Family Historian User Group

Generally, a birth certificate will show (among other things) where the birth took place and the name(s) of the parent(s) and child. In times past, most births occurred in the family home. When this is the case, and I am sure that the address given is the family home, I tend to ascribe a Residence fact to the parent(s) and child named on the certificate.

But what about other children who I know were alive at the time and were also living at the family home? Do I record a Residence fact for them, even though they are not mentioned on the certificate?

Strictly I know I shouldn't, as the source (birth certificate) doesn't prove that the other children were residing at the address in question. But knowledge of my subject (from a variety of other sources) tells me they were.

What do other FH users do? What is the correct way of approaching this? Until now I've only been creating a Residence fact for those named on the certificate. However, I'm now beginning to wonder if I could/should use a single birth certificate to deduce a Residence fact for other family members... I would appreciate any thoughts on this matter.

Thanks

Ed

ID:6165

It is difficult this and is a question I've previously debated with myself regarding Ancestral Sources handling of this. Which of the siblings were alive at the time - easy enough to work out if you have the birth and death but what if you are missing one or both of these facts? Were any of them actually living with grand-parents or aunts and uncles at the time?

My approach (which I'm not suggesting is correct) would be to deal with this on a person by person basis, depending on how interested I am in the individual. If I was to do this with every sibling and have to analyse the likelihood they were living at home at the time it would just take so much time. I'd be tempted (and have done this) for some of the key characters in my family history to record some of these residence facts but probably only where it shows a change of address.

I don't think there is a correct way to do this - it is entirely your choice.

Unless you have evidence from a different source then you cannot be sure that other members of the family were present and living in the house at the same time as the birth. Indeed, I know from my own researches that one or sometimes more young children were often sent to live with relatives or even paid 'nurse mothers' - and not just at the time of the birth, when a midwife would move in forcing children to be moved out to make space.  

Why were children sent to live with relatives? I can think of several reasons apart from the birth of another child - the mother (or father) may have been unwell and not able to look after all the children; the house was not big enough; the child was unwell and relatives offered to look after he/she so that the burden was taken off the mother; and so on.

Thanks for the replies.

Nick's point about the time it would take to analyse the circumstances of every family member is a very good one. In addition to the time this would take, there is, of course, the small matter of cost to consider as well.

Gerry's remarks about temporary residency is also a very good point and is something all of us would be wise to heed.

In the final analysis, I tend to err on the cautious side of things and only enter residency facts for those people for whom I have specific evidence to support my assertion.

Thanks again for the replies.