Warning - major error! "England Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991" contains baptisms

[UKgirl]

Re. England Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991
This database is on Ancestry, Find my Past and freely available on Family Search.

This is quite disturbing.

Lancashire
Leigh, St. Mary the Virgin

Baptism Richard Hampson, mother Faith
St. Mary, Leigh
1793 May 12
(confirmed by image)

Burial Richard Hampson, mother Faith
Leigh
1793 May 12

The second record comes ONLY from the database: England Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991

At first glance, you would think that this sad event was the death of a newborn. On further reflection, it is bizarre to imagine that a baby would be baptised, and then a few minutes later they would hurry outside to bury the poor dearly departed mite. Visions of being drowned in the font come tumbling to mind.

But then, imagine this, yet another poor Richard Hampson:

Baptism Richard Hampson, parents William & Sarah
St. Mary, Leigh
1793 Jan 13
(confirmed by image)

Burial Richard Hampson, parents William & Sarah
Leigh
1793 Jan 13

Gosh!!! Two babies drowned in the same font

Of course, I am being facetious. I have searched the relevant church burial images and there are no such burials. The conclusion is that someone a very long time ago must have mis-transcribed Baptisms as Burials.

There may be many people with no access to the actual images who have dismissed their potential ancestor as having been a sickly babe who died at/around birth, when they have actually been a bonny babe who thrived into adulthood.

This “hobby” is confusing enough, without Baptisms being mistranscribed as Burials. That’s just too much to cope with!

I have no idea how widespread this is within this database.
Just this year? Just this church? Heaven knows! (Literally perhaps?)

UKgirl

[PaulineJ]

It's been known about for years.
Its due to the fact that in early registers, entries are intermingled;
They put in "Baptism" title, then a littl eway into the book start "Marriages" Then a little further on "Burials".

If Marriages gets full first, then the next heading added is Marriages,
If Baptisms, then Baptisms is the next heading. (a way beyond the last entry for Burials)

The indexers have missed seeing/ logging a heading is what's happened.

[rosie99]

Re. England Deaths and Burials, 1538-1991
This database is on Ancestry, Find my Past and freely available on Family

Isn't this primarily a Familysearch database that has been passed on to the 2 pay websites by the Latter Day Saints 

[UKgirl]

Yes, Rosie, that is correct. But that doesn't make it any more or any less confusing.

Pauline, you are correct – many old Registers have such intermingling. You can even see Baptisms, Marriages and Burials all on the same page sometimes, especially in a tiny village church – and yes that can be every confusing and you need to look carefully.

The 1782-1797 Register of Leigh St. Mary is not like that.

The first half of the Register is all Christenings 1782-1797
The second half of the Register is all Burials 1782-1798, with a few more 1797 Christenings right at the end.

As can be seen on Ancestry:
Christenings Pages 1-99 (of 159)
Burials Pages 99-155 (of 159)
Christenings Pages 155-159

The top of each page is clearly marked, and it is not as if at a glance you could mistake Baptisms for Burials because they both begin with B. Christenings begins with C.

I would have thought that in this case it would be difficult or extremely careless to make such a glaring error. But I have no idea of the scale of such errors. It is my first realisation of this problem, and I can imagine that when it comes up as hints on Ancestry, people will accept that the child died soon after birth.

[rosie99]

Familysearch also have transcripts that put baptisms etc in the wrong places.  I have seen some that were baptised in Poulton le Sands (Morecambe) but familysearch has them on their  England Births and Christenings, 1538-1975 as baptised Adlington
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:J314-8VD

Both parishes are on the same film and they have confused them - I have seen the original records on film.

[brigidmac]

Thanks for the warning
Yes I probably would assume an instant death in a hint like that .and even if I saw the same child in a later census would think the parents had had another baby straight after and named it the same !