Pedro LERENA Vega (b. c.1834)

A SON OF PEDRO ANTONIO LERENA AND VICENTA VEGA, new to this archive, and named for his father. Entered at 16 in household 229. The index reads him as 'Pedro a. Serena' - so the index entry that looks like his father is in fact HIM. Nothing else about him is known. AND ON 12 OCTOBER 2026 A CANDIDATE DEATH - AT MONTEVIDEO, WHICH IS WHERE HE SHOULD BE. A 'Pedro a Lerena' died 6 November 1896 aged 69 and was registered the next day as certificate 353 in Montevideo. Death Records 1896, with his father given as Pedro A. Lerena and his mother as VICENTA DE LA VEGA - the same parents, and the same peculiar 'Pedro a' name-form this row already notes. His spouse is MANUELA LEMOS, and a second death, of a Pedro Antonio Lerena born 1875, names the same Manuela as his mother - so the identification would also hand him a wife and a son. This row first said the death was at ARTIGAS. It is not; that came from a place filter that falls back to the country, corrected the same day. NOT MERGED AND NOT TIERED. The two birth years disagree by a decade (c.1817 from an age of 16 in the census, 1827 from an age at death), and both are age-derived estimates rather than dates. The two birth years still disagree by a decade and both are age-derived, so it is not merged. But Montevideo is the city the census put him in, which makes the fit better than the Artigas reading did, not worse. Settled only by the death act itself, which has not been opened. AND THE SAME EVENING THE OTHER END OF IT TURNED UP. The 1896 death gives his spouse as MANUELA LEMOS - and this register entered a Manuela LEMOS on 11 October, wife of an unidentified 'Pedro A. LERENA', with children Felicia Clementina (b. c.1868) and Manuel Antonio (b. 31 March 1883), under an explicit note that which Pedro she married was not settled. Two questions asked from opposite ends meet on one record. And the age: a man born 1827 fathers a child in 1883 at fifty-six, one born 1817 at sixty-six - so the death record's estimate fits the children better than the census one, which is the reverse of how this row weighted them earlier today. Opening the 1896 death act is now the cheapest thing that would attach a whole Montevideo line to this archive's trunk. AND THE ACT WAS OPENED THE SAME EVENING. Acta 353: he died at five in the afternoon of 6 November 1896 at calle Rivera No. 163, of tisis pulmonar, certified by Dr Vitale, before Vicente Carricaonde, Juez de Paz of the 15th section. The act reads: 'nacido en Montevideo', 'de sesenta y nueve anos de edad', 'hijo legitimo de Don PEDRO A. LERENA, oriental, fallecido, y de Dona VICENTA DE LA VEGA, oriental, fallecida'. His wife is named as Dona Manuela, oriental, 53, and the children as Antonio, Carlos Teodoro and Manuel Antonio, with the first declarant - Don Pedro A. Lerena, soltero, empleado - declared to be the dead man's son. SO THE ATTACHMENT IS NO LONGER A CANDIDATE: the act names his parents. What is now in doubt is the CENSUS DATE. Sixty-nine in 1896 means born about 1827, and a man born in 1827 is six in 1833, not sixteen - he is sixteen in 1843. Either household 229 is later than this archive dates it, or the sixteen-year-old is a different son of the same couple. THE CENSUS IS THE PADRON OF 1850, NOT c.1833 - CORRECTED 12 OCTOBER 2026. The catalogue lists film 7499042 item by item: item 1 is libro 263, 1843; item 2, where this household sits, is LIBRO 264, 1850. So this birth year moved seventeen years later. And the head of the household, entered at forty, was born about 1810 - not the Pedro Antonio Lerena born 31 July 1793 whom this archive had read him as. Either the census age is badly wrong or the household belongs to a different Pedro A. Lerena married to a different Vicenta Vega; under the neighbouring book, 1843, he would still be born about 1803 and still not be the man of 1793. See data/corrections.tsv.