Steve Lancaster wrote: > Looking at just this register it is clear that the pattern used for birth > dates is to assume the child was born recently, but naturally the dates jump > around and there are exceptions. So for baptisms on 21st March 1802 we have: > > Sarah b. Feb 5th 1802 > Thomas b. Feb 16th 1802 > Maria b. Nov 6th 1799 > Harriot b. Feb 21st 1802 > George b. Feb 28th 1802 > > The order of these children in the transcript is just the order in which > they were baptized, there is no significance to Maria's brother Thomas being > listed before her. Hallo Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the register again. Thomas's date of birth is clearly given as February 16 1801, not 1802. I don't believe the conclusion you have drawn is right. It think it is based on an assumption that a lack of specific information means the bishop was to assume that a single figure meant it belonged to the year the baptism took place in and the previous month where the figure was great than that of the date of the baptism. The year and month are as per the entry above unless stated otherwise. The only reason for Thomas to be given before Maria is that boys and men were considered to be more important than girls and women at that time. I do not think the order of the children was necessarily the order in which they were baptised because the register wasn't made up at the time but later. It is not likely to be the order the baptisms were booked since it is not a day book as I first thought. Connie in London

Unless we are looking at different images the only 1801 I can see is for Charlotte Lucy baptized 14th March 1802 and born March 22nd 1801, so she was nearly a year old. You are not suggesting are you that all the children listed after her were also born in 1801 unless otherwise stated ? That would be highly unlikely, the majority would have been born in 1802 surely. Steve -----Original Message----- From: Connie Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 12:51 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [MDX] Help with Date on Image Steve Lancaster wrote: > Looking at just this register it is clear that the pattern used for birth > dates is to assume the child was born recently, but naturally the dates > jump > around and there are exceptions. So for baptisms on 21st March 1802 we > have: > > Sarah b. Feb 5th 1802 > Thomas b. Feb 16th 1802 > Maria b. Nov 6th 1799 > Harriot b. Feb 21st 1802 > George b. Feb 28th 1802 > > The order of these children in the transcript is just the order in which > they were baptized, there is no significance to Maria's brother Thomas > being > listed before her. Hallo Perhaps you'd like to have a look at the register again. Thomas's date of birth is clearly given as February 16 1801, not 1802. I don't believe the conclusion you have drawn is right. It think it is based on an assumption that a lack of specific information means the bishop was to assume that a single figure meant it belonged to the year the baptism took place in and the previous month where the figure was great than that of the date of the baptism. The year and month are as per the entry above unless stated otherwise. The only reason for Thomas to be given before Maria is that boys and men were considered to be more important than girls and women at that time. I do not think the order of the children was necessarily the order in which they were baptised because the register wasn't made up at the time but later. It is not likely to be the order the baptisms were booked since it is not a day book as I first thought. Connie in London ************************************** Send your List messages using **PLAIN TEXT** and always **TRIM AWAY** superfluous old messages in replies. **MEANINGFUL Subject Lines - who, what, where, when, with SURNAMES in CAPITAL letters** List Admin can be contacted at: [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 message