RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: chinakay on Tuesday 08 April 08 05:29 BST (UK)
-
I've seen the answer somewhere, but I can't remember what it was... :P
Why do some dates in multiple listings differ by exactly a year? Or, something I haven't seen before, one month? It's without a doubt the same person, or the same people marrying, but why the variation? Thanks for any light you can shed on this annoying mystery...
Cheers,
China
-
one explaination at:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php/topic,229561.0.html
dollylee
-
Dollylee's link to the changing calendar could well be the answer you are searching for - I had this clearly described for myself when I found reference to the execution of Charles I in a parish register dated 30 Jan 1648 - when I had always thought this took place in 1649. Modern history seems to have rewritten the dates in our current calendar format.
I have also seen different dates on extracted records where the parish record and the Bishop's Transcripts had different dates (presumably transcription errors). In one case 5 years marriages were simply dated e.g. 1785-1790 in the BT and this was indexed on the IGI with all marriages dated 1785. If you have multiple extracted records with different dates - click on the "film number" to check from where the information was indexed.
Otherwise - I would ask - are you looking at submitted entries? Many of these have dates estimated from census records & could thus be different to parish records. They could also simply be wrong. I have also seen instances where people have estimated a birth date as 1 month prior to a baptism date - this may be a reason for the 1 month difference (again, assuming submitted records).
Trish
-
There are also instances where marriages are estimated as the year before the birth of the first child whereas in many cases it was actually only a few months. This was partly due to the practice in some communities of proving the wife fertile before a marriage took place.
David
-
Hi China,
Yes, it is frustrating - is it only guesswork!
I have been trying to find an ancestor's birth/baptism for ages. The IGI has birth dates of 'about' 1783 and 'about' 1785.
I have the said person's death certificate and it places the birth in 1785 (I know this could be wrong if the informant did not know for sure). The only other information I can go on is the 1841 census which gives his birth as five years either side of 1791! He's missing on the 1851 census!
So where have these people got their information from? ??? The IGI give inormation that it is taken from endowments of the dead, or baptisms of the dead. I would dearly love to be able to contact these people who have done this reasearch just to know how they deduced this, because I am puzzled - but I don't think that is possible. (Please tell me if I am wrong).
Sorry to go on, but it's driving me nuts!!
Kind regards,
Paulene :)
-
So where have these people got their information from?
Guesswork
Speculation
You have to check whether the person was an LDS member because they seem to be allowed to put any information on the database with the proviso that it is ABOUT such a date. Many of these researchers from the 1970's are probably now dead so they are not contactable.
You may need to go to a county records office and go through the events yourself if you want reliable information. Some of the IGI's records are accurate and some are specualtion but always check with the source material at the records office.
-
I've been trying to research my Jersey, Channel Islands ancestors. Without going there and looking at the records which are in french anyway it is impossible.
But on the IGI each ancestor has about 10 entries, put on by a member of the church. When I look at those trees they are mostly the same but some have different ancestors and the dates are definately wrong. I think the people who put them on guessed that the marriage was a year before a birth and that the parents were born 25 years before the marriage. This is definately rubbish as I know one ancestor was over 60 when he married! Needless to say I have given up on this side of the family.
The only way to find the truth is to look at the parish registers.
Sylviaann
-
Hi Downside and Sylviaann,
I've been to the Society of Genealogists in London and looked at the parish registers and cannot find anything + Staffordshire archives to try to find other information to give clues, but nothing. That's why I wondered if they knew something (perhaps had a family Bible, etc) or had found something I hadn't.
Probably will never know! :(
Paulene.
-
Hi everybody...I suppose the calendar change could account for some of it, that's as good an explantion as any. I also like the other explantions of speculation and guesswork ;D ;D
I see the date variation regularly, but ran into a strange one last night...looking for the marriage of John She[a]rd of Mirfield, the extracted record had him marrying 29 Sept, 1701.
But member submissions included 29 Aug, 1702. That's a double date shift. Confusing.
No, I don't use the member submissions...which incidentally are supposed to be members' ancestors, not just anybody. I think. :P
Thanks for all your help.
Cheers,
China
-
So where have these people got their information from?
Guesswork
Speculation
You have to check whether the person was an LDS member because they seem to be allowed to put any information on the database with the proviso that it is ABOUT such a date. Many of these researchers from the 1970's are probably now dead so they are not contactable.
You may need to go to a county records office and go through the events yourself if you want reliable information. Some of the IGI's records are accurate and some are specualtion but always check with the source material at the records office.
When using the IGI you must be very aware of its purpose, which is not primarily for genealogy but for the Mormon Church to bind their ancestors to the church so that they are resurrected on judgement day. To their members dates are not important as long as they have the relationships correct.
Thus extracted dates will probably be correct but those submitted by members of the church probably won't
David
-
I know, David, thanks...I don't use the submissions. But they are useful at times for picking up siblings.
Cheers,
C
-
I know, David, thanks...I don't use the submissions. But they are useful at times for picking up siblings.
Cheers,
C
I also find them useful, while acknowledging they are not any type of "proof". If one lives thousands of miles from the place in question, they can provide a starting place for research when no other information is available.
I tend to have more belief in submitted entries when they contain exact dates and places, so the example you gave is interesting China. Perhaps the submitted data came from a family source that has been incorrect for many years & no-one has checked? I have information from a family bible which gives births dates AFTER the baptism dates in the appropriate church registers (Dorset early 1800s). I have no idea how to evaluate the two sources ??? Earlier I had found a couple similar in Staffordshire, but I did prove this related to the calendar change - can't use that in the 1800s!
Trish
-
I agree with Trish absolutely. As long as you remember the purpose of entries on the IGI and realise that many may be very inaccurate, they can still provide leads and pointers (subject always to validation!)
MarieC
-
I've just found a couple who apparently had two sons, both called John (nothing unusual there), but one was born 20 years before the other one. No deaths for either of them as children and when the "second" son was born the mother would have been in her mid-late 40s. Both records have been submitted, so either or neither could be correct. By the way both records give the mother's name in full, which is how I know it is the same couple.
Is there any way of checking out the submitted records?
Lizzie
-
What do you mean by "checking out", Lizzie? You can try to contact the submitter - details are on the site - to ask them where they got the information, but they may no longer be at their contact address or even perhaps still alive! No-one else is going to know those things, I think.
MarieC
-
Lizzie's post made me realize that we all make assumptions based on present day norms.
No offense meant, but Mid-late 40s isn't uncommon to have a child. Remember that most healthy women are fertile for about 40-45 years. We don't think like that now but many healthy women did have children all their fertile years.
We tend to think people marry at about 20, have a few children (or many) and stop when they're 35-40. To get ahead (or back) with genealogy you have to think outside the square.
Also, just to be cheeky, my father had an uncle Francis and an uncle Frank who were brothers, about 10 years apart. People are funny like that. ;)
Leonie.
-
Leonie
Yes I know people had babies late in life, in fact my g.gran had her last child when she was aged 52, however, I just thought that as the entries had been submitted and were identical apart from the date one at least must be wrong. The dates given were 1731 and 1751, which is why I think someone may have misread the date originally and then submitted another entry. If the man turns out to be my ancestor the date of 1731 would be the most likely one.
MarieC - I must be a bit dim, as I've never been able to work out how to contact a "submitter". Where does it give the information? This is what it states on the page giving the name and baptism date:
Record submitted by a member of the LDS Church. The record often shows the name of the individual and his or her relationship to a descendant, shown as the heir, family representative, or relative. The original records are not indexed, and you may have to look at the film frame-by-frame to find the information you want. A family group record for this couple may be in the Family Group Record Collection; Archive Section. (See the Family History Library Catalog for the film number.) These records are alphabetical by name of the father or husband.
Lizzie
ps. I've just clicked on "Family" and it shows that the couple had 12 children including the two John's born 20 years apart. There were also two Marys and two James. However, it only gives baptismal dates. I'll have to check this out and see if I can find any deaths for the same named children.
-
I've just found a couple who apparently had two sons, both called John (nothing unusual there), but one was born 20 years before the other one. No deaths for either of them as children and when the "second" son was born the mother would have been in her mid-late 40s. Both records have been submitted, so either or neither could be correct. By the way both records give the mother's name in full, which is how I know it is the same couple.
Is there any way of checking out the submitted records?
Lizzie
If the records give a parish for the birth, then the way to check is to access those parish records and search for the baptisms/births (assuming both births are before civil registration). If no parish is given, then as MarieC says, you could attempt to find the submitter.
One of my gg grandmothers was born 1821 and married 1837 (definitely verifiable information from parish records and civil records). There is a record for her on the IGI, born 1832 and married 1851 - no idea where that came from ???
Trish
Edit: Re looking at the records - you would have to order the film (as documented on the index) from an LDS family centre and, from what is said, search every page to find the details you want
-
Lizzie's post made me realize that we all make assumptions based on present day norms.
No offense meant, but Mid-late 40s isn't uncommon to have a child. Remember that most healthy women are fertile for about 40-45 years. We don't think like that now but many healthy women did have children all their fertile years.
We tend to think people marry at about 20, have a few children (or many) and stop when they're 35-40. To get ahead (or back) with genealogy you have to think outside the square.
Also, just to be cheeky, my father had an uncle Francis and an uncle Frank who were brothers, about 10 years apart. People are funny like that. ;)
Leonie.
Hi Leonie
I think present day norms are to have babies later - most of my 19th century & earlier ancestors (sadly) had their 10-15 children and then died before they ever reached the age of 50. I have friends today who have their first child when in their 40s. I had my first child at 35 and was the oldest Mum at kindergarten - now I think I would be the youngest!! Long time since I have known anyone who married at age 20.
Trish
-
I'm not sure I'll bother to order the records from LDS and search through them all. Someone else has already done quite a bit of research and has found the marriage for my particular John and she gives his date of birth as approx 1747! So it could be that the family I found are not the one I want after all. There maybe some relationship but I don't think I'll pursue it at the moment.
Thanks for your suggestions.
Lizzie
-
What a difference 20-30 years makes. ;D
Norms for me are about what was happening in the 1970s I suppose. That's about when most of my 'adult' ideas were formed.
I did marry later than my contemporaries, I was 21, most of my friends were married in late teens. And with the wonder of in-vitro fertalisation we now have mothers at 60. Not what I would want to be doing at 60 :o
However, if dates of double entries are consistant, that is if each John, Mary & James was cited as being 20 years different to the first John, Mary & James, I would say they are double entries. But you also can't rule out a person being baptized a second time!! I'm a pest aren't I? But I have two of those ??? Each being baptized in a CofE church then later in a Catholic Church.
If it's the wrong family anyway, just put it down to experience, it's never wasted, part of the learning curve.
Leonie.
-
You guys are just too smart for me !! :D :D :D ..... But you all make fascinating reading !!
I am such a dufuss with the IGI ... I just throw up my hands .... !!
( bet you didn't learn all that in one of your books Leonie !! :D :D ::) ::) )
-
Actually I did Annie.
It was a Dr Seuss book I think ;D
-
You guys are just too smart for me !! :D :D :D ..... But you all make fascinating reading !!
I am such a dufuss with the IGI ... I just throw up my hands .... !!
( bet you didn't learn all that in one of your books Leonie !! :D :D ::) ::) )
Annie - you do pretend, you can find more folks in 1 day than I would find in a year on the IGI - and you have more sources than I will ever find ;D ;D
Trish
-
But you also can't rule out a person being baptized a second time!! I'm a pest aren't I? But I have two of those ??? Each being baptized in a CofE church then later in a Catholic Church.
If it's the wrong family anyway, just put it down to experience, it's never wasted, part of the learning curve.
Leonie.
It should be extremely unusual for a person to bee baptised more than once. It is against the rules of the all the churches. Provisional (hypothetical) baptisms are sometimes carried out when there is a doubt whether someone has been baptised. However the Roman Catholic Church has been known to use these far too frequently when someone converts from another denomination.
David
-
I have a family baptised in CofE and then later in a new Methodist church. It is not as unusual as you may think
Sylviaann
-
It is not as unusual as you may think
there are several topics about this (Multiple Baptism) in the
RootsChat Reference Library (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/index.php) => Lexicon (click here) (http://surname.rootschat.com/lexicon/reflib-lexicon.php?letter=M)
(Tip: click on a category - to the right - for more topics)
Bob
-
There is a tendancy, I have found, in the new "free" churches for people joining to be encouraged to be baptised again - adult baptism. (I know that the Baptists believe in adult baptism). It seems they do not believe baptism as a child/baby is acceptable/ideal.
Although I understand their reasoning, I cannot help feel that this does create some sort of non-acceptance of those who choose a different route, and encourages separation/elitism amongst Christians rather than a single body working together for Christ.
Just my own thoughts.
Kind regards,
Paulene :)
-
That isn't quite it, Paulene...
The Bible is quite clear that baptism is intended to be for believers. One who has personal faith in Christ as their personal Saviour should be baptised.
Babies are not capable of this. Therefore infant "baptism" doesn't count.
It isn't necessarily baptism of an adult, but baptism of a believer, that Baptists engage in. They are not encouraging elitism, but obedience to God.
So you may find a lot of "second" baptisms in Baptist, evangelical and free churches. Some of those churches feel that a child (not a baby) is able to come to an understanding of Christ as their Saviour, and are willing to baptise a child in recognition of this. Others do not. Therefore, you may find a very wide range of ages involved in these baptisms...I know a lady who was 92 :)
Cheers,
China
-
Hi China,
Actually as soon as I posted this I realised it wasn 't the right place - it was just my own thoughts /concerns arising in response to the previous comments in the thread regarding second baptisms.
It was a concern expressed, as someone trying to understand both stand-points - knowing committed Christians in both types of church/denomination.
I apologise for the term elitism, it was the wrong word to use - just feel it is sad when someone chooses a different route(in a church which upholds infant and adult baptism) that we can't all work together. I do understand what you are saying, China.
Sorry if I have offended.
Kind regards,
Paulene :)
-
Getting back to the question of 1 year date differences, here is my take on it, and it has proved correct many times.
Oftentimes (especially in US before 1900) censuses are the primary - if not only - sources available. Required birth registrations were late-coming by the states, and church records often don't exist. Plus, as people in the US and Canada moved West, the availability of their "church of choice" often wasn't there. I have seen families who were strict Presbyterians in Scotland and Nova Scotia, attending Anglican, Methodist, and even Baptist churches for baptisms, marriages, and burials.
Censuses in Britain seemed to be taken (normally) in March; in the US the norm was June, but I've seen anywhere from early January to September. Say an individual shows up as 20 years old in an 1860 census, and 30 yo in 1870: the tendency is to subtract 20 or 30 and come up with a birth year of 1840. For a census taken in March, you only have a 25% chance of this being correct, and if taken in June, only a 50% chance.
I have found this "off by one" error many times in my own research. What I now do is put the birth year (in the above example) down as "ca 1839-1840" until I find definitive proof.
I would guess that the IGI entries go for the easy fix by simply subtracting.
Nick
-
Hi Nick, that's a really good point about the birth month...and if the problem was confined to census history I'd say there's a good chance of it explaining some of the discrepancies.
But, it cannot explain multiple entries such as:
James Sheard, son of John Sheard, 09 Jun 1733 Hartshead, Yorks
James Sheard, son of John Sheard, 09 Jun 1734 Hartshead, Yorks
Cheers,
C
-
Hi Paulene, no offense...just pointing out why "second" baptisms happen and why there may be a large difference in age between the infant's ceremony and a later one, with no uniform or predictable interval.
Cheers,
China
-
China, you don't say if these (James Sheard) are Bishop's Transcripts or Members submissions.
Members submissions are often all over the place and while I use them as a starting point 'til I find a more definitive source I don't take them as proof.
Bishops Transcripts I take as 99%, but not 100%.
Getting back to the original question;
Why do some dates in multiple listings differ by exactly a year? Or, something I haven't seen before, one month?
I think it basically answers itself. Multiple listings are by definition member's submissions and members are human and therefor capable of making mistakes.
Until we have all parish records and all census's transcribed and on-line, we just have to go with what we have. Even then we will only ever be 99% sure.
But then can we ever be really sure of anything? ???
;)
Leonie.
-
Hi Leonie, in this particular case the 1734 is the extracted record and the 1733 a member submission...I know the member submissions can be "all over the place" especially when they say "about" a date...they can be 20 years off. But why the same day and month, but a year out??
cheers,
C
-
Hi Leonie, in this particular case the 1734 is the extracted record and the 1733 a member submission...I know the member submissions can be "all over the place" especially when they say "about" a date...they can be 20 years off. But why the same day and month, but a year out??
cheers,
C
Cause they had looked up the parish record and mistranscribed it would be my suggestion. I have done similar myself. I have also found in rather later times, folks often lied about their year of birth on military records (to make themselves older or younger). They usually retain the same date and month to avoid "forgetting" their birthday ;D
Unless you can contact the person who made the submission, it will always be guesswork (perhaps an educated guess) as to why they are a year out from the parish record.
Trish
-
MarieC - I must be a bit dim, as I've never been able to work out how to contact a "submitter". Where does it give the information? This is what it states on the page giving the name and baptism date:
Record submitted by a member of the LDS Church. The record often shows the name of the individual and his or her relationship to a descendant, shown as the heir, family representative, or relative. The original records are not indexed, and you may have to look at the film frame-by-frame to find the information you want. A family group record for this couple may be in the Family Group Record Collection; Archive Section. (See the Family History Library Catalog for the film number.) These records are alphabetical by name of the father or husband.
Lizzie
Often when you open a submitted record, the messages section will tell you something like: "Ancestral File may list the same family and the submitter." So it is worth looking in Ancestral File on the site to see if it is there.
MarieC
-
But why the same day and month, but a year out??
Because sombody knew when he celebrated his birthday but didn't know the year?
It's as good an answer as any ???
I guess we'll never know, unless you have contact with a good medium.
If you do know a good medium, let me know, I could use their help too. ;)
Leonie.
-
MarieC - I must be a bit dim, as I've never been able to work out how to contact a "submitter". Where does it give the information? This is what it states on the page giving the name and baptism date:
Quote
Record submitted by a member of the LDS Church. The record often shows the name of the individual and his or her relationship to a descendant, shown as the heir, family representative, or relative. The original records are not indexed, and you may have to look at the film frame-by-frame to find the information you want. A family group record for this couple may be in the Family Group Record Collection; Archive Section. (See the Family History Library Catalog for the film number.) These records are alphabetical by name of the father or husband.
Use the "Source Call Number" The Submitter number is usually a quite long number, sometimes refers to a CD number. Just keep following it til you find the details you want.
Leonie.
-
But why the same day and month, but a year out??
Because sombody knew when he celebrated his birthday but didn't know the year?
In 1600?
-
Thank you Leonie and MarieC. I'll try to find out who submitted the records in future.
Lizzie
-
Yes, thankyou everyone. Always been confused about the submitted ones and how to find out the information. Much clearer now.
Paulene :)