On 2011/12/20 09:39, cr brassfield wrote: > I wish to pick up from message below 'it was a reasonable assumption that the > birth date was a month or so earlier'(than baptism). Not necessarily. > Families > often liked to have children baptised at the church where their family may > have > worshipped for generations so if they had moved away and couldn't afford to > keep > returning after each birth then their children would all be baptised at the > same > time when they were able to make the journey. Before civil registration in > 1837 > this can sometimes prove a problem about a child's age if there is no other > documentation available. It is, therefore, important to show both birth and > baptism dates if you have them.
Another generalisation! Families, particularly rural, English families, had children baptised where it was convenient, and often, within a day or two of the birth. What you're referring to tended to happen from the middle of the nineteenth century when there was far more mobility amongst the working classes, and it became a custom for the mother to return to her parents parish for the birth of the first child. Look at the PRs! -- Regards, Mike Fry Johannesburg Legacy User Group guidelines: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Etiquette.asp Archived messages after Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Archived messages from old mail server - before Nov. 21 2009: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ Online technical support: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/Help.asp Follow Legacy on Facebook (http://www.facebook.com/LegacyFamilyTree) and on our blog (http://news.LegacyFamilyTree.com). To unsubscribe: http://www.LegacyFamilyTree.com/LegacyLists.asp
