On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:25:07 +1100 Michael Lightfoot <michael.lightfoot@pcug.org.au> wrote: Hello Michael, > I'd contest that. In my experience Civil records only become reliable I said "...usually a better source of information..." meaning that DoB was recorded, whereas in PRs that may not be the case. Also, mother's maiden name is noted. Also, unlike PRs, there may be two addresses recorded. One for place of birth and one for normal residence of the informant. The two addresses may be the same, of course. Now, the info recorded on a birth cert may well be total fiction, but it's rarely so. The info in PRs may be more accurate since only the curate/vicar/whoever writes them up, but is often less informative. > in the 1850s when it is not only compulsory, but there are sanctions > for not registering. Sanctions didn't arrive until 1875, but registration was always compulsory. The difference being that prior to 1875 the onus was on the Registrar to ask for the information whereas after 1875 the responsibility was shifted to parents/bereaved to give the information. Mind you, I don't know what the registrar would do if they asked for the details and somebody refused. Just ask again, until the person they were asking got fed up, I suppose. :-) -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)rad never immediately apparent" An old custom to sell your daughter Hong Kong Garden - Siouxsie & The Banshees

Another important distinction surely, is that (British) Civil records can be, to a great extent, self-accessed world-wide, whilst PRs (especially post-1837) can't. Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brad Rogers" <brad@fineby.me.uk> To: "Berks ML" <berkshire@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, March 15, 2010 9:47 PM Subject: Re: [BRK] Parish Register Transcripts > On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 08:25:07 +1100 > Michael Lightfoot <michael.lightfoot@pcug.org.au> wrote: >