 1st March 1665/6
• Francis, bapt 4 April, 1668, buried 18 October, 1729.
• Blaze, bapt. 30 March 1671, buried 4 April, 1715
• Alice, bapt 15 November, 1674, buried 24 October 1727

Isabel was buried on 30 August, 1714, at the age of 81, and according to research above, Blaze #1 was buried 22 November, 1705, at the age of 75.

Alice Driver did not marry and had no children.

No record has been found for Elizabeth Driver other than her baptism record.

Francis Driver is of particular interest. He married Jane Throckmorton (bapt. 17 April 1673) on 18 May, 1699 at Northallerton.

I have found only one child of this couple — Isabel, bapt. 17 January 1699/1700 at Northallerton — she married Thomas Robinson at Thirsk on 22 April, 1723.

Jane was buried on 18 March, 1722/3. It thus appears that Francis Driver could not have had a son named Blaze.

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

I agree the 1775 burial for Elizabeth Driver does state 'wife of Blaze Driver' and not widow, but I feel uneasy verifying a claim of such magnitude based on one word in one record.

The magnitude of the burial is in the fact that if it were to refer to Blaze #4, it would also prove that there must be a marriage record for him, of which there is none to be found in the Kirkleatham parish register, or in the whole of Yorkshire.

I am open for further discussion of this case.

@fish thank you!

im currently out for the night at the moment as I type this so will respond properly tomorrow, but can I just say how great it is that there are people on here willing to invest so much time and effort into these cases! 

@beaumont

You're welcome!

I also plan to post my research on two other cases relevant to the North East Centenarian Database.

Today, after reviewing all the evidence, I verified Blaze Driver (1698-1801). All the evidence points towards him dying at almost 103, and all evidence that potentially suggested a switch has been comprehensively investigated and explained. The family tree re-construction going back to the early 17th century was very persuasive and detailed.

I want to thank @fish for all his amazing work, truly amazing dedication to the cause!

That means I now have four verified centenarians born before 1750:

• Martha Tomlinson (1668-1769), 101
• The Rev. Ferdinand Ashmall (1695-1798), 103
• Blaze Driver (1698-1801), 102
• Parkinson Wouldhave (1725-1826), 101

Posted by: @beaumont

↑

Today, after reviewing all the evidence, I verified Blaze Driver (1698-1801). All the evidence points towards him dying at almost 103, and all evidence that potentially suggested a switch has been comprehensively investigated and explained. The family tree re-construction going back to the early 17th century was very persuasive and detailed.

I want to thank @fish for all his amazing work, truly amazing dedication to the cause!

That means I now have four verified centenarians born before 1750:

• Martha Tomlinson (1668-1769), 101
• The Rev. Ferdinand Ashmall (1695-1798), 103
• Blaze Driver (1698-1801), 102
• Parkinson Wouldhave (1725-1826), 101

Are you familiar with the cases of George Stocking (1579-1683) and Daniel Stodder (1633-1737)?