# Swedish: birth certificate



## Kaiapó

Hi everyone

When a child is born in Sweden, is his(her) birth certificate issued by a priest?

‘My old grandmother – she’s dead now, but if she was still alive
she’d have been about a hundred – well, according to the population
register she was born on 20 February 1907, but we always used to
celebrate her birthday on 23 February.’
‘Why did you do that?’
‘According to the story we told as a family,* the priest was supposed*
*to have been drunk when he was entering her name in the church*
*register*, and simply wrote the wrong date. Admittedly, it’s only a few
(L e i f G.W. P e r s s on)

This is not a strictly language thread, I know. But I wonder if the translation into English is ok

Thanks for your time

K


----------



## merryweather

I would say, "was allegedly drunk" or "was said to have been drunk". The use of "supposed" makes it sound as if it was something he was *meant* to do, rather than something he did by mistake.


----------



## cocuyo

Nowadays that chore has been lifted from the church, but formerly, it was the church that made birth registers. The old birth certificate in Sweden was called "prästbetyg", but nowadays it is the taxation authority that keeps register, and it is called "personbevis".


----------



## AutumnOwl

I have to say it sounds a bit strange that the birth date in the population register and the church register differs, as if I recall correctly, it was the information from the church registers (Födelse- och dopboken - Birth and baptismal books) that was entered into the population register (Folkbokföringen), and in 1907 it was the church who kept both registers, so why someone, possibly the same person, at the same church office would write two different dates for the birth is odd. I don't know how easy it would have been back then to make a correction in the population register later if the date in the church register was wrong.


----------



## Kaiapó

It puzzles me too, AutumnOwl

It might be just an artfice in order to make joke out of the scene. The story mentioned above takes place in our century. I wonder when this change of responsibility occurred in Sweden.

Then, I'm inclined to think that, by that time, children were (mostly) born in medical facilities, but they were not registered before their baptism. Is this correct? 

There's no language translation without cultural translation.

Thank you very much for your Sunday time..
K


----------



## cocuyo

The change was in 1981 iirc. Midwives are obliged to report births, and we were registered at birth.


----------



## Kaiapó

Thanks a lot cocuyo. Although the novel takes place in our century, the character is old enough to be attached to former procedures.

K


----------



## cocuyo

In older registers, the name of the child sometimes was not entered until it was baptised, but generally it could be entered as soon as a name was given. More names could be attached by baptism.   For religious/superstitious reasons, in older times many people did not reveal the name until the child was baptised, for fear that Satan would take the child if the name was known and it had not been presented to God and accepted by baptism.   Now there is a time frame of three months to report a name to the tax authority. http://www.babyhjalp.se/03manaderskatteverket


----------



## Kaiapó

Thanks again

I'm surprised to discover that until the 80's such superstitious reasons were still into force in your country.

Living is an endless learning.

K


----------



## cocuyo

I don't know to what extent it might have been still applied in the later part of last century. I don't believe that many people were so superstitious in the twentieth century at all. But the explanation probably has some foundation in reality. The process of transferring births to hospitals started in the nineteenth century, and it was part of a takeover by the medical society. Formerly, doctors were present only by births in the upper classes. When doctors became responsible for managing births there was a sharp rise of puerperal infections and maternal mortality. Not until the latter part of the nineteenth century after Louis Pasteur had proven the germ theory of disease, doctors started washing their hands; in the past they could have arrived to a birth after seeing a sick person or doing an autopsy. It was not until the nineteen-twenties that hospital births could be regarded as safe as a birth at home with a midwife. Until then, many people preferred to give birth at home. From then on, birth at home has been scarce, nevertheless three of my sisters and my two sons were born at home.


----------



## raumar

AutumnOwl said:


> I have to say it sounds a bit strange that the birth date in the population register and the church register differs



I agree, but I don't think the text necessarily says that the population register and church register differ:



Kaiapó said:


> ‘My old grandmother – she’s dead now, but if she was still alive
> she’d have been about a hundred – well, according to the population
> register she was born on 20 February 1907, but we always used to
> celebrate her birthday on 23 February.’
> ‘Why did you do that?’
> ‘According to the story we told as a family,* the priest was supposed*
> *to have been drunk when he was entering her name in the church*
> *register*, and simply wrote the wrong date. Admittedly, it’s only a few
> (L e i f G.W. P e r s s on)



If I understand this text correctly, 20 February is the wrong date, entered in the church register/population register by the drunk priest. 23 February is the correct date, remembered and celebrated by the family. 



Kaiapó said:


> I'm surprised to discover that until the 80's such superstitious reasons were still into force in your country.



The superstition did not last until the 80's. The reason why the Church was involved in birth registration, is probably that the Scandinavian countries had State churches -- where the clergy were civil cervants, appointed by the State.


----------

