I'm very surprised that the median age for females getting married in 1890 is so high. In my genealogy, most of the girls at that time period were married before 20.

edit: Unless that figure is counting all marriages, which includes widows remarrying.

Congrats bon bon!

I am now off to buy plastic hangers and see if I can find a usably slim light bulb that will still fit the socket of my hanging lamp.

Why am I impersonating computer support?! I am not computer support! Ask the guy sitting next to me!

(The problem is, they don't tend to explain stuff unless you corner them. And I'm being used as a proxy. Kind of annoying.)

they don't tend to explain stuff unless you corner them

It preservers our air of mystery.

It preservers our air of mystery.

It makes everyone here hate them, frankly.

It makes everyone here hate them, frankly.

Hate, fear, it's all the same to the techies.

Unless that figure is counting all marriages, which includes widows remarrying.

Nope--it's age at first marriage.

Interupting for a very VERY cute giraffe picture:

[link]

"I'm very bendy."

I'm very surprised that the median age for females getting married in 1890 is so high. In my genealogy, most of the girls at that time period were married before 20.

edit: Unless that figure is counting all marriages, which includes widows remarrying.

If you're talking about this chart [link] it says 'first marriage' so I don't think it does. I was surprised, too. I like (and think in) means more than medians, though. My maternal great grandmother was 14 when she got married (in the 1890s). Her daughter (my grandmother) was 17 when she got married in the 1920s. They were in Nova Scotia, though. It changed a lot in the next generation. Looks like my mom was nearly four years above the median, when she married at 24 in the 1960s. I was 3 years above the median, when I married at 27 in the 90s.

Stats people,

Is there a particular advantage to looking at the median, rather than the mean, in a table like the one linked above?