On 16 January 2014 02:45, Gabrielle Baker <[email protected]>wrote: > however I have had to create a separate file to do this > as I want the chart to only show my blood relatives, > There is no need to have a separate file. Simply display an all relatives chart as normal and then hide spouse boxes (the single box icon on the diagram tool bar). You can also easily do a custom report based on the Census Report, changing it over to just show the facts you want and then simply use a query to select only your blood relations to add to the report (you could even sort the report so very close relations appear first in the report. There are already a couple of queries to assist with reports to select only people needed for the two main DNA test types. If you do a search for DNA on the FHUG forums you will find several discussions on this. -- Jane. Jane Taubman | www.rjt.org.uk | www.taubman.org.uk |www.fhug.org.uk

An Old Laymans View !! Baptisms and Christenings and Parish Church Registers >From 1537 to 1837 or so the surviving Parish Church Registers, and their surviving Bishops Transcripts are often the only surviving record of many peoples lives. Most such Parish registers are headed Baptisms, Marriages, Burials. They are not normally headed Births, Christenings, Banns, Weddings, Deaths. Some of these events are also randomly recorded sometimes in the former registers and of course there are always exceptions for a wide variety of reasons. Genealogists and historians most often use what evidence of these past events still exists to rebuild family events and to reconstruct who was who locally at various given times. The dates given in such registers are invaluable guide lines, some correct, some false, some mistaken. We need to try to find and record Births, Baptisms [/Christenings], Banns, Marriages, Wills Dated, Deaths, Burials [ Funerals/ Cremations/ Memorial Services, Grants of Probates etc. If we can achieve a "Full House" of such recorded events we are doing exceptionally well since they in toto will provide pretty conclusive evidence of actual events that did take place as recorded. It seems to me that we should record the lot, and that all our records should be full and accurate as the originals allow. Those originals will always vary dependant on many many factors of change over time, of literacy, of fashion, of faith, and even of politics. The informal Hatch, Match, and Despatch event dates are normally the ones that matter most. Have fun finding and recording them, Best wishes and Happy New Year, Tim

I think it is down to what is appropriate for each person. How you standardise this I have no idea. My children were 'Christened' when they were babies in a Church of England church. As a generalisation I would say that most Christenings whereas other denominations, Methodist, Baptist, etc. use the word Baptism. My sister-in-law, who was also Christened Church of England as a baby, then joined the Pentecostal church and she was then 'baptised' as an adult. Jackie Cotterill -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 15 January 2014 08:01 To: [email protected] Subject: FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 9, Issue 18 Today's Topics: 1. Re: Christenings vs baptism (Rod Moulding) 2. Re: Christenings vs baptism (Tony Proctor) 3. Re: Christenings vs baptism (DaveT) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:09:30 -0000 From: "Rod Moulding" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original This looks to me like a matter for the Family History Information Standards Organisation (FHISO), whose mission is to devise, and to secure the acceptance and adoption of, a better GEDCOM, and whose Founder Members include Calico Pie. Simon - is FHISO making any progress? Rod Moulding -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism <<snipped>> Gedcom is supposed to be precise. <<snipped>> Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has crept in by common practice, regardless of the standard. For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** name to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames representing only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? <<snipped>> What happens outside Christian practice may require a different terminology. <<snipped>> Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation of a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you do transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I recognise that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that IF you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental flexibility in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the number of items in use. And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such flexibility by this point! Adrian B ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 11:50:53 -0000 From: "Tony Proctor" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Recent pronouncement from Drew Smith on this subject: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.computing/A3Bksk8dpUA/wIrL8ZQd pLAJ Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Moulding" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism > This looks to me like a matter for the Family History Information > Standards > Organisation (FHISO), whose mission is to devise, and to secure the > acceptance and adoption of, a better GEDCOM, and whose Founder Members > include Calico Pie. Simon - is FHISO making any progress? > > Rod Moulding > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Bruce > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism > > <<snipped>> > Gedcom is supposed to be precise. > <<snipped>> > > Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real > life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of > flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has > crept > in by common practice, regardless of the standard. > > For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** > name > to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone > restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames > representing > only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think > some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? > > <<snipped>> > What happens outside Christian practice may require a different > terminology. > <<snipped>> > > Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation > of > a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you > do > transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in > another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I > recognise > that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that > IF > you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental > flexibility > in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in > either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the > number of items in use. > > And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such > flexibility by this point! > > Adrian B > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 16:10:50 -0000 From: "DaveT" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Message: 5 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:47:13 -0000 From: "John Lockley" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yes, I have agreed with Adrian before that custom events are a great help. However, they will inevitably be "each to his own" and this makes cross-fertilization between different gedcom files problematic to say the least. I'd prefer standardization. I suppose, though, that "each to his own" would make it a brave soul who dared to define an improved standard. ********** I don't have the problem of non-Christian families (just atheist, agnostics and heathens!) but I surmise that most of the major religions/belief systems have a ceremony for naming and introducing new born children to the community. Can anyone provide a list? I would not expect this list to be definitive. But from a list, if anyone has defined their own custom event they could publish it, here at least, and thus begin the process of creating a standard. If I had this problem I would want to publish MY definition to see what the experts in that religion (etc.) thought and which of my fields they thought were inappropriate or missing. DaveT In Sunny South Yorkshire ------------------------------ To contact the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS list administrator, send an email to [email protected] To post a message to the FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS mailing list, send an email to [email protected] __________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word "unsubscribe" without the quotes in the subject and the body of the email with no additional text. End of FAMILY-HISTORIAN-USERS Digest, Vol 9, Issue 18 ***************************************************** --- This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active. http://www.avast.com

Message: 5 Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2014 15:47:13 -0000 From: "John Lockley" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism To: <[email protected]> Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Yes, I have agreed with Adrian before that custom events are a great help. However, they will inevitably be "each to his own" and this makes cross-fertilization between different gedcom files problematic to say the least. I'd prefer standardization. I suppose, though, that "each to his own" would make it a brave soul who dared to define an improved standard. ********** I don't have the problem of non-Christian families (just atheist, agnostics and heathens!) but I surmise that most of the major religions/belief systems have a ceremony for naming and introducing new born children to the community. Can anyone provide a list? I would not expect this list to be definitive. But from a list, if anyone has defined their own custom event they could publish it, here at least, and thus begin the process of creating a standard. If I had this problem I would want to publish MY definition to see what the experts in that religion (etc.) thought and which of my fields they thought were inappropriate or missing. DaveT In Sunny South Yorkshire

Recent pronouncement from Drew Smith on this subject: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/soc.genealogy.computing/A3Bksk8dpUA/wIrL8ZQdpLAJ Tony Proctor ----- Original Message ----- From: "Rod Moulding" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2014 11:09 AM Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism > This looks to me like a matter for the Family History Information > Standards > Organisation (FHISO), whose mission is to devise, and to secure the > acceptance and adoption of, a better GEDCOM, and whose Founder Members > include Calico Pie. Simon - is FHISO making any progress? > > Rod Moulding > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adrian Bruce > Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:09 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism > > <<snipped>> > Gedcom is supposed to be precise. > <<snipped>> > > Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real > life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of > flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has > crept > in by common practice, regardless of the standard. > > For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** > name > to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone > restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames > representing > only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think > some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? > > <<snipped>> > What happens outside Christian practice may require a different > terminology. > <<snipped>> > > Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation > of > a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you > do > transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in > another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I > recognise > that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that > IF > you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental > flexibility > in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in > either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the > number of items in use. > > And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such > flexibility by this point! > > Adrian B > > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' > without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This looks to me like a matter for the Family History Information Standards Organisation (FHISO), whose mission is to devise, and to secure the acceptance and adoption of, a better GEDCOM, and whose Founder Members include Calico Pie. Simon - is FHISO making any progress? Rod Moulding -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Bruce Sent: Sunday, January 12, 2014 5:09 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism <<snipped>> Gedcom is supposed to be precise. <<snipped>> Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has crept in by common practice, regardless of the standard. For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** name to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames representing only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? <<snipped>> What happens outside Christian practice may require a different terminology. <<snipped>> Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation of a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you do transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I recognise that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that IF you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental flexibility in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the number of items in use. And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such flexibility by this point! Adrian B ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

There are GEDCOM specification standards even for Custom Facts. Unfortunately, many software products do not fully adhere to the GEDCOM specification for the Standard Facts, let alone the Custom Facts. I accept that if different people create different Custom Facts for the same event then their GEDCOM files will not be compatible. However, it is a simple task to change such Custom Fact tags throughout to make the GEDCOM files compatible. In FH there is such a Plugin called "Change Any Fact Tag" which relies on the GEDCOM specification for Custom Facts. Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Michael Fisher Sent: 13 January 2014 18:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism Pity there is no standardization as shown if you use try and move GEDCOM files from one program to another. You could examine your GEDCOMs with the Behold program by Louis Kessler. Then if your GEDCOM passes that test you can guarantee that the new program will throw out some items .................................................. Mike On 13/01/2014 15:47, John Lockley wrote: > I'd prefer standardization. > I suppose, though, that "each to his own" would make it a brave soul > who dared to define an improved standard. > > ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

Pity there is no standardization as shown if you use try and move GEDCOM files from one program to another. You could examine your GEDCOMs with the Behold program by Louis Kessler. Then if your GEDCOM passes that test you can guarantee that the new program will throw out some items .................................................. Mike On 13/01/2014 15:47, John Lockley wrote: > I'd prefer standardization. > I suppose, though, that "each to his own" would make it a brave soul who > dared to define an improved standard. > >

Yes, I have agreed with Adrian before that custom events are a great help. However, they will inevitably be "each to his own" and this makes cross-fertilization between different gedcom files problematic to say the least. I'd prefer standardization. I suppose, though, that "each to his own" would make it a brave soul who dared to define an improved standard. -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greenbee Sent: 13 January 2014 14:21 To: [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism <<snipped>> I would advocate that Gedcom should develop other event titles to reflect other than Christian practice. <<snipped>> However, within Family Historian, there is the facility to create custom events and attributes, so that surely takes care of other titles? There are many events that aren't standard in FH, but I've managed to get it to suit me, and I'm not that clever with software. ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> I would advocate that Gedcom should develop other event titles to reflect other than Christian practice. <<snipped>> However, within Family Historian, there is the facility to create custom events and attributes, so that surely takes care of other titles? There are many events that aren't standard in FH, but I've managed to get it to suit me, and I'm not that clever with software.

<<snipped>> I would advocate that Gedcom should develop other event titles to reflect other than Christian practice. <<snipped>> I agree. In the various attempts to develop a replacement for / enhancement of GEDCOM, several commentators have pointed out the fact that Family History can be / is worldwide, while GEDCOM is not just Christian, but Western in its default vocabulary. It isn't even very successful in being American, as it doesn't help software process Hispanic names! So there are many people who agree with you... Adrian B

Adrian, No quarrel at all with what you say. The only problem bugging me was that this, being a Christian country, historically devised a terminology based around Christian practice. Owing to the upheavals of the Reformation etc., the terminology became less precise, and in popular parlance, especially among non-practising Christians, it became quite woolly. Christening is NOT a naming event - see my earlier etymological definition. A name is given by the parents, and during the Baptism ceremony, a Christian minister will ask "What name do you give / have you given this child?" because when he baptizes, he will address the child by name - the ceremony does not bestow a name. The use of 'Christening' would be quite inappropriate to a Moslem family, and might even offend them. We can't stem this particular tide, but I would advocate that Gedcom should develop other event titles to reflect other than Christian practice. Our society is becoming multi-cultural, and our traditional Christian attitudes are under increasing pressure from secularism. So it seems to me that concepts like Christening or Baptism may cease to be events in modern records and Gedcom will have to cope with this. I agree that custom events are a boon, but (dare I say it) standardization would help to compare like with like. Kind regards, John L -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Adrian Bruce Sent: 12 January 2014 17:09 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism <<snipped>> Gedcom is supposed to be precise. <<snipped>> Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has crept in by common practice, regardless of the standard. For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** name to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames representing only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? <<snipped>> What happens outside Christian practice may require a different terminology. <<snipped>> Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation of a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you do transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I recognise that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that IF you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental flexibility in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the number of items in use. And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such flexibility by this point! Adrian B ------------------------------- To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

On 13/01/2014 08:00, [email protected] wrote: > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Christenings vs baptism (Gynes David) snip... > (If baptised by a midwife or anyone else if a Christian minister > is not available, say when a baby is born and deemed unlikely to > survive (and lots of them surprise us and live to a ripe old age!) as > long as it is done in the Trinitarian form, with water, it will be > accepted by the Church. The baby/person is then usually ?Received? > into the church at a brief ceremony in the church later ... > David > > (Retired Minister of the Christian Church.) > > D.J. Gynes [email protected] Which is why, as a non-trinitarian 'Anabaptist', my personal preference is for 'Christening' - the established church's own word for its rite for infant 'wetting' - in contrast to the Biblical term 'Baptism' which always required a voluntary submission by the candidate. The Gedcom standard seems to be flexible enough to cater for differences of view on such matters. However, if our ancestors had not practised infant baptism, tracking them down would be much more difficult! -Martin -- "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth." (Psa.37) Web: http://www.biblewitness.org

<<snipped>> Gedcom is supposed to be precise. <<snipped>> Personally, I would suggest that this is somewhat unfair given that real life is not precise and GEDCOM tries to describe it. There is a degree of flexibility intended in GEDCOM - and a degree of flexibility that has crept in by common practice, regardless of the standard. For instance, the GEDCOM definition of a PLACE is a "**jurisdictional** name to identify the place or location of an event" (my emphasis). Anyone restrict their placenames to jurisdictions? i.e. to placenames representing only local government entities, church townships / parishes, etc.? I think some Americans do restrict themselves thus, but UK genealogists? <<snipped>> What happens outside Christian practice may require a different terminology. <<snipped>> Absolutely so. But I would also suggest that *if* you regard the creation of a custom fact as impossibly forbidding (or as a hostage to fortune if you do transfer your data) then you might care to use CHR for a naming event in another religion, because that's what the definition says. Yes, I recognise that will be an utterly unacceptable usage for some, but my point is that IF you care to use it, there is a degree of intended and accidental flexibility in GEDCOM that is very useful, and increasing precision will result in either loss of ability to input stuff or need a massive increase in the number of items in use. And I can name some of you who are frowning at my advocacy of such flexibility by this point! Adrian B

Mike, At the risk of re-hashing old discussions, the problem with the Gedcom specification is that it is loaded by LDS practice - "age eight", "infancy or later", - age is irrelevant, so is naming. Christ-en-ing means "making one a Christian" and this is done by Baptism - there is no difference. Loose terminology in popular practice tends to fog the issue, but as you indicate Gedcom is supposed to be precise. What happens outside Christian practice may require a different terminology. David Gynes makes the point pretty clearly from a "professional" point of view. Kind regards. John Lockley -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Beryl & Mike Tate Sent: 11 January 2014 19:57 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism The GEDCOM specification says: BAPL {BAPTISM-LDS}:= The event of baptism performed at age eight or later by priesthood authority of the LDS Church. BAPM {BAPTISM}:= The event of baptism (not LDS), performed in infancy or later. (See also BAPL, above, and CHR below). CHR {CHRISTENING}:= The religious event (not LDS) of baptizing and/or naming a child. CHRA {ADULT_CHRISTENING}:= The religious event (not LDS) of baptizing and/or naming an adult person. In FH there is nothing stopping you changing the name/label of CHRA to "Baptism (adult)". Regards, Mike Tate

I am not versed in Gedcom rules, so I’m leaving aside Gedcom rules which are written from a particular religious perspective and are able - as Mike has pointed out - to meet all choices. The reason that there is no consistency in registers and popular parlance is because the terms are often used interchangeably even within the Church. The Christian Church Baptises people. Part of that service is the Chrism - anointing/ marking with the sign of the cross, applying water etc and Naming. The popular term, outside perhaps of the Baptist Churches, was to speak of Christening -“handing over to Christ / dedicating in Christ’s name’. But the bottom line is - if you are Christened in a Christian Church you are “Baptised with water in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.” It is one of the ‘Sacraments’ of the Church on which all major denominations are agreed. (If baptised by a midwife or anyone else if a Christian minister is not available, say when a baby is born and deemed unlikely to survive (and lots of them surprise us and live to a ripe old age!) as long as it is done in the Trinitarian form, with water, it will be accepted by the Church. The baby/person is then usually “Received” into the church at a brief ceremony in the church later. The Baptist Churches have Dedication ceremonies for babies and children and every believing member must be baptised (usually by total immersion) as an adult. How we are going record the new “Civil” naming ceremonies which are available through Registrars in some, if not all, Councils now is a whole new ball game. So, basically, you can choose how you record the event but the generic term is Baptised if you want consistency, regardless of the recipient’s age. Happy hunting David (Retired Minister of the Christian Church.) D.J. Gynes [email protected] On 11 Jan 2014, at 22:08, Adrian Bruce <[email protected]> wrote: > <<snipped>> > I use the event which corresponds to how the church or chapel in question > referred to it. So, almost always that's baptism > <<snipped>> > > Not sure how accurate a search from Windows Explorer is, but the vast > majority of mine are also baptisms. However, oddities arise, such as the > 1683 BTs for Middlewich, Cheshire, where the pages are headed: > > "A Register of all Cristenings, Weddings & Burialls that hath been in the > Parish of Middlewich in the year of our Lord [Ao] Dom 1683" > > Then a sub-heading of "Christenings", followed by... > > "Elizabeth [Lowes] [Spinse] had a child Bapd..." > > Just one of several where the page heading is "Christenings" and the verb is > "baptised". There's nothing like consistency and that's nothing like... > > Adrian B > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message

<<snipped>> I use the event which corresponds to how the church or chapel in question referred to it. So, almost always that's baptism <<snipped>> Not sure how accurate a search from Windows Explorer is, but the vast majority of mine are also baptisms. However, oddities arise, such as the 1683 BTs for Middlewich, Cheshire, where the pages are headed: "A Register of all Cristenings, Weddings & Burialls that hath been in the Parish of Middlewich in the year of our Lord [Ao] Dom 1683" Then a sub-heading of "Christenings", followed by... "Elizabeth [Lowes] [Spinse] had a child Bapd..." Just one of several where the page heading is "Christenings" and the verb is "baptised". There's nothing like consistency and that's nothing like... Adrian B

The GEDCOM specification says: BAPL {BAPTISM-LDS}:= The event of baptism performed at age eight or later by priesthood authority of the LDS Church. BAPM {BAPTISM}:= The event of baptism (not LDS), performed in infancy or later. (See also BAPL, above, and CHR below). CHR {CHRISTENING}:= The religious event (not LDS) of baptizing and/or naming a child. CHRA {ADULT_CHRISTENING}:= The religious event (not LDS) of baptizing and/or naming an adult person. In FH there is nothing stopping you changing the name/label of CHRA to "Baptism (adult)". Regards, Mike Tate -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of ColeValleyGirl Sent: 11 January 2014 18:50 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [FHU] Christenings vs baptism I use the event which corresponds to how the church or chapel in question referred to it. So, almost always that's baptism, whether it's a child or adult baptism. I've never found a record that referred to a christening, other than an informal invitation to a "christening" which was either actually a baptism or part of a baptism ceremony (usually Catholic). Jackie said: <snippet> I know there has been some discussion regarding this, but I use christening for a baby or child, but sometimes you get an adult being 'baptised' (say before they marry, which was quite common), so that is when I show the difference. <snippet> And Mike said: <snippet> There is the Standard GEDCOM Event "Christening (adult)" intended for that very purpose. <snippet>

I use the event which corresponds to how the church or chapel in question referred to it. So, almost always that's baptism, whether it's a child or adult baptism. I've never found a record that referred to a christening, other than an informal invitation to a "christening" which was either actually a baptism or part of a baptism ceremony (usually Catholic). Jackie said: <snippet> I know there has been some discussion regarding this, but I use christening for a baby or child, but sometimes you get an adult being 'baptised' (say before they marry, which was quite common), so that is when I show the difference. <snippet> And Mike said: <snippet> There is the Standard GEDCOM Event "Christening (adult)" intended for that very purpose. <snippet>

Jack said: <snippet> I backed up my entire file to a zip drive. When I open the zip drive, there are no multi media files (over 1000) Help. <snippet> If you are using FH V4 then its Backup command only backs up the GEDCOM file, which does NOT include the media files or anything else. If you are using FH V5 with the Project structure, then it offers three Backup options: Small, Medium, Full. Small is the GEDCOM file only. Medium is the GEDCOM file and Project data sub-folder including Media files. Full is the GEDCOM file, and Project data sub-folder and the Public sub-folder. These are described more fully in the FH Help under "Backups". The FHUG Knowledge Base has some useful advice too: http://www.fhug.org.uk/wiki/doku.php?id=glossary:backup_and_recovery Regards, Mike Tate