Thank you for posting us your data Lynn. Nice to see the forum active.
Very exciting to see you and your fellow researcher Liz coming towards an Edgson connection. We are getting nearer to an Edgson 'One Name Study' on this forum!
Re your comment on Sarah Goodliffe Edgson nee Culper, from the birth & death dates on the IGI for Sarah G Culper (1829-1898) and calculating the age of birth for Sarah G Edgson in the 1881 (51 age) & her death on FreeBMD 1898, they must be the same person surely.
As I was typing my previous post to you, I noticed she would have been 36 when giving birth to Frederick 1866 (in 1881 census). It could be of course that she married late, or had other older children who had left home prior to the 1881 census so not listed on it? Allowing for a woman to be 20 years average age (give or take a few) at marriage, that would leave a gap of 16 years between Frederick 1866 and a possible marriage date at age around twenty. Do you have a date of her marriage to Edward Edgson?
A certificate would comfirm the 'Culper' Sarah and Edward's marriage. Suppose she did not have an earlier marriage?
Re Arnold: You have got a tough one with the varying ages of Arnold!
How could that be explained, with a 20 yr gap you could think it was father and son, but he has given Parents on CWGC as Sarah and Edward! Maybe they were grandparents (Arnold killed at war being the son of Arnold 1866?) and the CWGC got the parents detail wrong? Do they use info' supplied by the person at time of enlisting, or maybe a relative can give that detail and it is added later, or either?
Not likely that Edward and Sarah had another son Arnold after the 1881 as there is original Arnold in 1901 aged 31 (same birth place so likely to be same Arnold)?
The Edward (from 1881 aged 51 and 1901 aged 71 would be 89 in 1919 so 'both' parents certainly dead when Arnold was killed.
A 20 year gap is too long to put down to a mistake in dates surely. Arnold in 1881 would be 31 in 1901 and 49 in 1919, could he have lied about age when he enlisted, might have been considered too old and would be refused at age (?) 45 onwards?
So either they both are different people (not from same family)an amazing coincidence?
Or Arnold in 1919 (born 1888/aged 31 at death) was son of Arnold in 1881 census aged 13/Born 1868. Used grandparents names as parents or the commission or relatives (a wife maybe) made error stating who parents were?
Or did the Arnold/1868 lie about his age when enlisting? This seems most plausible, do you think Lynn? Very confusing.
Any other theories anyone on forum please? You certainly have a tricky one here, will wait to hear with much curiosity Lynn. Thank you.
PS Re your comment Lynn on, not sure if I was still here on the forum. I am the same person - Linda (Delma) Edgson. Lost all my files few months ago and had to enrol again on here, when back Online. I did same as previously (I thought) but my posting name has not included middle name of Delma, will probably correct that later. (I should not admit this but I did not notice).