Re: Importance Value of various Birth Sources


Mike Tate
 

John forgot to explain the significance of 42 days.

The law said Births had to be registered within 6 weeks (6 x 7 = 42 days).

Regards, Mike Tate

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of John Hanson
Sent: 04 February 2020 09:56
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Importance Value of various Birth Sources

 

Pauline
One of the first things I look at when doing my advice sessions these days is the number of days between birth and registration – 42 is always a good indicator that the birth date might be wrong
Regards

John

 

From: family-historian@groups.io <family-historian@groups.io> On Behalf Of Pauline Parnell
Sent: 04 February 2020 09:03
To: family-historian@groups.io
Subject: Re: [family-historian] Importance Value of various Birth Sources

 

I’ve got a couple of very dodgy certificates. The first is a death certificate where the lodger was the informant and was five years out with the age. That caused a brick wall which was finally resolved by a DNA test. The second is my great-grandfather’s birth certificate. Apparently he was rather proud of the fact that he had more birthdays than the king - his real one, the date on his baptism and the date given on his birth certificate, made up to avoid the fine for late registration.

I have an interesting family 😂

_._,_._,_

Join family-historian@groups.io to automatically receive all group messages.