Myths debunked when doing family histroy.

[David Nicoll]

Was really talking about their record keeping, kings don’t matter so much.
Bede wrote some quite interesting stuff!

[Glen in Tinsel Kni]

A beginner to genealogy has to learn the ropes after all, and they may think someone born in England in 1799 for example will have a birth certificate, giving parents names and mother's maiden name. If only that was true that far back, and we have to say to them that civil reg did not start until 1 July 1837.

Exactly that scenario on fb last week but the real blood boiling/laptop flinging moments for me were the number of posts quoting the 1836 Act but insisting civil registration wasn't a legal requirement before 1874. On a side note is it ok to slap people posting such nonsense? Asking for a friend.

[coombs]

A beginner to genealogy has to learn the ropes after all, and they may think someone born in England in 1799 for example will have a birth certificate, giving parents names and mother's maiden name. If only that was true that far back, and we have to say to them that civil reg did not start until 1 July 1837.

Exactly that scenario on fb last week but the real blood boiling/laptop flinging moments for me were the number of posts quoting the 1836 Act but insisting civil registration wasn't a legal requirement before 1874. On a side note is it ok to slap people posting such nonsense? Asking for a friend.

Dave Annal debunked that myth and posted a video on Lifeline's Research, saying that actually, the year after, which was 1875, saw a very slight decrease in registered births, and that only 1 to 2% of pre 1875 births went unregistered.

Dave also said the householder of census forms filled them out usually. Dave used to work at the FRC in Clerkenwell, I am sure I saw him there c2004-2005.

[jbml]

A beginner to genealogy has to learn the ropes after all, and they may think someone born in England in 1799 for example will have a birth certificate, giving parents names and mother's maiden name. If only that was true that far back, and we have to say to them that civil reg did not start until 1 July 1837.

Exactly that scenario on fb last week but the real blood boiling/laptop flinging moments for me were the number of posts quoting the 1836 Act but insisting civil registration wasn't a legal requirement before 1874. On a side note is it ok to slap people posting such nonsense? Asking for a friend.

Ha ha ... just point out to them that there's a difference between "it's a legal requirement" and "people invariably do it" ... for instance, it's a legal requirement that you drive no faster than the speed limit.

[coombs]

If a birth was registered in the first quarter of a year, some note that year down as their year of birth on trees, but unless you have the cert or other documents with their DOB, they could have been born late the previous year. Someone had a distant cousin of mine down as born Jan, Feb, Mar 1929, but they could have been born in late 1928, but the birth registered in the first quarter of 1929, as the GRO indexes go by date of registration. I then found this person on the 1939 register, as they died in 2002, and they was born in December 1928.

[jbml]

Yes, totally.

Sometimes we know for sure; sometimes we have to make a reasonable assumption.

Nothing wrong with making reasonable assumptions, provided you record the fact that they ARE assumptions, and your reason for making them.

The issue comes when people make assumptions and then offer them as verified facts.

(And don't even get me started on transcribers who convert Old Style dates to New Style without leaving and indication that they have done this ... )

[coombs]

I have an ancestor in rural Essex whose death was registered in the first quarter of 1929. The scan of the death cert, by then downloadable for a small fee on GRO website said she actually died on 31 Dec 1928 and was registered on the 2nd January 1929.

[jbml]

I have an ancestor in rural Essex whose death was registered in the first quarter of 1929. The scan of the death cert, by then downloadable for a small fee on GRO website said she actually died on 31 Dec 1928 and was registered on the 2nd January 1929.

Snookered by the Calendar (New Style) Act 1750, eh? But for that it would all have been 1928!

[coombs]

Research often gets harder the further back you go, and that stands, but with more coming online, and the Text Searches, while far from infallible, are helping to get back further on some lines.