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.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
IGI Confused
| Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Rebecca | Report | 14 Jul 2006 13:25 |
|
OH its definately lunch time now but the IGI site has completely puddled me.... off Ancestry Agnes Annie Endley 1873 Oct-Nov-Dec Wellington Sal Shropshire IGI then has her christening as 28 DEC 1873 Christ Church, Wellington, Shropshire, England With the correct parents, but then to confuse me..... IGI has her birth as 1874 Wellington, Shropshire, England same parents Were babies likely to be christened before they were registered? but why does IGI and Ancestry differ? Puddled Rebecca |
|||
|
Christine in Herts | Report | 14 Jul 2006 13:55 |
|
The Baptism looks like a transcription of the Parish Registers (and therefore reasonably reliable - subject to transcription errors). The Birth looks like a submission, and therefore only as reliable as the submitter's research - which could be dead-on, but there are some catastrophically obviously wrong entries there by ''submission''. (The submitter probably has a Marriage record for 1894-5 and has subtracted 20-21 years to guess a birth date.) Christine |
|||
|
Merry | Report | 14 Jul 2006 13:57 |
|
The 1873 baptism entry on the IGI says............ ''Extracted birth or christening record for the locality listed in the record.'' ..............at the bottom! This means the entry is transcribed from the parish Register and is at least trying to copy accurately what is there! if you look at the other entry it doesn't say anything.....this must be a submitted entry by an LDS church member. it's probably just a guess! Merry |
|||
|
Sylvia | Report | 14 Jul 2006 14:02 |
|
What a great explanation Ann, i too will find that useful. Thank you Sylvia |
|||
|
Rebecca | Report | 14 Jul 2006 14:08 |
|
Aaaaah that makes things a lot clearer thank you very much, will have to be more observant. I know that legally now you have to register your baby within 6 weeks of birth although I dont know if that has always been the case through the centuries |
|||
|
Rebecca | Report | 14 Jul 2006 14:31 |
|
Thank you Ann |
|||
|
InspectorGreenPen | Report | 14 Jul 2006 18:06 |
|
When penalties were introduced foo late registration what do you think happened to those who did register late? They weren't going to admit to it so simply gave a false date of birth. None of the information was ever checked after all you don't actually have to produce the child to the registrar. If they had happened to baptise the child at the 'normal' time, then the baptism date might be the more accurate of the two. Oh for the wonders of computers 100 years on....! |
|||
|
Merry | Report | 14 Jul 2006 19:16 |
|
My rellie had twins in 1841. They were baptised before they were born (about a month before), according to their birth certs! Merry |
|||