Thanks Margaret! I really appreciate the knowledge you share so generously.
Joanne: regarding the date, I believe that it's best to add a qualifier
("circa", "about", "probably"-- or similar) to the date so that it's
readily apparent that it's not a recorded fact. I would also add a note
mentioning the absence of the date on the record and the reason for
selecting the date you used.
hope that helps,
:)
Linda
On Sunday, July 16, 2017 at 7:51:01 AM UTC-7, Mara wrote:
>
> Hi Bill, I would say no, not the same as Jose's for the obvious reason of
> it being recorded after the one with the missing date. Were Jose's the
> first record followed by the one above it without date, then you would say
> the 30th.
>
> Bad habits were hard to break. Heavy fines were handed out. Some priests
> did margin corrections others didn't.
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Jul 16, 2017, at 9:49 AM, [email protected] <javascript:> wrote:
>
>
> Thank you Margaret. It is good to know that if a date is not specified it
> was likely recorded the same day as the previous record. That hadn't
> occurred to me.
>
> In this case, wouldn't it be 30 Jan since that is the date of Jose's
> baptism recorded on the same page? (end of line 7: "...aos trin-ta do
> ditto mes e anno")
>
> Bill
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Azores Genealogy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected] <javascript:>.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/azores.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Azores Genealogy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/azores.
