Person talk:Thomas Allen (73)

Believe original birth date was correct [3 December 2011]

Nourse says on p. 313: "The following chronologically arranged list [of birth records] embrace those of the Middlesex Registry". On p. 312 he says these Middlesex records had been printed in NEHGR 16:352-9 and 17:70. The NEHGR article there says its list is, barring unknown errors, a "copy in every respect" (p. 16:352), and Thomas Allen's record occurs on p. 16:357. These records are not chronologically arranged and so have every appearance of being in the order recorded. Thomas' record follows one dated 14 Dec 1669 suggesting it was not recorded until after that date. My conclusion from this list is that it did mean 1669/70. In any event, the order in Nourse is not faithful to the original, so drawing conclusions on that ordering is doubtful, given that Nourse does not appear to have any other information than this, and there is nothing, that I see in the NEGHR list, to suggest the non-typical interpretation of 1668/69 is likely. --Jrich 15:05, 3 December 2011 (EST)

I went back and looked at NEHGR, and I concur. I have updated the record accordingly. Thanks for pointing this out.--DataAnalyst 17:26, 3 December 2011 (EST)