Anne Prévost, b3 - Record of Alternative Data After Merges

her birth date in south africa is unknown so what happens in a lot of early records it was acceptable to use baptized date as birth date if real birthdate is unknown her husband was baptized the same day

Thanks Aletta C F Bucknall
In Geni we can enter it as Baptism date too

I see two options for Birth on the profile About Me:
1)Anne Prevost, geboren te Marck (62-Guînes) op 18 februari 1681, gedoopt te Guines {dtb Guines} op 23 februari 1681 (doopgetuigen waren Abraham Loisel en Anne Albert), dochter van Charles Pruvost en Marie le Févre. - Transcript of the Registers of the Protestant Church at Guisnes, from 1668 to 1685, William Minet, 1891. on http://www.grijsbaard.nl/Guines/HZ004891.HTM

2) Anna Prevot, *23 Januarie, 1680 te Marq bij Calais. Dogter van Charles Prevost en Maria le Febre. †circa 1740. Getroud in Junie, 1696, aan die Kaap.

I'm happy for others to decide which one they like best for this profile.

As to death date - I'm pretty sure that the 1745 one is probably the less accurate. Do you agree?

I must say that I do not like to put the baptism day in as a date of birth, plainly for the reason that in many cases there could easibly a year difference between the two, because of the sometimes only yearly visits to town. In fact last night I found that the birth preceded the baptism by 3 years when I obtained the DN.
Why do we not keep at the practice whichI found here amongst us when I joined in 2008. I was told that the birth date is uncertain and that we put the YEAR of baptism as the C(irca). birth year thereby indicating that we do not know the d.o.b. This is the practice I have been following and change my direct ancestors births to that when I found data conflicts after merges

sounds logical to me

WORKING ON MY TREE THIS MORNING I FOUND A INTERESTING FACT ELIZABETH PREVOT NOW THE QUESTION ARISES IS SHE ANNE PREVOT SISTER AS ELIZABETH MARRIED PHILLIPE DU PREEZ AND THEIR SON IS JACOBUS DU PREEZ B 1711

SHARON LE FEBRE IS SOMEWHAT ALSO A THORNY SITUATION AS HER FATHER IS GIVEN AS LE FEVRE SO BOTH ARE CORRECT

Aletta - can you explain again what the interesting fact about Elizabeth is? - I'm not following so easily. (Must be slow this morning)

As to her ma Marie le Fébre SM/PROG - I usually try to show intergenerational surname spelling changes by using the Surname field to show the Last Name spelling as different from the First Name field.
( I've done that and locked it so you can see, and Private User the curator of our great granny - can approve. )

This is admittedly a bit fraught insofar as in this era spellings of their own name by that person weren't necessarily consistent. (A generation previously, the great Shakespeare seldom appears to have signed the same signature spelling twice!) - but I agree that doesn't mean that we shouldn't recognise spelling differences as they became entrenched over generations.

Anne Prévost

http://www.e-family.co.za/ffy/g7/p7500.htm (which I think are about as accurate as you can get as they are systematically working through documents - not following people trails - see Delia's article in the latest eGGSA Genesis magazine) give b. February 1681, d. circa 1745

Father* Charles Prévost b. 1650, d. Jul 1688
Mother* Marie le Févre b. c 1651, d. c Apr 1701
as listed in Pieter Coertzen, The Huguenots of South Africa 1688-1988

There will always be arguments over how names should be spelt - we can only make a note in the AKA fields with variations.

I agree totally with June. This surname has always been a problem. No consistensy.

Daan as far as baptism/birth dates are concerned, I agree with you. I have found quite a few in the Archival Baptism records in Pretoria where children of one family were baptised together, ages ranging from a month to 7 years.

Birth Date 23 January 1681 18 February 1681