TMG-L Archives

Archiver > TMG > 2001-02 > 0981327377


From: bob gillis <>
Subject: Re: [TMG] Location of Birth
Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 17:56:17 -0500
References: <NDBBJJMPJKPBEPNBFPGAMEKFDKAA.JCardinal@MediaOne.net>


In many of the early baptism records the birth date is not recorded.
However in the records I have used, later entries with a birth date show
the birth usually within a few months of the baptism. As there are no
other records, I use such a baptism as primary. I think having Jane
Pattillo, bap 2 Jan 1816, Saint Stephen's Anglican Church, Chester,
Lunenburg County, NA, -Canada is better than born bef 2 Jan 1816,
Lunenburg County, NS.

bob gillis

John Cardinal wrote:
>
> Allen Mellen wrote:
> > >As you can see, Eunice's primary birth tag is a baptism, not a birth. So
> the
> > >past tense verb associated with the tag carries information.
> >
> > Do you really have evidence of a baptism without the date?
> > That's unusual, I think.
>
> I did manufacture this particular case, but the situation occurs for real in
> my Quebec roots. Also, if the program allows any of the birth group events
> to participate in the "group common birth place" processing, then it
> probably has to include the past tense verb. OTOH, Terry was saying that he
> didn't know it worked that way; I'm sure you saw his post.


This thread: