Family Historian User Group

I wonder how other users cope with baptism and birth in FH? After 1837 we have the birthdate, but for earlier years perhaps only a baptism date. This is usually soon after birth but could be years later.
My problem is on setting out the details in FH and how they show up in diagrams. If I just use the baptism date then the 'chidren' section of the individual record of the parent has a blank for birth. But since (probably - I haven't checked this) 98% of bapts are within six weeks of birth is it sloppy to assume that a child was born the same year it was baptised?
Then again, if I only put the birth in as a year, in fact I have a much better proof that this individual was born, and that is the baptism. (does this make sense?). Does anyone have any thoughts on this?
Thanks
Val

ID:3103

If I have a baptism date, I record birth date as 'bef' (before) baptism date. So a baptism date of 21 Sep 1829 would give me a birth date of bef 21 Sep 1829. The program then assumes birth at that time, which covers the majority of cases.

I use the same system for death when I only have a burial date.

Maureen

Val,

It is usually possible to determine the birth date (or at least the birth year) from later information such as the Census, Marriages and death or burial records. Even if the information isn't explicit then words such as 'infant', or 'of full age' etc in later records give a clue or perhaps a date range for the birth.

Pending the research to unearth later clues I generally just assume (unless there is contrary information) that the child was born 1 month before baptism. Of course there are the exceptions you mention but these usually reveal themselves fairly quickly as I build up information about the person.

You may never find out the exact date of birth for some (perhaps even quite a lot) of people but this only mirrors what people knew about themselves - or rather what they didn't know. Provided you can narrow the period down to 1 or two years then you won't be going far wrong.

Good luck,

Gerry

I use the system of putting a 'before' date in the birth/death if I only have the christening/burial, using the known date as the base... Not sure how else, in principle, to do it other than leaving the birth/death fact blank, and as the tree gets larger that becomes awkward in determining which George Bloggs one is looking at in the records window without have even more columns showing.

I always put the baptism year as the birth year and then change it if I get the correct date.It may not be accurate but is usually a good guess until you have something more positive.[smile]

If all you have is a date of baptism then the only thing you are sure of is that the person was alive on that day. Therefore using the 'before' option is the most suitable one, although strictly speaking it should read 'on or before' but that's getting too pedantic even for me!.  I always use this system as I have come across too many examples in my family of children being baptised in their teens and on more than one occasion several children being baptised on the same day.

I know what you mean about 'before' being more accurate but personally I find it a bit vague as it could mean they were born 1 year, 10 years, 200 years before which isn't particularly helpful. I tend to put an estimated date of birth (by putting (est) after the date) of a month or two before the baptism. In the absence of anything else to go on it is helpful to have an approximate date of birth to refer to, but by having the 'estimated' marker it shows that it can't necessarily be trusted (and yes I do have examples of people baptised years after their birth, but these are certainly not the norm). Many of us put in estimated (or calculated) birth years based on ages given in census records or burials but these are often far more innaccurate than the estimated birth date based on a baptism.

I think that it's largely an individual decision. I was baptised at 3 months old and both of my children were six months old. (I really must ask my wife when she was baptised!) and this colours my thinking. My father, on the other hand, was baptised at 2 weeks old. Also, I have an implied understanding that, in this context, 'before' means 'probably within the last few months but not necessarily'.

In the end it's down to what works best for you and being consistent.

And don't forget too that Baptisms were sometimes done in job lots - two or three children (or more!) of a family, all at one time and various ages.... my latest is just over a year after a birth... and I have to check if the younger sister was done at the same time

I think that until relatively recent times (20th century) baptisms usually happened fairly quickly after birth because of the high infant mortality rates.

I have often pondered this issue, especially as most of my cornish ancestors were non conformists, I ahve found some in non conformist and some in parish registers....what are the chances of finding someone in both...having been 'converted/saved'[rolleyes]so could have ,potentially, beenbaptised at any age
I always use the born before method with regard baptised on/ born on issue.

Snip : 'I think that until relatively recent times (20th century) baptisms usually happened fairly quickly after birth because of the high infant mortality rates'

Nick

That may be the case in England but certainly not the case in Australia. Baptisms in the towns may have been fairly quick but in the outback areas, the visit of a travelling clergyman may have happened only once in some years (2, 5 or even 10) and then may not have been the 'right' denomination.

John

Hi John

Sorry yes, I'm guilty of forgetting that not everyone on here is referring to UK records. Thanks for the reminder.

Nick