I am a bit confused over the death of my 6x great grandfather John Plaisted in 1759!

He made a will on 24 Jan 1759, stating that he was 'sick of body' - the will is in the download section.
His memorial is in the Bigland transcriptions for Westbury (page 15) which gives his date of death as 1 Feb 1759 and his age as 64.
His burial is in the parish record section as 28 Jan 1759, surname spelled Plaister. The only other John Plaisted's burial was that of a child in March '59.

Obviously one of these is wrong. He couldn't have been buried on 28 Jan if he only died on 1 Feb. And the age of 64 seems a bit odd - 46 would have been more likely.

Any thoughts on this would be greatly appreciated. I live in north east England so it is a bit tricky to check things out in person.

We have a system in place for checking a possible parish record transcription error.

Please read
Possible Transcription Errors section on our Parish Records page.
http://www.forum.forest-of-dean.net/index.php?mode=page&id=1

Ahhh, I hadn't noticed that! Will go there right now.

I don't suppose there's any way to check the Bigland MI transcriptions as well is there?

Keep in mind this might not be a transcription error. Spellings weren't standardized in days past . . . if you check John "Playster"'s father's name in 1713, and his other children's births, you will see that "Daniel" was spelt/spelled three different ways.

Assuming the 1713 baptism is for your John, then he should be 46 and not 64 at the time of his death. Does one or the other of those tie in with his marriage? (I haven't checked. Who were the witnesses at his marriage? Does this help confirm the baptismal info?)

The stone cutters could easily have made a transcription error as well, and simply reversed the two numbers. There doesn't appear to be a birth for a John Plaisted in the date range that would make him 64 in 1759.

While it might be nice to solve the date question, it's possible the vicar or clerk could have recorded the date of death, rather than the burial. It is possible someone simply had the date wrong. Any one of those recorded dates could have been slightly off for any number of reasons.

These things are subject to error. On my father's death record with an official government agency, it shows his place of death as Los Angles, California. He visited California once in his life, forty years before his death, for a few days, and yet, there it is all nicely recorded for posterity. They could not have been much more wrong in location and remained in the continental U.S.

I wasn't too worried by the spelling of John's father's name, nor the surname being Plaisted and Plaister. I've seen some odd spellings of names in other branches of my tree.

I was curious about the apparent burial of John 3 days before he died. At least I've now ruled out a modern transcription error thanks to the project co-ordinator Graham Davison who by checking the images of the original documents confirms that both transcripts are correct, so any errors that did happen were so long ago it would be impossible to find out.

According to John's will, his wife was Mary. After her death 4 years after John, and the administration of John's will, their two youngest children had guardians Thomas Plaisted and William Marshall. It seems likely that Mary was a Marshall - and John Plainsted married Mary Marshall at Gloucester Cathedral in 1743. Unfortunately, the transcription of the marriage does not include the names of the witnesses.

The John baptised in 1713 had a brother Thomas, another reason to suspect that the numerals of the age were reversed, and he was actually 46 when he died not 64.

I'm just going to have to accept that I'll never get to the bottom of this, and that I can't prove that John was the son of Daniel and Mary.

Don't be too hasty in making that assumption. Additional marriage information exists, and although it is not accessible at the moment, it will be before long, and perhaps you shall have your answer then.

I am having a similar problem with Margaret Roberts, and have decided to put her lineage on the back burner for now. Leaving loose ends is always a little frustrating, but I am guessing that when additional info becomes available, you will be able to confirm your suspicions.

Good luck.

When the only record I had of John's parents Daniel and Mary was the baptismal record I was very doubtful about its authenticity because of the conflict between the baptismal record date and the birth calculated from the age at death given in the cemetery inscription. But since essjay has given me the wedding details which I had missed because they did not come up searching for Playsted even using Soundex I have changed my mind although we certainly cannot say at this stage it has been proven. My reasons are. Firstly there were not a great number of Playsteds around and as the Daniel and Mary are the only obvious contenders to be the parents of John they have to be a serious contender. Secondly, the baptismal date for John does not conflict with his marriage date, thirdly the fact that Daniel and Mary also had a son Thomas when we know that John had a brother Thomas from his will, and finally the baptismal date for John brings the age of John and his wife Mary much closer together which is more typical of most but certainly not all marriages. My opinion - the inscription is probably in error and Daniel and Mary are probably John's parents.

Peter I

There actually is a baptism of John Plaisted (Playster) in 1698 which would fit with the age at death being 64. It's currently in the database as John Mayford, son of Robert and Ann, baptised 23 Oct 1698 at Westbury, though it will be changed. I've been talking with the Project Co-ordinator and the image is Playster not Mayford.
However this John is unlikely. There is a burial of John Playster, son of Robert, 9 Oct 1710 at Westbury, abode Elton.

Eliminating the 1698 John makes it more likely that the John who died in 1759 was the one baptised in 1713, son of Daniel (Donell and Mary), and the age at death of 64 is an error.
The name Daniel was given to descendants of the John who died in 1759; this is also indicative, but not conclusive evidence.