Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
birth certificate question UPDATED
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 25 Nov 2008 17:55 |
Christine |
|||
|
CLW2005 | Report | 25 Nov 2008 17:13 |
maybe Mr John Walters the registrar of this cert - |
|||
|
Mary | Report | 25 Nov 2008 14:50 |
I have an England twin, but nothing on either birth certificate for the time. However, on a lot of my Scottish birth certs they do have a time and they are without doubt single births. |
|||
|
Thelma | Report | 25 Nov 2008 11:37 |
I need to bookmark this.I think the vast majority know that a time on a certificate signifies a multiple birth.How wrong can we be! |
|||
|
Heather | Report | 25 Nov 2008 11:06 |
Nice result :) |
|||
|
CLW2005 | Report | 25 Nov 2008 09:55 |
WOW!!! |
|||
|
Heather | Report | 25 Nov 2008 09:12 |
Perhaps also an eager to conform parent? |
|||
|
Angela | Report | 25 Nov 2008 08:31 |
I also have a b. cert. with the time but definitely no sign of a twin. Probably an over zealous registrar in the early days of registration. |
|||
|
Gaille | Report | 25 Nov 2008 00:45 |
Hi Christine, |
|||
|
CLW2005 | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:52 |
that might explain it - thanks Gwyn |
|||
|
Gwyn in Kent | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:48 |
I have heard that in the early years of registration, some registrars thought they were required to record time as well as date of birth, so some early certs. have that information even for single births. |
|||
|
CLW2005 | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:47 |
that's a good idea - will phone tomorrow |
|||
|
***Michelle*** | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:44 |
Very odd as all the sites i have looked at all say the say thing.Maybe the baby was stillborn and as reg of stillbirths wasn't compulsory until 1927 the baby death was not reg?The only examples i have seen of this were of multiple births.Maybe an idea to contact GRO and see what the explanation they have is. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
CLW2005 | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:40 |
Yes - I've looked for same surname - same district etc. - no matches |
|||
|
***Michelle*** | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:37 |
If there is a time against the date of birth then there was more than one child born alive at the birth. If however a mother had twins, one liveborn and one stillborn, then the live born twin will not have a time against the birth. Until 1926 there were no registrations at all of a still born child. Having said that, again the early registrations are not consistent. The registrar in the Eton district did not put the times of births of twins in the registers at all until 1845 while the one in Stoke-on-Trent put times against all the registrations up until about 1850. It is possible to check for twins by looking for identical or consecutive GRO references in the indexes. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
CLW2005 | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:34 |
Thanks Michelle |
|||
|
***Michelle*** | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:31 |
In England and Wales the time of birth, in addition to the date, is only recorded for multiple births. So there must have been a twin (or maybe a triplet?).Maybe they were stillborn or died? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
CLW2005 | Report | 24 Nov 2008 20:27 |
wondered if anyone can answer my query - |