Dates pre 1752

[Kit]

I always get confused by this.

I have a baptism for a girl in Jan 1738. The parents seem to have taken her to 2 different churches, which is a bonus for me. Once church records the baptism but the other only states she was born December 25.

Now was she born in 1737 or 1738?

[Kit]

Looking at a different register I'd say my answer is 1738 as Oct 1731 came before Feb 1731. The change over is March isn't it?

[Merry]

The change over is March isn't it?

Yes (25th), but if possible you need to check the register itself as vicars used either form of dating for quite a few years either side of the official switchover date!

[Olde Crone]

The LDS had an annoying habit of correcting dates to reflect the "correct" years. This was compounded by the next person to copy it correcting upwards, so an event in 1751 turned into an event in 1753.

As Merry says, the only way to know is to look at the original register.

OC

[Kit]

Thanks OC and Merry. I was looking at the original registers. For the birth it only said Dec 25, which had just gone.

What I find more odd was the parents taking the child to multiple churches but I think they went to the local church then one close to where Mum was born.

[Olde Crone]

Kit

If it really was two different churches rather than two different reports of the same event, then the reason would almost certainly have been to do with settlement rights in each parish. I have a twiglet who had children baptised all over the place, which gave them settlement rights in numerous parishes. Strictly against the church rules to be baptised more than once, but strangely this doesn't ever seem to be brought up when settlement is being queried.

OC

[Kit]

One church doesn't actually say the child was baptised, just that it was born but it is listed with the baptisms. The other church says it was baptised. There is actually a third church but the register looks identical to the other one and has the same dates as the one she was baptised at. That church is miles away so I'm thinking there was an error by ancestry somehow.

From what I can find they all lived in the same area so I wonder why they felt the need to establish settlement rights? Maybe a precaution, I'm assuming they were labourers as the family weren't rich later on when occupations were mentioned.