Person talk:John Bowne (1)

Birth / Baptism Dates [25 August 2013]

I suspect that there is no record of John Bowne's birth, and that any date we know is a baptism date (as would be common in the early 17th century in England). Whether that date is 9 3mo 1627 (9 May 1627) or 9 Mar 1627/28 is not immediately clear - although my guess is that it is the latter.

Looking at the citations, it looks as though the date was picked up from the parish register as March 9 1627 (see John Bowne and Herbert Ricard citation), converted to 9. 3. 1627 (sometime before the 1940 publication of vol. 3 of the Quaker Encyclopedia, the earliest citation here that says May 1627), and then assumed to mean 9 May 1627 by the next person to pick up the data. I see that Edith King Wilson (pub. 1948) uses both 9. 3. 1627 and 9 March 1627, suggesting that she had seen both forms.

Given the John Bowne and Herbert Ricard citation, as well as "The Record" from 1888, which both say March, and the fact that every source that says May is from 1940 or later, I would guess that John Bowne was baptized 9 Mar 1627/28. However, this is not my line (I am uploading JanieJac's file on her behalf), and it is always good to have someone else review your reasoning, so I will leave the Person page "as is" and let someone else decide whether or not to change the data.--DataAnalyst 18:57, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

I don't think the problem is as straightforward as that. For example Edith King mentions two different events, birth and baptism, and the two forms of date she used do not represent the same date, suggesting she meant two different events, at least as printed. Neither Josephine Frost nor John Insley Coddington are the type of people that I would expect to make that kind of mistake. The other possible confusion in reading an old record are the similar shape of May or Mar, so on a stained or faded document it could be hard to tell which it is. I think the only way to know is to look at the original records. --Jrich 19:35, 25 August 2013 (EDT)

Re: Frost and Coddington - I don't know Frost's work, but I agree with you about Coddington. Still, I have known well-respected genealogists to write articles that provide new information in the context of "accepted" information without checking every "accepted" fact - and admit it later. You are right that the best way to determine the truth is to go back to the original register to see if it says May or March (and if it says March, question a birth date 10 months prior to that).--DataAnalyst 23:06, 25 August 2013 (EDT)