Margrethe - Magrethe's Birthdate circa 1616? or 1676?

Hi Mette,
Yes, 1750 might well be correct.

ll never have put such an estimate on a woman.
(Think of the child's age and the woman's childbearing age).

Send the question to Thomas Abel Møller.

Best regards
Hanne Abel

Margrethe is my 7th great grandmother.

I believe you are dyslexic like me and meant to write 1650.

1650 would be a better birth estimate. I think we should change it.

Hanne Abel Nielsen is my 6th cousin once removed.

Yes! 👍🏼
1650. 😉

If you dont have a birth date on her, do not fabricate one.

Without a date the system will estimate one based on the surrounding profiles.

Bjørn,

The word "circa" is not a fabrication. As you know "circa" means "approximately." We have approximated.

Here's what happened:
* Previously someone posted circa "1616 and 1676" (such a wide span of time for a birth!)
* We changed it to "circa 1650," which is much more accurate as it aligns to her husband's date of birth. She would likely not be 30 years older than her husband.

Please give me some trust. =)

I use circa if I have a source telling the age as an example.

Based on the date on one of the daughters 1660 would probably be more correct, but again that would be fabricating a fact. Better to leave the field empty and get an estimated between range.

Seriously, we have to debate use of the word "circa" or are you just having fun with me? Thinking critically:
* "1616 and 1676" is such a wide span of time for a birth ~ 60 years!
* It's not fabricating to use the midpoint for "circa" ~ the German word for "about"
* The midpoint matches the husband's age range.
* She would be about 30 years older than her husband if she was born in 1616.
* Traditionally the male is older than the female in a couple, which is why I made the educated guess of "circa 1650"