Is it possible?

Genealogy Chat

Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!

The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.

Profile	Posted by	Options	Post Date
Member Since: December 2004 Posts: 10,522 Send Message	Potty	Report	27 Sep 2008 17:15
	You might be able to eliminate the "female" by looking for deaths in the same quarter.
Member Since: February 2003 Posts: 26,181 Send Message	Gwyn in Kent	Report	27 Sep 2008 13:47
	They could quite possibly have been registered 'female'. Just out of interest I searched freebmd for births of 'Female BROWN'....There are 1560 of them. If a name had not been chosen when the time came to register, this was how it was logged, - not just for babies who had died soon after birth. ... Not very helpful for later researchers, but no worse than one we found who registered the child with one first name, then baptised it with something quite different ! Gwyn
Member Since: August 2004 Posts: 474 Send Message	Karen	Report	27 Sep 2008 13:38
Member Since: August 2004 Posts: 474 Send Message	Is it possible that 2 of my ggg aunts were registered as 'female' rather than their name if they survived? I thought this usually occured if the baby sadly died? If so, (if correct when ordered) would it be at their christenings (if they were christened) that they are 'officially' named? Im confused. Thanks