3 different birthdates?

[jimnix]

An ancestor of mine fathered a son as a young man with a single woman. He was named as the father in a bastardy bond which gives the child’s date of birth as 21 December 1880. The child’s baptism record gives the birthdate as 21 September and the birth certificate states that he was born 1 October! Perhaps not so coincidentally, the date given in the bastardy bond was the birthdate of the father, not the son. So which source do I believe?

[GR2]

If the son was still alive and appears in the 1939 register, he will give what he believes to be his date of birth on that.

[oldohiohome]

In Ireland at least, and maybe in England also (I don't know), there was a fine for registering the birth late, so people seemed to give a later date than the actual one when they went to register the birth civilly.
And - he had to be born before he was baptized. - That is one thing I go by.

---
edited to correct grammar and to add:
How close together are the dates on the baptism record? It's hard to get it too far wrong if he was born one day and baptized the next.

When I put the information into a genealogy application, I usually pick the most likely date, then add a note mentioning the others. You (we)'re really trying to guess how people were thinking at the time, which is the best we can do.

And as GR2 mentioned, you might get still another date from the 1939 register and any other later records.

[ALAMO2008]

I have 4 Relatives and their Birth Certificates in the 1880s 1890s show Dates of Birth declared to the Registrar Weeks or Months after they were Baptised by the local Priest.
Having been a researcher for many years I remind people researching never to use 21st Century Accuracy eyes when researching and to remember History is not necessarily a record of the Truth but more a record of what people "Said" was the Truth which  may not have necessarily been the Truth.

Baptisms were always a Priority to ensure God helped the newborn survive.
The Baptism Register was Consecutive and in Date Order and closest to the Real Birth Date.
Some actually note the Birth in the Column next to the Baptism Date.
If the Family were regular Church goers in those dates The Priest would have known the Mother Personally and known when the baby was born.

In my Experience of the 1939 Register which was Not completed by the Householder
I found come to learn that the Birth Dates quoted are only 60% Correct
Years and Months often miss recorded for some unknown reason.

Pre 1911 Births, did it matter then when you were born?

You were Not going to get a State Pension when you reached 65

I always would go with Date nearest Baptism though bear in mind many were Baptised years later when another Sibling born, so even that can't be relied on.

And it was the 1870s before it became a Legal Requirement to Register a Birth or be fined.

Which is why my Relative made up dates of Birth for the Registrar months after the true Birth Dates but invented a Birth Date to be within the Time limit so she wasn't fined.
Registrar wouldn't check with the Priest but would accept what was "Said" as the Birth Date.


Birthdays probably weren't celebrated either.

[jimnix]

He died in 1937 so missed out on the 1939 Register unfortunately. His birth was registered on 15 November 1880 - so would this have been considered a late registration if he had been born 21 September? Hence why the birthdate was given as 1 October? It definitely rules out the 21 December date though 

As for his baptism, he was baptised 13 August 1882 so would have been nearing his second birthday by this point.

[nanny jan]

One of my gt. aunts had 4 birth dates; one on her birth cert, a few days out on her baptism entry, a few days out again on 1939 Register and yet another date on her death cert!   

[Elwyn Soutter]

His birth was registered on 15 November 1880 - so would this have been considered a late registration if he had been born 21 September?

My understanding is that the birth had to be registered within 42 days. 1st October to 15th November is just over that (about 46 days) so it wouldn’t appear to have avoided the penalty.

https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/9615/penalty-for-late-registration-of-birth-in-england#:~:text=The%20father%2C%20mother%2C%20neighbor%2C%20or%20other%20person%20present,six%20months%20the%20birth%20could%20not%20be%20registered.

[jimnix]

His birth was registered on 15 November 1880 - so would this have been considered a late registration if he had been born 21 September?

My understanding is that the birth had to be registered within 42 days. 1st October to 15th November is just over that (about 46 days) so it wouldn’t appear to have avoided the penalty.

https://genealogy.stackexchange.com/questions/9615/penalty-for-late-registration-of-birth-in-england#:~:text=The%20father%2C%20mother%2C%20neighbor%2C%20or%20other%20person%20present,six%20months%20the%20birth%20could%20not%20be%20registered.

Thanks, Elwyn. I’m going to take the baptism entry’s word for it for the time being. It seems to me that it was definitely the 21st day of the month but definitely can’t have been December!