But the Westminster Workhouse had his correct birth details. Would those records not have transferred to Nantwich?
Still a puzzle - why he (was?) moved.
I don’t understand why you think he was removed from London to Nantwich. As mentioned above (reply #15), there is a four-year gap between 1904, when he was last recorded in the Westminster poor law records, and this death in 1908. Meanwhile he might have been working anywhere in the country -- people travelled around to get whatever work they could. In that event, his admission to Nantwich would have been an entirely separate matter from the London admission, and there is no reason why records should have been passed between the two.
As regards his age, you already knew this from the death index before you ordered the certificate, so I’m not sure why you are raising it again here as a problem. As mentioned repeatedly above (replies ##12, 21, 23) there was every chance that there would not be enough information on the death certificate to identify him positively.
... a single man who died away from his family, in an institution, and perhaps with a 'generic' occupation such as Labourer, may be hard to identify from the certificate as your target person. Unless there was an accident and a consequent inquest, you're unlikely to learn anything much beyond the basic cause of death.
That said, given the frequent inaccuracy of ages in institutional records, his occupation being in the right ballpark, his name being correctly spelt
Sydney (as opposed to the more usual Sidney), and the lack of any convincing candidate in 1911, I’d be inclined to accept this as the right record.
We don’t always get 100% proof. Sometimes we just have to go with the most likely scenario, keeping an open mind in case anything better should turn up.
