* Baptism before Birth

[sdl180]

I have one person in my tree who, according to the records, was baptised before she was born.

I am assuming that the date given for the birth certificate was incorrect, and the parents didn't want to get a fine for late registration. There are a couple of people in my tree that appear to have given the wrong date of birth when the registration wasn't within 6 weeks of the actual birth.

The question is, do I put the date of birth as the date on the certificate, or do I enter it as 'bef' the date of the baptism, with a covering note? Any other suggestions welcome.

Steve

ID:6001

[johnmorrisoniom]

I would enter the information as given, with a note on birth and baptism records about your thoughts on the descrepancy

[tatewise]

There is nothing to stop you having two Birth Events.
One with the Birth Certificate as the Source and its 'incorrect' Date.
Another with the Baptism Record as the Source with Before Date of Baptism as its Date.

Alternatively, one Birth Event with both Sources and a Date Range.

Double check that there is not some other explanation for the discrepancy.

[sdl180]

Thanks Guys.

I am reasonable certain the explanation of the discrepancy is correct.

Date of birth on BC is 1st March 1892
Birth was register on 12th April 1892 (exactly 6 weeks after DOB)
Baptism was 26th February 1892

Same place, same parents, same occupation of Father, same address. Unfortunately the Baptism doesn't state the date of birth as some do.

Steve

[sdl180]

Looks like I may have been slightly wrong on the last post. I think it does show the DOB on the Baptism.

It looks like the birth was 30th January 1892.[smile]

[tatewise]

I found the following on GENUKI

There was a six week (42 days) time limit in which to register a birth. After six weeks and up to six months the birth could be registered on payment of a fine. After that time, with very few exceptions, a birth could not be registered. It was fairly common for parents to adjust the birth date to within 42 days.

[AdrianBruce]

Basically you need to decide whether your facts as recorded in FH are

• in correspondence with your sources or
• conclusions

In the first case, you should record 2 births, including the registered date, even though you believe it to be incorrect. In the second case, you should record what you believe the conclusion is, so you'll normally just have the one date - presumably that from the baptism. In this case, the erroneous date could be ignored or - more usefully, to record that you've thought about it - mentioned in the notes to the correct one.

95% of the time, I regard my events and other facts in FH as my current conclusions, so only have one date. Very occasionally I am unable to (yet) make a decision so record both separately, with suitable comments about these being alternatives.

Whichever way you do it, you ought to be consistent. Usually.

[sdl180]

Thanks for that.

I think if I was doing the research for someone else I would put in two birth events and leave them to draw the conclusion. As the research is for myself (my close family don't understand my fascination with 'dead people'), I think I will draw my own conclusion and just have the one birth, with both sources and suitable notes.

Thanks to all who gave advice.

Steve

[Berni]

I have come across several cases in my ancestors of the opposite. Baptism after death. Not the Mormon idea, but within the Church of England. If a child died within a few days of birth some parishes allowed baptism to take place within a short period after the death. Usually this was about a week or two but I have come across one example of four weeks. This was in the 1600s and early 1700s when infant mortality was very high and the examples I have found came from small villages in East Anglia. How wide spread or common this custom was I do not know.
Berni