Recording Births

DAVIDSAMWELL · Post by **DAVIDSAMWELL** » 11 Sep 2011 14:57

A simple question. Births usually come before Baptisms.

When do you hope to advance this brillant recording tool to include births and more?

ID:5454

Post by **NickWalker** » 11 Sep 2011 17:54

I'm working on marriages currently. I've not had as much time to do this as I would have hoped but I'd hope that will appear before Christmas. Then I'll work on births after that I expect.

Of course in family history terms, baptisms are available for hundreds of years whereas birth certificates don't go back very far. Personally, I long ago exhausted most of the birth records that I need to record but as parish records become more common on line I'm finding more and more of these for my 17th-19th century ancestors.

DAVIDSAMWELL · Post by **DAVIDSAMWELL** » 12 Sep 2011 21:02

Thanks for your quick reply. My question was as a result of a new member of the family being born over the weekend - not yet baptised, ofcourse. Look forward to hearing when you have been able to progress what I think is a great piece of software to go with Family Historian.

juliemuirhead49 · Post by **juliemuirhead49** » 11 Oct 2011 07:24

Just a thought, but would Burials not be more use in general to everyone before births, as like Baptisms they are available for much older records as well and in the case of pre-1837 deaths the main source for deaths as well.

Julie [smile]

Post by **NickWalker** » 11 Oct 2011 09:10

I'd certainly find burials more useful than births personally.

The main issue with burials though is that typically for early parish records you often just get a '1 June 1750 John Smith died' or '1 June 1750 John Smith Farmer died' so the time saving benefits of using Ancestral Sources for burials is much less than the other sources.

Family Historian User Group