Family Historian User Group

I'm cleaning up my data, and wondered whether there's any simple way of removing estimated births for individuals where these fall before 1837, ie before UK civil registration started where I know the details of their baptismal records.
I do have a few baptisms where the individuals were not children, but for the majority of individuals where I'm never going to know their date of birth, I'd rather they showed up as having their baptism details in reports where I know these.

Many thanks in advance

Andrew

I would advise against removing those pre-1837 Birth Events even though they are only approximate.
Similar issues relate to removing pre-1837 Death Events in favour of parish Burial Events.
Both Birth Events and Death Events play an important role in handling Individual details.
Without a Birth Event many features are disabled including the Age column on the Facts tab, and new fact Date validation.
Without a Death Event there are potential privacy issues as the Individual may be assumed alive and thus Report or online details inhibited.
Everyone must have been born and died, so those events should always exist even with approximate details.

In Reports and Diagrams the existence of Birth or Death events do not preclude Baptism or Burial events. So they all can co-exist.

Furthermore, there are other documents that may provide Birth and Death details.
e.g. Census records (and 1939 Register) may give quite specific Birth details.
(I know the person would have to be over 100 years old in 1939 but that is not impossible.)

As usual, I'll put a contrarian view: I don't include birth and death events where I have no supporting source, and it doesn't cause me any problems... I find the Clean Living Persons works well with the appropriate options selected to identify people who are deceased but don't have a date of death; and of course most things err of the side or privacy (No death date == living, is safer than no death date == dead).

And I'm not too fussed about the Age column or data validation. because I do consistency checks myself before entering data.

Other people's mileage will vary.

Yes, Helen's method can work if the user understands the implications.
e.g. The Clean Living Persons Plugin will use Baptism and Burial dates as if they are the Birth and Death dates.

Helen says "I don't include birth and death events where I have no supporting source".
Andrew says "removing estimated births for individuals where these fall before 1837".
If those both describe the equivalent scenario, then listing the ones to remove is relatively easy with a Fact Query.
i.e. Birth Events before 1837 with no Source Citation.
However, extrapolating the same criteria, why restrict them to before 1837?
If there is no Source Citation then should all such Birth Events be removed?
For Fact Queries that offer a route to the solution see:
fhugdownloads:contents:query_all_facts_filter_by_date_label_or_text|> Query:Fact ~ All Facts Filter by Date, Label, or Text
fhugdownloads:contents:unsourced_facts|> Query:Fact ~ Unsourced Facts

However, bear in mind that Baptisms and Burials are not necessarily performed in the same place as the Births and Deaths, as has been discussed before. So although the Date of Birth may be estimated, the Place of Birth may be derived from non-Baptismal records.

Thank you all for your replies.

I've been away for a few days and will certainly consider my options.

I've been with Family Historian now for a few years since The Master Genealogist stopped being updated and love the programme. I now realise that this issue has come about because I used the TMG facility of making an event from the Birth and Death groups primary for each individual fairly extensively, so I could record both approximate birth/death dates and baptisms/burials for an individual. I could then chose what I wanted to use for each individual by making one of the birth/baptism death/burial events "primary" so that that one showed up on charts and reports.

Once again thanks for all your help

Andrew