Genealogy Chat

How they missed this one......

It was an interpretation of two different records mashed together a census and a christening record.

It resulted in something that said James born 1856 and christened 4/11/1855

Christened before he was born definitely a new one :-D

Not by any means - it's a common problem with transcripions, where the transcriber doesn't take note of the year on the original records. It's particularly prevalent where the child is baptised in January/February

It’s the first time I’ve come across it. I know things do get miss transcribed though.

This one's on a thread on Find Ancestors board at the moment


Name: George Garlick
Birth Date: 22 Dec 1853
Baptism Date: 7 Mar 1853
Baptism Place: Redhill, St John, Surrey, England
Parish as it Appears: Redhill, Reigate
Search Photos: Search for 'Redhill, St John' in the UK City, Town and Village Photos collection
Father: Thomas Garlick

Thank you ErikaH

I've just found a birth in 1818, parents married 1825, father a widower and all DNA matched.

I can only think the parents had an affair while he was still married and he married the mother after the death of his first wife.

Actually, come to think of it, I've already got an example of that in my tree.

Your point being...........??

This thread is about different subject ;-) ;-) ;-)

And there may be mistakes in the original records too.

I have Jane Crayston, married as a minor to Christopher Caley. Her father is called Miles Crayston. The couple have 5 children between 1865 and 1885, none of whom appear to have birth registered. The younger ones are baptised at Warton or Bolton le Sands Church, however the oldest, Margaret Ann, seems to be baptised listed as Crayston not Caley. And the 'father's' name is listed as Miles, mother correctly as Jane.
The youngest child has no father listed at the baptism, and I had found a death record for him, about 7 years previously.

These country folk, a law unto themselves.

Tawny ...............

was the 1856 birth only shown in a census, and not on any other record??

If so, that could simply be a result of the fact that a census asks for the age of a person on the date that the census is taken.

That age has then been translated into a year by the current transcriber .

Because of that, there might be at least a 1 year discrepancy between the age for someone born before the date of the census vs someone born afterwards.