Family Historian User Group

No Baptism Date given so took a punt and entered Sep 1799.

The Vicar had a bad habit of forgetting to enter the date.

Makes a change to have to guess the Baptism from the birth.

It could perhaps be interpreted as born and baptised on the same day!?

If not, then it might be more correct to use after 13 Sep 1799.

Both Baptism and Christening Facts have a Normal Time Frame of Shortly After Birth so even without an upper date limit the chronological sorting should be OK.

If you can find where the record is in the original document, it is usually on a page with many others, it might give a better indication of at least a "between" dates.

jimlad68 wrote:If you can find where the record is in the original document, it is usually on a page with many others, it might give a better indication of at least a "between" dates.

6th record earlier has Baptised on 4 Jul 1799, the one immediately after has Baptised 28 Mar 1800. D Ralph seems to have mixed with and without Baptism dates in no particular order.

I think some Vicars only recorded the Birth date when they thought the child was a bit older, although of course there is no way to prove it with out a Tardis.