An interesting exchange on accuracy of information re BMDs on the Cheshire list. The information about age on my Ggrandparents HADFIELD is completely contradicted by their birth certificates and the 1881 and 1891 census information. The latter three sources are in agreement. Jean in Nova Scotia jphwhite@ns.sympatico.ca ----- Original Message ----- From: "Guy Lawton" <guy@golawton.freeserve.co.uk> To: <CHESHIRE-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2001 9:04 AM Subject: Re: [CHS] Checking the Burial Registers > In message <200102100629_MC2-C4F2-EB4D@compuserve.com>, Roy Stockdill > <roystock@compuserve.com> writes > >Gail Stokes wrote..... > <snip> > >Can I ask - especially people overseas - how many of us on finding a > >possible baptism for our ancestor, check the burial registers for the > >child's parish and the surrounding ones to make sure the infant didn't die? > > I've noticed on some of the American pedigree files that ancestors have > >been adopted from a baptismal entry from the IGI. There is little other > >information entered for these ancestors. It makes me wonder how people who > >don't have access to original or microfilmed copies of registers check that > >their baptised child is indeed their ancestor. This is especially > >necessary where you have a common surname. > <snip> > > > >THE answer to your question, I am afraid, is that a great many people don't > >check! They just grab someone from the IGI who happens to fit their > >sought-for ancestor and slot them into a GEDCOM. It's called naivety, > >ignorance of proper research techniques and wishful thinking. You have only > >to look at some of the pedigrees in Ancestral File and also on the World > >Family Tree Project CDs to realise what an awful lot of garbage there is > >being perpetuated out there. > > > >The worst problem is those dreaded "Birth about....." entries on the IGI. > >What happened is that Mormons making private patron submissions would find > >a genuine marriage in a parish register and needed a birth or baptism to > >complete the submission, but couldn't find one in that parish - undoubtedly > >because the person concerned had been baptised in another parish. So they > >simply invented a birth by deducting 25 years from the marriage date in the > >case of a male and 21 years in the case of a female (it being, quite > >wrongly, the assumption that those were the ages at which the great > >majority of people married) and submitting it as having taken place in that > >parish. Utter nonsense, of course - but you must always remember that LDS > >Church members use the IGI for a quite different purpose to we simple > >genealogists. > > > >The second problem is the equally dreaded "Relative" entries, where some > >submitters claimed themselves to be a relative of everyone they submitted > >purely because they had the same surname, thus making totally > >unsubstantiated links between families many miles apart! > > > >I don't know what the answer is to this, except that we who know what we > >are doing in genealogical research should keep on hammering home the > >message - check, check, check every fact and every link along the way. > >Certainly, anyone who tries to construct a family tree entirely from the > >IGI (as many do) needs their head seeing to!!! > >I know it's easier for we in the UK, especially those of us who live within > >handy reach of record offices etc, but you can always arrange to borrow > >films of parish registers through the Mormon FHCs. > > > > > I would like to endorse most strongly Roy's response to Gail's comments > (both shown above for those that missed them originally). Furthermore, > search not only for burial entries but also for any relevant gravestone > inscriptions. Wills also have a role to play in this context as well. > > In my own Lawton line I have an example which neatly illustrates the > need to check both the burials for the early death of an infant whose > baptism has been found, and for a gravestone inscription. > > On 28 December 1769 Joseph Lawton of Marton (Cheshire) stated that he > was aged 19 (so born about 1749-1750), and his father William who stood > bond consented to the marriage. These facts are recorded on the bond > and allegation. But the only Joseph son of William in the Marton > registers is "25 September 1746, Samuel and Joseph, sons of William and > Margaret Lawton". There is no possible doubt about this parentage, but > this baptismal date would make Joseph 23 at the time he married. A > possible but weak motive for subtracting 4 years from his age is that > his bride was also aged 19. > > There is no burial entry in the Marton registers for the 1746 Joseph, > but there is a Lawton family gravestone at Marton which, inter alia, > records the burial on 23 December 1749 of Joseph, "in the third year of > his age". Clearly the register is defective here. > > There is no baptismal entry either for a Joseph Lawton 1749-1750 at > Marton, but the 7 children of William and Margaret were all baptised > there between October 1740 and April 1747. Thus a missing baptism 2 - 3 > years after the last recorded baptism is feasible, the parents being in > their late 30s at that time, both living until the 1780s according to > their separate gravestone at Marton. Presumably the parents reused the > name Joseph for this late child, whose birth occurred only a matter of > months after the earlier Joseph's death. (This couple had re-used a > girl's name in similar circumstances only 3 years earlier). > > There is no probate documentation for Joseph's parents. > > In this example, checking the registers only would have apparently > confirmed that the groom had understated his age when obtaining the > marriage licence. The fortunate survival of the gravestone changed the > picture completely. > -- > Guy Lawton > Research: LAWTON, LEECH, POTT(S), SMALLWOOD Cheshire/Staffordshire mainly > BATTISHILL, CARWITHEN, LUKE, RICHARDS Devon/Cornwall > ROCHFORT worldwide, mainly Ireland > > > ==== CHESHIRE Mailing List ==== > Cheshire County Record Office: > http://www.cheshire.gov.uk/recoff/home.htm > --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.230 / Virus Database: 111 - Release Date: 1/25/01