Are there any good candidates for the 18th Century's last survivor?

You mean the book in her hand? Borgnine said that books kept him young. :wink:

The original poster here was very prescient. It is now May 2016, some 10 years after 2006, and there is indeed only one living survivor from the 1800’s, so the post was right on target!

To spare people a google search : Emma Morano. She’s already on the list of the ten oldest people ever (10th, and in two days 9th).

What time did they cut the umbillical cord ? James Grieve 1 Jan 1800 26 Nov 1910

\

Just for completeness, here’s another one.

Aunt Cloe Stevens, born a slave in South Carolina in 1794; died in Texas 1901.

I don’t know what sort of record might exist of her birth, but she is buried in the same cemetery as her former owners (the Dever family), who brought her to Texas in the 1820s, so presumably they thought they knew. (see, e.g., a history of the cemetery here.)

Well thats quite old,107, but generally 110 would be remarkable ,someone for the city or state to remember.

But the OP wants the person who was born in 1799 or before and lived longest into the 20th century. So a 102 two year hold who lived to 1901 beats a 199 year old who lives to 1900. We don’t necessarily want the oldest person to live through the 19th century, but the one which lasted longest into the 20th century.
For example, here’s a hoax from 1926… Saying he died age 126.

But a couple of records put that as a hoax.
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/NIR-DOWN/2010-10/1287899156

death reported in 1909, " Mrs Kate Cebelane, who died at Carrigdangan, County Cork, was 110".
So its 1799 to 1909 ? or hoax.

Or thomas fitzgerald, died Jan 1909, 27 Jan 1909 - LIVED IN FIVE REIGNS. - Trove

Eliza Coglan, died at 115 ? in 1910. 10 Feb 1910 - DEATH OF A CENTENARIAN - Trove

Was Captain Diamond, Goddard E. Diamond , 116 in 1913 ?

But it seems that dying at age 110 - 115 isn’t so special and its hard to find records that would be exhaustive…

Not directly related to the OP, but Sarah Knauss was frikkin robbed. Robbed! I tell you.

I think we will have a verified person alive at age 127 in the next decade or two. But I think 130 is about the way-up-there limit.

Pilgrim Shadow, the only way that could possibly happen is if the current record holder lives for another decade. Which could happen, but it’s about a 1 in 1000 chance: People up in that age range seem to exponentially decay with a half-life of about a year, so she’d have to make 10 coin flips in a row to live for 10 years.

I remember the first time I saw an actuarial table and noted the age when the odds of dying in a given year became 50-50. This was from a CRC handbook* from way back when so that age was in the 90s. It’s higher now, around 108 for US citizens according to the SSA. But the odds keep getting worse. Almost 90% at 119.

But remember: Never tell me the odds.

  • Those old CRC handbooks from the 30s were full of amazing stuff.

It might be different where you are, but I remember believing the same thing for a while mistakenly. That was because the French office of statistics just didn’t include people aged 100 and older in their tables. As a result, in those actuarial tables, people in their late 90s had a very short life expectancy (age of death was artificially maxing at 100). When, a dozen years ago, they finally included centenarians, the life expectancy of those people suddenly jumped to three years (IIRC).

ftg writes:

> . . . But the odds keep getting worse. Almost 90% at 119.

How can that be? There have only been two people who lived to be even 118 (for whom there are reliable records), Jeanne Calment, who lived to be 122 years and 164 days, and Sarah Knauss, who lived to be 119 years and 97 days. So the odds of living for another year at 119 is 50%. There’s probably some way of normalizing the odds though, since two people is obviously too small a sample:

Recent thread on same topic. To quote myself:

Note, however, that Wood’s claim seems a bit dubious.

Nope, the OP states the 18th century which includes 1800. The 18th century is not synonymous with the 1700s

My sons were born in 1998 and 2000, so they may make it to 2100. I was born in 1964, so it likely ain’t gonna happen for me.