On 23/08/2013 23:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: > In message <b7om4sFemncU1@mid.individual.net>, Anne Chambers > <anne@privacy.net> writes: >> J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: >> >>> >>> Interesting that, as well as the third month which is the >>> standard way and the first which I have seen, someone in this >>> thread (for what seems like a very sensible reason) uses the >>> middle month - so all three are in use. >> >> The original post (which I am starting to wish I hadn't made) was a >> cut > > I just used it as an example: that's why I deliberately didn't credit > you, as you were just quoting the original reference in the approved > manner. > >> & paste from a FreeBMD result and contained all the information >> needed to obtain the relevant certificate from the GRO (or whatever >> they call themselves now) certificate ordering website. There are >> plenty of > > Indeed it did - see above. And any newcomer to the hobby should learn > fairly soon that something like "Jun 1888 2a 123" is such a > reference. My point (in quoting it) was that if, say, the "2a 123" > gets separated, what is left is "Jun 1888",, which could easily > mislead. Not if you know what you are doing and learn the discipline of genealogy and adapt your database or sheet of paper to allow that a reference such as this refers to an event registered in a quarter and not the precise month of an event. Best to leave it as the year only, without mentioning quarter references. (And don't let's start on events in December not registered till the following March.) It's on a par with the date of baptism, which is not the same as a date of birth. There could be twenty years between the two.

In message <kv8r25$7jd$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Renia <renia@otenet.gr> writes: >On 23/08/2013 23:11, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] >> Indeed it did - see above. And any newcomer to the hobby should learn >> fairly soon that something like "Jun 1888 2a 123" is such a >> reference. My point (in quoting it) was that if, say, the "2a 123" >> gets separated, what is left is "Jun 1888",, which could easily >> mislead. > >Not if you know what you are doing and learn the discipline of genealogy >and adapt your database or sheet of paper to allow that a reference such >as this refers to an event registered in a quarter and not the precise You're also assuming that anyone via whom the data has passed has also maintained clearly that it is a quarter. It only takes one link in the chain to record something as "Jun 1888" rather than "Jun Qtr 1888" (or _any_ acceptable variation thereon), and everyone who uses the data after that will at best not know whether it means month or quarter, at worst assume something that is incorrect (or at least approx. 2/3 chance of being anyway). >month of an event. Best to leave it as the year only, without mentioning I think I'd disagree there - I would never deliberately throw away information. >quarter references. (And don't let's start on events in December not >registered till the following March.) It's on a par with the date of Hoised by your own petard there I think - you meant "the following March quarter", but that's not what you wrote (-:. (Apart from where the registration delay was longer than permitted over most of the period we're discussing, a December event couldn't be registered as late as March.) >baptism, which is not the same as a date of birth. There could be twenty >years between the two. Indeed! And baptism registers more often _didn't_ record the DOB than do. (Though sometimes even a curate who usually didn't would do so for an adult baptism, or even one just a few years after birth. But you certainly can't rely on him doing so.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf the best thing to do in your garden at this time of year is to just sit in it and enjoy it - Monty Don, July 2013