RootsChat.Com

As a former IT professional, my take on this (and similar issues) is that changes aren't tested properly before a software release.

It's called beta-testing by the public. 

Every so often a new thread pops up on this topic.  I trained as a scientist, so I learnt the approach that while I may be happy with my own results someone else's may (one day) prove them wrong.  Luckily my own tree contains mostly people with unusual surnames so I am satisfied with my searches, and try to maximise internal consistency.

Unfortunately self-righteousness seems to be an increasing trend these days, and many people prefer to believe what they want to believe, and may not happily accept others' suggestions that they may be mistaken.  Usually I don't bother trying to correct those views.

I also thought that they had 6 weeks to register a birth at that time but I am sure someone will verify what it was 

Since the GRO's recent attack of relative generosity I have worked through much of my (fairly modest) family tree, recording dates of registration against dates of birth.  A few parents went straight to the registry after a day or two.  The great majority waited until the sixth week, one or two of them apparently arranging a baptism on the same day.  So the evidence seems to be that 6 weeks has been the requirement since registration began.  Very occasionally a parent seems to have forgotten.

It seems that my ggg-grandfather made a habit of going from his farm into Ashburton to register his children as soon as he could.  A boy and a girl (twins) were registered with names the next day in 1842, but the father had to return just 5 days later to register the boy's (this time anonymous) death.  The likelihood of that happening was perhaps the main reason for the typical wait until the sixth week.

But if the information may be inaccurate then I will not take it as fact.

As most of the details on a certificate are answers to a recorder's questions, some of which may have been asked in various ways or not at all, a good deal of them should not be 'taken as fact' in a strict sense.  In my wife's tree is a man who married twice about 5 years apart, and was apparently younger the second time than the first - probably because the first marriage was to a noticeably older widow who reduced her age while he augmented his.  And we all know about variable surnames : I have seen a certificate for a lady named Heywood who quite clearly signed herself Hayward.