Dumb copying

[Megan Roberts]

We all know (or at least should know) not to take published family trees at face value; and I will look at them to see if they have any value.

Today, I came across a "match" to someone in my tree, so I thought I would look a little more, and there were 10 family trees with similar information.

Seven of those ten had the person in question dying 3 days BEFORE he was born !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:willy_nilly::mad2:

Needless to say I have discarded those "hints".

[warncoort]

Likely to have started as a typo,then it was copied without any research.If i find a match it is my starting point rather than a result,and if source is shown it is easily verified.

[RoyW]

I find that part of the enjoyment of building your family tree is the research into who your ancestors were and how they lived and not just the collecting of more and more names just because they look right and seem to fit and blindly copying from other trees. Although as warncoort says they are a good starting point.

[Megan Roberts]

copied without any research.

More likely copied without even reading.

[Guy Etchells]

We all know (or at least should know) not to take published family trees at face value; and I will look at them to see if they have any value.

Today, I came across a "match" to someone in my tree, so I thought I would look a little more, and there were 10 family trees with similar information.

Seven of those ten had the person in question dying 3 days BEFORE he was born !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:willy_nilly::mad2:

Needless to say I have discarded those "hints".

Actually that is indeed perfectly possible if the dates in the parish registers were recorded verbatim.
I will not give the reason this evening but I expect someone will post it very shortly.
Cheers
Guy

[thewideeyedowl]

The Gregorian calendar was adopted in 1752. In that year Wednesday 2nd September was followed by Thursday 14th September, so eleven days were 'lost' - to the confusion of many.

Owl

[Megan Roberts]

But the person in question was baptised 8 January 1837 and was buried 5 November 1837, so they can't use that excuse.

One of them obviously started the "Chinese whisper" by putting "born 8 Jan 1837 died 5 Jan 1837", and the lemmings just copied it.

[Pam Downes]

One of my uncles was baptised ten months before he was born. :biggrin:
The parish register says 'Ronald William, baptised 18 February 1917. Born 27 Dec 1917'.
The vicar obviously meant 'born 1916', but he clearly wrote 1917.

Pam

[Guy Etchells]

Yes clerical mistakes is one reason but by far the most common reason for the appearance that someone died before they were born is due to what thewideeyedowl touched on, the change of calendar.

Prior to 1752 January, February and most of March were at the end of the year. That meant someone born in January 1627 was younger than someone born in July 1627.
This also meant that to the unwary a person could appear to die before they were born. Obviously this did not apply in the year Megan now reveals as 1837.

However when researching prior to the change of calendar the utmost care must be used with dates as some clerics changed "their" calendar far earlier then others. Always check the register to see whether the cleric was following the old style calendar (Julian) or the "new" (Gregorian) calendar, i.e. check to see whether they add entries for January, February & March at the end of the year or the beginning of the year.
Cheers
Guy

[Sue Mackay]

One of my uncles was baptised ten months before he was born. :biggrin:
The parish register says 'Ronald William, baptised 18 February 1917. Born 27 Dec 1917'.
The vicar obviously meant 'born 1916', but he clearly wrote 1917.

Pam

Even worse than being baptised prior to birth, my husband's 2xgreat grandfather was apparently buried before he died :yikes: