Maggie Barnes

Maggie Barnes - 115 years, 319 days, United States
Maggie Hinnant was born sometime in the 1880s in North Carolina. According to the official validation, her birth date was 6 March 1882 [36,48,68]. This date is said to be recorded in the family bible but it is not clear when that would have been written or even if it has been verified. Other dates both earlier and later are possible.

Maggie always gave her birthday as 6 March, but the year varied on the records. She did not appear with her mother on the 1880 census taken in June, which suggests she was not born in 1880. Her mother actually married in 1893 when she was at least 10.

On 22 October 1899 she married William Orangine Barnes and gave her age as 19. This would put her birth in 1880 so it is not consistent with the 1880 census. The 1900 census also gave her birth as March 1881 which would work better.

For the 1910 and 1920 census and for her daughter’s marriage in 1918 she gave her age consistent with birth in 1880, but for the 1930 and 1940 census and a 1972 SSA card her age dropped younger by two years suggesting a birth in 1882. She stuck with that year of birth until her death, but her family suggested she was older when she died.

Let us consider again the possibilities assuming she was born in March. She could have been born in 1880 as claimed for many of the earlier records. That would mean that she was nearly 118 years old when she died, and that for some unknown reason she was left off the 1880 census. It would also mean that she reduced her age by two years later, perhaps for vanity.

If she was born in March 1881 as stated on the 1900 census it would just mean that she was rounding her age up a little for her marriage and other census returns. If she had stuck with this age she would almost certainly have been validated as a year older at nearly 117 years based on early records.

If March 1882 was the correct date as used later in life, it would mean that she exaggerated her age by two years for her marriage, but corrected it after her older daughters were married. Her first daughter was born in 1900 after the census that year in June, so Maggie’s age would be 17 at the conception and 18 at birth. Perhaps that would be some motive for some age exaggeration. This was the option accepted by her validators.

However, it is also possible that she was a few years younger. It was not uncommon for girls to fall pregnant at a young age and then claim to be older for a more respectable marriage. This means she could easily have been two or even three years younger. Without any record of her before her marriage in 1889 it is difficult to rule this out as unlikely.

The case of Maggie Barnes is therefore very similar to that of Elizabeth Bolden and Gertrude Weaver where age exaggeration may have been used to make a wedding at a young age look more respectable. Once potential exaggeration is recognised the question is how much, and why should the declared information be trusted at all when there is no birth registration or baptism record? In this case there is also a possibility that she was a year or even two older than validated.

In these three cases the claimants do seem to have at least reached the age of supercentenarians. Given how rare that is, we can conclude that age exaggeration at marriages could have been very common and should be considered as a realistic possibility whenever it cannot be ruled out.