From: G6JPG@255soft.uk   
      
   On 2025/9/28 1:17:56, Charles Ellson wrote:   
   > On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 15:26:39 +0100, Peter Johnson   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >> On Sat, 27 Sep 2025 06:37:45 +0200, Steve Hayes   
   >>  wrote:   
      
   []   
      
      
   >>> The "and upwards" is for those who are unsure. If it weren't printed   
   >>> there, and there was simply a blank to be filled in with the actual   
   >>> age, "don't know" or "unknown" or "not sure" would not satisfy the   
   >>> legal requirements. If the actual age is known, then it adds nothing.   
   >>   
   >> Yes. A lot of people would never have seen their birth certificate, or   
   >> birth register entry, and would have been dependent on what they were   
   >> told by parents or guardians. And they might not have always been   
   >> right.   
   >>   
   > There was more emphasis on the baptism date with some never knowing   
   > their actual birthday. Before 1837 there were no birth registrations   
   > required in England and Wales with birth dates tending only to be   
   > recorded in non-conformist registers.   
      
   Yes, it's such a pleasure - rare in my own tree - when I come to look at   
   any non-Anglican record; they tend to include so much more information,   
   such as as you say birth as well as baptism date, but also often details   
   of the bride/mother's family (in one case, to about two generations!).   
      
   One of the things that infuriates me is that many assume the baptism   
   date _is_ the birth date. Yes, of course, if it's all you've got   
   (usually the case for Anglicans before 1837-July), then you _have_ to   
   use it - but any genealogy software worth it's salt will have a way of   
   indicating that it's the baptism, rather than birth, date that's being   
   used (such as prefixing it with "bp."). And again any recording system   
   will have provision for recording both the birth and baptism dates. It's   
   not just individuals - _all_ the major companies/organisations (e. g.   
   Ancestry, FindMyPast, familysearch) [or, to be fair, the sources from   
   which they get their data] often _fill in_ the baptism date, or at least   
   year, into the birth year box, despite there being _no_ evidence that it   
   is so.   
      
   Sure, birth _usually_ _is_ not long before baptism (though if the latter   
   is just after the year boundary, can be the previous year), but by no   
   means always: I have examples in my tree where: the children were   
   baptised on moving to a new area (perhaps one where it was considered   
   more important); and/or, several children (of different ages, obviously)   
   were baptised on the same day (maybe to save money? Or time off work if   
   the nearest facility wasn't in the same village? Remember that time to   
   take an infant to the next village - on foot or slow cart - would   
   involve some hours out of the working day of an ag. worker and family,   
   plus the convenience of the vicar). And I'm sure there were many other   
   reasons for baptism to be well after birth - days or weeks, anyway,   
   though years less common.   
      
   Place, as well: this is even more likely (not likely overall, but ...)   
   to be different to the birth place; until sometime in the 20th century,   
   most births were in the home, whereas obviously many   
   baptisms/christenings were in a church, not always in the same village.   
      
   The same applies to burials/deaths. Obviously, before refrigeration, the   
   _date_ is likely to be closer (though rarely the same day, and could be   
   a different year), and again the place is often different: deaths, at   
   least when from disease, tended to be at home (or in some health   
   facility), burials elsewhere (e. g. with spouse).   
      
   Quite _why_ transcribers do this, I'm not sure: perhaps they think they   
   are being helpful by filling in an otherwise unknown birth/death   
   date/place. But I'd rather make that decision myself, thank you!   
      
   They even often add the name of the church (usually a saint's name). I   
   don't _really_ think many - any, really - of my ancestors were born in a   
   church! (Or died there!)   
   --   
   J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()ALIS-Ch++(p)Ar++T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf   
      
   ... "from a person I admire, respect, and deeply love." "Who was that   
   then?" "Me." (Zaphod Beeblebrox in the Link episode.)   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)