Find Ancestors

THIS POST RELATES TO THIS THREAD:

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/boards/board/ancestors/thread/1336032

Thomas Oxley married Elizabeth Wood in Egton in 1700 and had my ancestor John Oxley born 1706. He left a will in 1756:


John Oxlay, Glazedale, Egton. Yeoman. dated 11.7.1756, proved 18.10.1756 (f.136)

eldest daughter Elizabeth wife of Thomas Wilson
daughter Mary Oxlay
daughter Nancy Oxlay
daughter Joan Oxlay
son John Oxlay
wife Mary Oxlay
wit: John Pruddom, John Marsingale

Taken from:

http://www.davekinggenealogy.co.uk/probate/personalnames/PNamesYork1756vol100.html

With this, John's father Thomas seems to have left a will a year LATER, making nearly 100 when he died in January 1757, six months after his son:

Thomas Oxlay, Glazedale, Egton. Husbandman. dated 5.1.1757, proved 6.4.1758 (f.234)

grandson John Oxlay
grandaughter Mary Oxlay
grandaughter Nancy Oxlay
grandaughter Joan Oxlay
son in law George Sanderson & Elizabeth his wife, my daughter
daughter Esther Oxlay
wit: William Breckon, John Marsingale

Taken from:

http://www.davekinggenealogy.co.uk/probate/personalnames/PNamesYork1758vol102.html

My question is, is this plausible at this time for a man to live to his late 90s? It seems very unusual to me and I am curious about a second opinion.

As you can see, Thomas Oxley left something to his unmarried daughter Esther Oxley (baptised in Egton in 1713), and the name would suggest a link to John and Hester Megginson Oxley mentioned further up this thread.

Again, would a chap born in 1659, be likely to be living and making a will nearly a century later?! He must be at least 97 when he died.

Best wishes,

Peter

I may be reading this wrong, it's certainly too much for my brain at this time of evening lol , but if Thomas married Elizabeth in 1700, what makes you think he was born in 1659? That would make him 41 when he married, which might be unusual unless it was a second marriage?

On a general note though, the average age at death was much lower but there were always exceptions to the rule I would think?

Yeah that is correct Rose - he would have been about 41. I've not seen the original marriage record, but will do soon (I'm compiling a list). This was carried out by another researcher some time ago, so granted isn't my own work, but I note there being a few batchelor relatives at the time and location and also some 'late' marriages.

I think the connection to the baptism is 1659 was due to a proccess of elimination and the inclusion of the name Hester.

Yeah, I was surprised when I worked the dates out and have the date of death as a possible for sometime from the National Burial Index. The age though makes me think the date of birth may be wrong ... definitley needs looking into further!