There is also Bruce A Baldwin, whose birth was registered on 5 or 6 November 1905, at St Leonards NSW, with parents George R and Maude Baldwin.
And the WW2 nominal roll contains Bruce Arthur Baldwin, who enlisted on 11 August 1942 at Normanton Queensland, and was purported born according to the army on 5 November 1905 at Hornsby NSW. His next of kin was L Baldwin and he was discharged in 1944.
There is a registered death in Queensland, C2377 in 1976, Bruce Arthur Baldwin, parents George Richard Baldwin and Maud Mail. He would have been 71, if it is the same person.
If these 3 entries relate to the same person, it is interesting that he told the army he was born at Hornsby, although his birth was registered at St Leonards NSW.
Pipeclay, I realise you are new to RChat, and I expect you are a long standing family history buff. May I please suggest that there is simply no reason to write "purportedly" or any other adverse words. Those words may well be considered by 21st century eyes as suggesting that the named person has been less than truthful when lodging the paperwork. As you are relying on online indexes to make those assumptions, surely it would be sensible to re-phrase rather than to let any inappropriate inference stand. I mention this particularly as your enquiry involves seeking someone who may well have younger living siblings. Afterall, the NSW BDM online index does NOT display birth registrations for births where that birth occurred less than 100 years ago.
JM
Well I can see what you are trying to say. I am more familiar with the WW1 records than the WW2. I have looked at thousands of them. The point I would say, is the recruiting officer is going to write down what the recruit says, and not demand proof, and only in a tiny fraction of cases where the proposed recruit's age is suspect, they are too young, too old, or require parental consent, did the Army seek to officially verify the recruit's age.
Case in point, when John Edward Baldwin enlisted in Queensland, he didn't say he was born at St Leonards or Chatswood or Hornsby or Wahroonga or Kuringgai. He just said Sydney. Which is easier than spelling some complicated name with which the Queensland recruiting sergeant would not be familiar. Where as, if he had enlisted in the Sydney, the recruiting sergeant may well have been more inquisitive.
That is often the case where people enlisted interstate. I have people born at Caulfield, Melbourne, and their birth certifcate says they were born there, and when they enlisted in Perth, they just said "Melbourne". Even worse, is when they confuse places like Richmond or Carlton or Burwood which appear in more than one state.
The army recruitment record is not an official record of the applicants birth date or age. It is what he or she told them, and they rarely check, and in thousands of cases, recruits have been inaccurate about their age for one reason or the other.
Usage of qualifying words and phrases such as "purportedly" merely reflects this level of doubt in the accuracy and assurance of various sources, particular when they appear to be potentially inconsistent. You should not overthink it.
