Baptised before he was born.........

[Jen~Ealogy]

Or a mix up in the dates?

Just found a Samuel White Born 21/11/1744 and baptised 27/5/1744 on Pilot.

Is this a mix up in the dates do you think?

[Janet in Yorkshire]

I have a couple like this.
One of them is DEFINITELY transposition of dates, as I also have the birth cert.
I suspect the other is wrong too - I have mental images of the register entries being "copied up" from odd scraps of paper, by candle light!
We make mistakes copying out, and I'm sure people in the past did too!

My Grandfather's BC has date of birth and date of registration transposed - it says he was born 26th December & the birth was registered on 24th Dec. He celebrated his birthday on 26th November.
The birth was registered on Christmas Eve - perhaps the registrar had already been celebrating??

Jay

[Jen~Ealogy]

lol sounds likey Janet. It does make more sense to have been born in the May and baptised November, I guess I will have to accept that. It's not like I can get a birth certificate that far back lol!

[Kate P]

I have a few bits like this, and also some where there appear to be 'deaths' before christenings. I think with these ones the information has been entered into the wrong fields on transcription, and thus that there should be a birth and a christening but instead there is a christening and a death, if that makes sense. Very frustrating though.

Kate x

[Jen~Ealogy]

I can well imagine Kate. Have to confess this is the first I have found so far.

[Sue at the seaside]

This sounds like the time when the year didn't start in January, There is a grave in Salisbury cathedral where there appears to be an "error" the man giving us a free tour pointed it out to us.

[Anne in Carlisle]

I don't think its the calendar change because the baptism is in May - if it had been January, February or March it could have been. If the register has 'born' entered next to the baptism I think it likely that:
1. the person writing it forgot which year it was;
2. or that the transcriber (if it is transcribed?) assumed the wrong year (tut, tut);
3. or that its a different person altogether!

Anne

[anniern]

I am always warry of these and check for any infant deaths around the same time. It was not unusual to name the next child after a dead baby.

[Somerset Sal]

I think the Annes are right about the possibility of an error in the records and about the possibility of the baby born in November being given the same name as a baby born in May who died soon afterwards.

I've got an incidence in my own family of parish registers recording the baby being baptised a couple of days after it was buried... Definitely a muddle!

[Little Nell]

I think the Annes are right about the possibility of an error in the records and about the possibility of the baby born in November being given the same name as a baby born in May who died soon afterwards.

I've got an incidence in my own family of parish registers recording the baby being baptised a couple of days after it was buried... Definitely a muddle!

Some going to give birth in November and May (or indeed in May and again in November)!

[Jen~Ealogy]

Well for the time being I am assuming that they are the wrong way around or if he had been born in November then the year is mistranscribed for the baptism. For now and until I have further proof, I am only noting this one down as a possible ancestor.