Beware - some sources get dates and ages wrong?


Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
Chalfont, Pennsylvania
For example, I just checked and saw that King Edward V of England was born on November 2, 1470, and his brother Richard of Shrewsbury, Duke of York and Norfolk, was born on August 17, 1473.

They were seen in the Tower less and less until they disappeared from public sight at the end of Summer, 1473, and thus about the end of September 1473.

The above data is from Wikipedia and should have been corrected if it was incorrect.,_Duke_of_York

So therefore King Edward V was about twelve years and eleven months old and Richard Duke of York was about ten years and one month old when last seen.

But the article on Richard III says the boys were not seen in public after August 1483, and thus when they were aged about 12 years and 10 months old and almost exactly 10 years old.

"Was Richard III really the most evil monarch we ever had?" Tristam Hunt

Edward, 13, and brother Richard, 10, were taken to the Tower in 1483, never to be seen again, allowing Richard to assume the throne.
Was Richard III really the most evil monarch we have ever had? By Tristram Hunt MP - Tristram Hunt - Mirror Online

Even though Edward was 12 years 6 months and 17 days old on 19 May 1483 and Richard was 9 years 9 months and 20 days old on 16 June 1483, when they took up residence in the Tower of London.

Michael Thornton in the Daily Mail "Richard III was one of the most evil, detestable tyrants ever to walk the earth" says:
But the worst of this mass- murderer's manifold atrocities was the slaughter of his nephews, aged 13 and 11, the rightful King Edward V and Richard, Duke of York.

But there is no evidence that Edward V lived until his thirteenth birthday or that Richard lived until his eleventh. Since Michael Thornton was writing that Richard III was evil, one might expect him to accurately describe the boys as 12 and 10 at the time it is speculated that they were murdered by Richard III, or else err on the side of describing them as younger than they were.

In Crown Hill Cemetery, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, is a Black family plot. It includes an inscription for the twin brothers Edwin and Edward Black. born on May 30, 1853 and died on March 17, 1854, and June 30, 1872. respectively. It says that Edward Black was "drummer boy of the 21st regiment at the age of 8 years and 6 months the youngest soldier of the rebellion".

But the tombstone for Edward Black says "Edward Black Mus 3 CL [Musician 3rd class] 21 Ind Vols [21st Indiana Volunteer Infantry] May 30, 1853 June 30, 1871" thus making him die a year earlier than the other inscription.

The article on Edward Black includes a photograph of a totally separate and different Civil War drummer boy named William Black - they are sometimes confused with each other.

If Edward Black enlisted aged 8 years and 6 months it would have been about November 30, 1861.

But the Wikipedia article on Edward Black says he enlisted on 24 July 1861, which thus would be at the age of 8 years, 1 month, and 25 days.

[FONT=&quot]Pictorial and Biographical memoirs of Indianapolis and Marion County Indiana[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Chicago, 1893, Pages 436-437, the biography of carriage maker and future automobile pioneer Charles H. Black, born October 5, 1852, says that his brother [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][FONT=&quot]...Edward E., enlisted in July, 1861, when only eight and a half years of age, as drummer boy in the Twenty-first Regiment band, and was the youngest boy in the United States to enlist. [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Black first Indiana Heavy artillery&f=false

So Charles Black gave information that his brother enlisted in July 1861 at the age of eight and a half years, which would make his brother born about January, 1853, only about 3 or 4 months after Charles H. Black said he himself was born! Clearly Charles Black didn't do the math! says: [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]The youngest soldier was probably Edward Black who joined the war at the age of 9 as a drummer boy.[/FONT]

Civil War Soldiers Letters and Diaries Archive

[FONT=&quot] Fighting Men of the Civil War, William C. Davis, Russ A. Pritchard, 1989, page 17, says:
[FONT=&quot]“The youngest soldier of the War, however, Private Edward Black, joined the 21st Indiana as a musician, aged nine.” Men of the Civil War Edward Black&f=false

And many other sources claim that Edward Black was an elderly nine instead of a youthful eight when he enlisted.

There actually were a very few soldiers younger than Edward Black in the US Civil War.

Since I am familiar with the biographies of a number of historical persons, I sometimes notice that even scholarly articles get their ages wrong. So if the age of a historical person is important, DO NOT ACCEPT THAT THE FIRST SOURCE YOU READ IS CORRECT!

Last edited: