Family Historian User Group

Help please,
I'm sure this not unusual but it's the first time I've come across this problem.  I've manged to trace an ancestor to a birth in 1852.  Some of the entries that might prove fruitful with regards to place of birth are recorded simply as 'male' followed by the relevant surname.  I'm guessing that the child may not yet have been named but I just wondered what others have done when coming across this situation.
Grateful thanks
Derek.

ID:4219

I'd look for baptisms in churches in the area as most people were baptised not long after their bith and of course they'll have a name by then.

Hi Derek,

Some months ago I found exactly that situation. Since the individual could have been the missing link, I had to follow all leads to find as much as I could.

To begin, I recorded the information that I found on the Birth Index ie 'Male' Surname etc. I then drove 50+ miles and spent several hours going through the Nottingham Record Office without any trace of the 'Male' Surname or anyone who could have been him.

Once I returned home, I considered what I had found (nothing) and what could have caused this to be correct (if possible). After a while, I decided to check the Death Indexes to find 'Male' Surname had indeed died in the same Quarter/Year.

From this experience, I regret to say that you should record exactly what you find and amend it later if you can. In addition, if you do find a repeat of the above - do NOT remove the individual since you or someone who receives your research will waste their time . . . .

Hope this helps
Bilko

Do you know the parents' names? If so, why not look them up in the 1861 census and see whether they have a 9-year-old son?

Jocelyn

Thanks to all, some great suggestions, much appreciated