David,
If he was born 15 Mar 1892, then on 7 Jan 1990 he would have been 97,
in his 98th year. But a Mar 1892 birth is extremely unlikely to have
had registration delayed to 1893.
If he was born 15 Mar 1893 (as seems more likely) he would have been
96, in his 97th year.
One notice matches the 1893 birth, the other notice matches no known facts.
I'd put him as 96, as per the first notice.
John
I have 2 death notices for a man who died 7th January 1990.
One notice gives his age as " In his 97th year"
A 2nd notice gives his age as 98.
He appears in the 1914 Electoral roll
Victorian birth indexes have his birth registered in 1893 and state he was born about 1893.
His WW1 enlistment in 1914 gives his age as 22 years and 5 months and a birth date of 15 March 1892. ( He was also court martialled two weeks after the war ended with a punishment of a severe reprimand. Did he celebrate too hard?)
His WW11 enlistment gives his date of birth as 15 March 1893. ( Did he fudge his birth date?)
What age should I put? I'm going with 97 but would like other thoughts.
I enjoy the little mysteries that put fun into indexing.
David
