1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Burial date clarification please.

Discussion in 'Church Records' started by Ma-dotcom, Nov 12, 2017.

  1. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Online
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    12,399
    Location:
    South Australia
    I believe these two children to be the same in Bapt & burials. Both named Ann. The first appears to be buried before her Baptism. If some kind person can look at Ancestry's image I'd very very grateful for opinions. My Legacy is having conniptions.
    The 1740 appears down the left side just after the alleged burial of the first Ann. Page begins with 3 Jan. 1739.
    Ann Brockelbanck b/ 8 Nov. Baptised 11 Nov 1739 Jonathan,+Elizabeth
    Ann Brockelbanck
    Record Type: Burial
    Death Date: abt 1739
    Burial Date: 4 Mar 1739
    Burial Place: All Hallows, Barking By the Tower, City of London, England
    Code:
    https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/1624/47188_32021000952_1718-00281?
    
    1939-1940 burials.JPG
    Ann no. 2
    Ann Brockelbanck Birth Date: 10 Dec. Baptism 30 Dec 1744 Jonathan,+Elizabeth
    Ann Brocklebank
    Record Type: Burial
    Death Date: abt 1745
    Burial Date: 15 Sep 1745
    Burial Place: All Hallows, Barking By the Tower, City of London, England.

    Her burial date ½ way down page on right would seem correct.
    Code:
    https://www.ancestry.co.uk/interactive/1624/47188_32021000952_1718-00287/21655888?
     
  2. Archie's Mum

    Archie's Mum Always digging up clues

    Offline
    Messages:
    5,379
    Likes Received:
    18,377
    Location:
    Sydney, nsw, Australia
    Please forgive. Cant help with your enquiry but I did find Jonathon and Elizabeth marriage. :rolleyes:
    Jonathon Brockelbank and Elizabeth Barston 2/2/1738 St Mary by the Tower, London.
    For a very unusual name there appear to be quite a few Jonathon Brockelbanks.
    Sons of sons?
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  3. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Online
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    12,399
    Location:
    South Australia
    Not found his Father with any evidence yet - hints of a 'George'- but the 'John' name continues on & mingles with the Lemuels, Thomases, Georges,& Williams from merges withthe Liddard & Devall Families. Keeping me very busy & mind of other things. ;)

    Sadly so many early deaths of children & wives.
     
  4. Sis

    Sis Rootles out resources!

    Offline
    Messages:
    2,515
    Likes Received:
    9,900
    Location:
    Beckenham Western Australia
    Have looked at this on Ancestry and although unusual I think that he has put the birth dates on the left hand side 4 March 1739 and the burial dates 15 July 1740 on the right hand side. It's the same on the previous page. But.... the baptism date doesn't match with the one you found and I did too.o_O:confused: A different child?
     
  5. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Online
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    12,399
    Location:
    South Australia
    Thanks for looking Anne, I do think this chap should have put 1740 at page top as the begin in Jan. which surely leans to 1740 as the previous page is 1739 & begins with Dec. 6- William Pearson 26 ditto.
    I'm finding a few weird Bapts. with wrong year, tend to ignore them mostly now but this one I need to verify in-case there had been another Ann along the way. :(
    A lot of activity at All Hallows Barking...
     
    Sis likes this.
  6. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Online
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    12,399
    Location:
    South Australia
    I just took a trip to All Hallows Barking by the Tower. Wow!
    Sadly shattered then made beautiful again & what an adventure underneath.
    Code:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGHLpZQY1lY
    My mind was elsewhere & I posted in another thread. Hope I can get out of that. :(

    (Other post deleted ;) Jan.)
     
    Archie's Mum, kernowmaid and Sis like this.
  7. Archie's Mum

    Archie's Mum Always digging up clues

    Offline
    Messages:
    5,379
    Likes Received:
    18,377
    Location:
    Sydney, nsw, Australia
    Just watched the little video. Very haunting but lovely at the same time.
     
    Ma-dotcom likes this.
  8. Londoner

    Londoner Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    547
    Likes Received:
    1,926
    Location:
    Cornwall
    Don't forget that until 1752 January, February and March were the last three months of the year!
     
  9. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Online
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    12,399
    Location:
    South Australia
    Ergh! I did forget that. Thanks Lass. Don't quite know how to explain this to Legacy file - American- I think I will just sneak it into 1740. near enough had me barking by the computer.
    Accepted quite nicely. ;)
     
    Sis likes this.
  10. arthurk

    arthurk Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Location:
    Cheshire, England
    The usual way to enter a date like that would be 1739/40 - meaning 1739 by their reckoning ("Old Style"), and 1740 by ours ("New Style"). Legacy ought to be able to handle that.

    It also makes it clear to anyone else looking at your file that you're aware of the calendar change and this is what it is. With "4 Mar 1739" or "4 Mar 1740" there could always be the question whether you've used the date as given or converted it to new style.

    Some transcriptions have this problem, and they don't always make clear which convention they've used. And if several people have worked on it, and some did it one way and some the other....:eek::confused:o_O:sceptical::mad::headbang: (I think that covers most of what I feel about it.)
     
    Nightryder and Ma-dotcom like this.
  11. arthurk

    arthurk Well-Known Member

    Offline
    Messages:
    502
    Likes Received:
    1,630
    Location:
    Cheshire, England
    Sorry - thinking about this again, it could be seen as too critical of you, Wendy. It's your data and you can do it whichever way you like, though it's usually a good idea to be aware of possible pitfalls.

    No, the ones I was really getting at are published transcriptions where they don't make it clear whether they've used old style or new style. If they're making something available for others to use in their research then it's only reasonable to expect them to explain how they've done it.
     
    Ma-dotcom and Daft Bat like this.
  12. Ma-dotcom

    Ma-dotcom A Bonza Little Digger!

    Online
    Messages:
    5,174
    Likes Received:
    12,399
    Location:
    South Australia
    Thanks Arthur, I did in fact so do, as I was accustomed to doing so a few times when transcribing Some county Baptisms. Had forgotten until MollyMay reminded me :oops: So I went in to Legacy & entered split date - then because I could & had same entered burial actual date. legacy kindly asked me if I wanted to leave it as such. So I did.
    No probs re criticism- I saw none.
    Now it may seem to the uninitiated that Child died last day of Dec. 1739 & had to wait abit for burial. o_O

    I've decided in my later years to now not buy transcribed C.D.s after the one very important to me was incorrectly done. An apology was kind totally but useless. I'd quite like a c.d. of actual images taa very much.
     
    arthurk and Sis like this.

Share This Page