Early centenarians – Page 3 – Honorable Mentions

Robbie · 2023-06-06T02:02:49Z

I've always been particularly fascinated by early centenarians - the people who lived to extreme ages at a time when many of the comforts and tools we now have and use in everyday life hadn't been invented or weren't available, and the study of extreme longevity had yet to really begin. I was amazed to find a portrait of Elizabeth Gray (11 May 1748 – 2 Apr 1856) which was posted in a Facebook group. I researched her claim back in 2019 on the 110 Club; to sum up there is early and late-life evidence to support her case, and a fairly complete family tree, but in my view it's unlikely that enough mid-life evidence would exist to verify her claim with the rigor of today's cases. Nevertheless, with a family history of longevity (her mother and two of her siblings would probably also have been within the 50 oldest living people in Scotland at the time of their deaths) I personally think it's fairly likely her claim is true. Here's the portrait, drawn in November 1851 when she was 103: I started a project on researching early centenarians a few years ago but never got very far (there's no better time like the present to resurrect dormant projects..!), and to put into perspective the extremity of Elizabeth Gray's age compared to her contemporaries, here are the only three other people whose ages I was able to verify to a similar degree of confidence to reach 105 in Scotland born in the 18th century: Agnes Forrester (already verified; 4 Oct 1755 – 20 Feb 1861), 105 Isabel Morison (10 Nov 1772 – 19 Nov 1877), 105 Agnes Fleming (17 Feb 1799 – 29 Apr 1905), 106 That's not to say there weren't plenty of people claiming to be older though. 1856 also saw the deaths registered of Robert Bruce at '109', Ann Mackay at '108', and Margaret Morrison at '107'. Unfortunately, the vast majority of people of people registered as dying at centenarian ages in the 20th century are unable to be verified - many of them were people who simply never tracked their age throughout life and simply had to estimate whenever asked. If we follow Margaret Morrison, she went from '80' in 1841, to '100' in 1851, to '107' at the time of her death in 1856. A few other factors that may impact record-finding for claimed centenarians in this era include: They may have been born in a parish where baptism records were not kept or lost They may have based their current age on the age they remember being at the time of certain historical events, however memory isn't perfect and they may misremember their age, or the event in question Personal details such as maiden name, name of parents or siblings, birthplace etc may have not been recorded and lost to time, so they can't be used as parameters for searching They may have an extremely common name which makes it difficult to search for records. This is especially true for Gaelic-speaking regions at the time, where half of the population would share 10 forenames and 10 surnames. On the other hand, if someone has an uncommon name it can be much easier to find records for them. The earliest verifiable centenarian (to more archaic standards, not those of today; and almost certainly not the actual verifiable earliest centenarian) in Scotland I've found is Hugina Leslie, who was born on 15 Mar 1746 and died on 22 Apr 1846 in Cupar, Fife. She was a member of the well-attested noble family Leslie of Lindores, her brother was John Leslie (1750 – 1813), the 8th Lord Lindores and final holder of the title. I wonder what the true preponderance of centenarians worldwide was in the 19th century. As late as 1897 there were periods where there seemed to be no verifiable centenarians living in Scotland (which, admittedly, only held about 0.25% of the world's population then).

Honorable Mentions

Last Post by heatwave116 21 hours ago

67 Posts

14 Users

159 Reactions

5,787 Views

RSS

Beaumont

(@beaumont)

Supercentenarian Fan

Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 60

14/02/2025 3:26 am

@sailor-haumea yes but keep in mind I’m personally only looking into centenarians from the North East of England.

ReplyQuote

ChrisR

(@chrisr)

Fan

Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 1768

14/02/2025 12:00 pm

The other interesting thing about Blaze Driver is that he lived across 3 different centuries.

I'm sure this has happened for quite a few hundred years now as the required age to achieve isn't that high (if your birth year ends in say 96-99). But we still don't know too many whose birth predates the 1700s.

ReplyQuote

Fish

(@fish)

Supercentenarian Fan

Joined: 1 year ago

Posts: 36

15/02/2025 6:25 pm

Posted by: @beaumont
↑
four verified centenarians born before 1750

Was Margaret Turnbull debunked?

According to Durham Records Online, there was a Margaret Turnbull born in 1774 at Hunwick who may have been the Margaret Turnbull who died at Hunwick in 1776.

ReplyQuote

Beaumont

(@beaumont)

Supercentenarian Fan

Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 60

16/03/2025 12:31 am

Posted by: @fish
↑
Posted by: @beaumont
↑
four verified centenarians born before 1750
Was Margaret Turnbull debunked?
According to Durham Records Online, there was a Margaret Turnbull born in 1774 at Hunwick who may have been the Margaret Turnbull who died at Hunwick in 1776.

I haven't been able to reach a conclusive decision regarding her. Turnbull was/is a very common surname in the North East of England. My mother has two aunts and both married different men with the surname Turnbull, just to give some perspective lol.

ReplyQuote

Beaumont

(@beaumont)

Supercentenarian Fan

Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 60

23/04/2025 10:57 pm

I am on the cusp of verifying another early centenarian case:

Dorothy Buttiman (nee Common), bapt 15 March 1745, died 30 September 1851 (aged 106)

Investigation notes attached below:

Attachment : BUTTIMAN.pdf

I'll take some time to review everything again before verifying, but all the evidence seems to match up very nicely.

ReplyQuote

heatwave116

(@heatwave116)

Fan

Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 151

13/05/2025 4:14 pm

While researching my family tree, I stumbled upon the death record of an Elizabeth Holder, who died in the first quarter (Jan/Feb/Mar) of 1860 allegedly aged 101. The registration district of death is Dursley, Gloucestershire, England. I decided to research further to see if she really was an early centenarian.

Her burial record states she was buried on 2 April 1860 at Holy Cross in Owlpen, very close to Dursley, so she probably died in late March.

Find My Past gave me a match for her 1851 census record:

First name(s)	Last name	Relationship	Marital status	Sex	Age	Birth year	Occupation	Birth place
Betty	Holder	Head	Widow	Female	91	1760	Pauper weaver wool	Owlpen, Gloucestershire, England
Sarah	Holder	Daughter	Unmarried	Female	66	1785	Pauper weaver wool	Owlpen, Gloucestershire, England

I then found her daughter Sarah's baptism record, which confirms she was baptised in Owlpen on 20 March 1785. Her parents were James and Elizabeth Holder. Using this information, I looked to see if Elizabeth had other children:

* Mary - bap. 17 Jan 1790

* Richard - bap. 17 Jan 1790

* Richard - bap. 23 Feb 1794

* James - bap. 16 Apr 1797

* Richard - bap. 2 Apr 1802

* William - bap. 2 Apr 1802 (born 1798 according to Find My Past transcript)

* Rachael - bap. 2 May 1805

Seeing that Sarah is the oldest child, it's likely that James and Elizabeth were married a short time before her birth. Bearing this in mind, I was able to find a likely marriage record. Elizabeth Shipton married James Holder on 29 August 1784 in Uley, a village right next door to Owlpen.

Next step - looking for a baptism record. There are 2 possible matches in Uley:

* Elizabeth Shipton - bap. 25 Dec 1761, parents John and Mary

* Elizabeth Shipton - bap. 5 Sep 1762, mother Mary. After further research, I found a record that confirmed this Elizabeth was buried on 12 April 1765.

This means that Elizabeth Holder was likely "only" 98 when she died. Not a centenarian, but still a very good age for that time. Only exaggerated by a couple of years, and probably not deliberately, but still shows the importance of the validation process.

ReplyQuote

heatwave116

(@heatwave116)

Fan

Joined: 3 years ago

Posts: 151

05/06/2025 9:58 pm

I found the burial record of Mary Jane Turner, who was buried in Ditchling, East Sussex, England, on 19 September 1857 with an age given of 100 years, 8 months.

I found her 1851 census, which shows her as unmarried, and from a well-to-do family since her nephew was a rector, her great-nephew was a student at Oxford University, and she also had housemaids.

Mary Jane	Turner	Head	Unmarried	Female	94	1757	Landed proprietor and fundholder	Keymer, Sussex, England
Edward	Turner	Nephew	Married	Male	56	1795	Rector of maresfield sussex	Westmeston, Sussex, England
Elizabeth	Turner	Niece	Married	Female	57	1794	Wife of the preceding	Keymer, Sussex, England
Thomas Richard	Turner	Grand nephew	Unmarried	Male	21	1830	Son of the preceding and commoner queens colledge oxford	Nuthurst, Sussex, England
Amy	Moon	Visitor	Married	Female	58	1793	Wife of a retired porter living at brightain	Edburton, Sussex, England
Esther	Wood	Servant	Unmarried	Female	28	1823	House servant cook	Maresfield, Sussex, England
Sarah	Stevens	Servant	Unmarried	Female	16	1835	House servant kitchenmaid	Ditchling, Sussex, England

As she was unmarried, her case may not be able to be verified to the rigorous standards required, but I was able to find a baptism record which matches the 1851 census.

A Mary Jane Turner, daughter of William and Sarah, was baptised on 25 January 1757 in Keymer, which also fits nicely with the age given on the death certificate. Just to be more certain, I checked her nephew Edward's ancestry. He was baptised on 8 July 1794 in Westmeston as the son of Richard and Jane Turner. Mary Jane did have a brother named Richard, baptised 14 June 1763.

If the baptism record is a match, then Mary Jane Turner can be considered an early centenarian, with a lifespan of c.25 January 1757 - c.19 September 1857, or 100 years, c.228 days.

ReplyQuote