RootsChat.Com
General => The Common Room => Topic started by: TracyL on Wednesday 22 March 06 19:21 GMT (UK)
-
Hi
I know that twins always have their time of birth recorded on their birth certificates, but can anyone tell me if this has always been the case. I am sure this goes back a long way, but I anyone can confirm this for me, it would be helpful.
Many thanks
Tracy
-
All Scottish births and deaths have the time.
Cathy
-
My GG Grandfather and his twin brother were born in 1881 in Newtown, Montgomeryshire and the time is recorded on the certificates.
Jan
-
I have a time of birth on my gggrandfathers birth cert in 1848 (1 am) but I don't think he was a twin (well I can't find a twin for him)
BMD index Joseph Beer Sept 1848 vol 10 pg 69 Bideford
There were two other Beers registered in Bideford in Sept 1848 but they were both indexed to p. 62. If Joseph had a twin shouldn't they be indexed on pages 68-69-70, next to Joesph.
Sharon
-
Thanks for that. I didn't know that Scottish birth certificates have the time recorded.
Having twin sisters and twin daughters (!) I do know that twins these days do have the time recorded for the purpose of defining the legal heir, but wasn't sure how far back this went. I am trying to establish whether or not two siblings I have found could be twins, but I have the birth cert. for one of them in 1905 and there is no time recorded.
Sharon, apart from Cathy's comment about Scottish births, I have not heard of the time being recorded unless it was for a twin. I would have thought Joseph would be on the same page as his twin unless, for some reason, they were registered on different days?
Tracy
-
I have some examples of English birth certificates, usually relatively early ones where a time was recorded for the birth but they were not twins. However you would expect to find on all twin births that a time was recorded and that the births were indexed in the GRO index to the same page because their births would be registered together (why would you go all the way back to the registrar and registered another child on another day).
The only time you could miss a twin (with no time recorded on the one birth certificate) would be if one of the twins was stillborn in which case no birth or death (until the 1920s in the case of death) would be registered.
Regards
Valda
-
I found someone else's tree which had relatives in common. They were born in Wales in the 1850s (none of them twins) and the time of birth was recorded in the tree. I emailed the fellow but didn't get a reply, so was never sure if he'd made it up, or if it was for real.
:)
K.
-
Thanks for raising this question: it reminded me of something I wanted to sort out!
My gt grandmother was registered in Bedwellty, Monmouthshire in 1861. I have her birth cert and there is a time on it. I knew that she subsequently had twin sons herself, but no-one in the family knew that she was a twin. I have just double-checked the GRO indexes and there is another BIRD on the same page of the register! Now I REALLY want to know the answer to your question! Although it seems very likely now that it was a twin birth, the other child - John - is not with the family on the 1871 or subsequent censuses (but there is a John who might fit, if memory serves, only he is elsewhere!) Must pursue this now - where's my wallet??
;D
-
In the very early years of civil registration, many registrars were not always certain what should be recorded on certificates. My gt-gt grandfather was born in 1838 and the time of birth was recorded on his certificate. He was definitely not a twin.
Nell
-
I have a set of twins born 1856, time of birth is there.
Is it not possible (at least on the scottish registry pages) that one twin could be on one page, and the other twin on the page before or after?
Nina
-
Since births are sequentially indexed per district and there are several births per page usually potential twins will be together on a page.
e.g.
September 1852
FREEMAN Charlotte Mary Thame 3a 459
GRIFFIN William Thame 3a 459
HILL Alfred Thame 3a 459
HITCHMAN Elizabeth Thame 3a 459
PARSLER Emma Thame 3a 459
PARSLER Thomas Thame 3a 459
PEARCE Sarah Thame 3a 459
but it is perfectly possible for their certificates to be placed first and last on subsequent pages
BUCKLE Esther Thame 3a 468
CADLE Rosa Edwards Thame 3a 468
Constable Arthur Thame 3a 468
GARDNER John Thame 3a 468
Loader Mary Ann Thame 3a 468
Shirley Michael Thame 3a 468
Smith William John Thame 3a 468
Young Emma Thame 3a 468
BUCKLE Rachel Thame 3a 469
Crook Maria Thame 3a 469
Feasey Mary Thame 3a 469
FREEMAN Alfred Edwin Thame 3a 469
Green Jane Thame 3a 469
Ring Mary Charlotte Thame 3a 469
Shrimpton Albert Hooper Thame 3a 469
Shrimpton Emily Thame 3a 469
Silver Emma Thame 3a 469
TIMMS Herbert Thame 3a 469
I don't know that the Parsler babies or the Buckles were actually twins just because their births were registered so close together. I do know the two Shrimpton births in the list were not twins. As surnames are often found in the same area, even with more unusual surnames one shouldn't assume a registration close together does actually indicate a twin.
Regards
Valda
-
I had a sibling of an ancestor who had the time noted but the nearest possible twin was 2 pages away. As such I think she wasn't a twin at all.
Andrew
-
So that theory of times being an indication of twins goes out the window.
Sharon
-
Sooooo... does that mean that if there is not a time they are definitely not twins?
....or not :-\
Tracy
-
If there is not a time on a birth certificate that should indicate the child is not a twin (excluding the stillbirth scenario). However there will always be a rushed clerk somewhere in millions and millions of births registered that filled in something incorrectly so I'm not sure it is possible to be definite about anything that has the chance of human error in there somewhere.
If the two births don't have the same page number (or adjacent) in that quarter in that district then they extremely unlikely to be twins.
Regards
Valda
-
Thanks for that. Would help if I could find a birth certificate for the second child - all I have is a baptism record for a Muriel Florence Lawrence, baptised in St Paul's Leamington in October 1906. The other child, Arthur Lawrence was born 8th April 1905, birth certificate but no baptism!
A bit of a long shot on the twins thing, but they were both adopted out.
Tracy
-
I have a pair of twins in one branch of my family born 1847 All Cannings; no mention of a time on either certificate and I had to buy both because there were two couples of the same names producing children of the same generation. :-\ The baptismal register didn't help as there was no mention of twins there but both children were baptized the same day. Sadly, only one survived for the 1851 Census.
Probably the strangest pair I've encountered were born pre-civil registration at Combe St Nicholas, Somerset. They were born in separate years: the first on Dec 26, 1780 and the second on Jan 26, 1781. They were baptized together on Feb 2, 1781 and the cleric made a point of recording not only their individual birth dates but specifically that the second was born of the 'same Richard & Sarah SEWARD'. No other children are listed in the register in that period with birth dates. I believe in today's terms these would be regarded 'simultaneous' pregnancies, where eggs are fertilized in successive cycles, each developing with their own placenta, but I bet the mother had a shock when she went into labour so soon after the first birth!
-
Tracy
Have you got any indication from Murial Florence's baptism of her actual birthdate?
Regards
Valda
-
None at all I'm afraid. I only stumbled across it by accident, until then I didn't know she existed. I only know that she was adopted as the vicar had noted it on the side of the baptism record together with the names of the couple that brought her to baptism and adopted her.
Tracy
-
So she could have been an older child. Lawrence I presume was not the couples surname?
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda
Yes she could have been, there were notes against a lot of the other baptisms, some giving birthdates or notes that it was an adult baptism etc. but no mention of birthdate on this one. It gave the names of her real parents then the notes regarding the adoption by a couple called Florence and Thomas Judd.
Regards
Tracy
-
Tracy
Have you considered the possibility of a School Admissions Register for the birthdate of the adopted child? If you know where the adoptive parents lived, presumably in Leamington, it would be worth an enquiry to WRO to find the most likely school attended.
-
Hi dee-jay
No I hadn't considered that - mainly because I didn't know such a thing was available! I will get on to that one right now - thanks.
Tracy
-
Tracy
I should point out not all admissions registers have been preserved, but there was a legal requirement for Log Books to be maintained. The latter, however, very rarely mention pupils by name, but when they do they are a fascinating research tool.
-
Thanks dee-jay
My husband just happens to be up in Warwickshire today - a quick phone call and I might be able to persuade him that this is more important than work ;D
-
Hi dee-jay
Just thought I'd let you know that hubby made it to the Records Office but not in time for them to actually get the registers out for him to look through. He did have a chance to locate the registers we probably need and has the request slips ready for the next time he is up that way.
So now a 10 day wait to see if what we want is there....... :-[
Thanks for the suggestion - I'll let you know if we find it.
Regards
Tracy
-
And were the Lawrence parents local to Leamington? Have you found them on the 1901 census in Leamington. I only asked because there is an earlier birth registration but not in Warwick for a Muriel Florence Lawrence.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda
Aahhh! Now we have my problem! It is the Lawrence parents that are my ultimate quarry! Their earlier child, Arthur Aubrey Lawrence, was my grandfather. It was when trying to find his parents (and maybe the reason for his adoption) that we stumbled across Muriel. Bit of a shock as I had no idea of her existence, but it gave me a new lead to follow. On my grandfather's birth certificate the names are the same (Mercy was formerly Marks), but the birth took place in Erdington and Mother's address was Leamington. On Muriel's baptism record, Arthur and Mercy's address is simply given as Birmingham. Can't identify either on the census without more info and have relentlessly pursued all Arthur's and Mercy's in the county (and surrounding) without success.
Where was the Muriel you found?
Regards
Tracy
-
I think this Lawrence birth is a wild goose chase as Lawrence is too common a surname not to get a coincidence like this.
Births Dec 1902
LAWRENCE Florence Muriel Totnes 5b 121
I've looked at the easier of the two names of the parents - Mercy Marks. The barmaid in Kenilworth (nearby to Leamington) is the strongest candidate by far, but there is no means of proving her connection from tracking just her back through the censuses.
1901 census RG13 2936 folio 36
Coventry Cross Hotel Kenilworth Warwickshire
Mercy Marks 21 Walsall, Staffordshire, Servant Barmaid
1891 census RG12 2251 folio 22
134 Wolverhampton Road Walsall Foreign Staffordshire
William Markes 51 Princes End Head Married Forge Roller
Mary Markes 49 Princes End Wife Married
Daniel Markes 25 Princes End Son Labourer
William Markes 20 Princes End Son Labourer
John Markes 19 Princes End Son Labourer
Selina Markes 17 Princes End Daughter Machinist Stitcher
Sarah Markes 15 Princes End Daughter Machinist
Mary Markes 13 Princes End Daughter
Mercy Markes 11 Princes End Daughter
Hannah Markes 8 Walsall Daughter
Rose Markes 7 Walsall Daughter
Clara Markes 4 Walsall Daughter
plus 1 lodger
1881 census RG112823 folio 134
45 Rollingmill St, Walsall Foreign, Staffordshire
William Markes 40 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Head Married Forge Roller at Iron Works
Mary Markes 39 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Wife Married
Joseph Markes 18 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Son NK
Daniel Markes 16 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Son NK
Cathrine Markes 14 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Daughter General Servant
Harriet Markes 13 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Daughter
William Markes 10 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Son
John Markes 9 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Son
Serlenah Marks 6 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Daughter
Sarrah Marks 5 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Daughter
Mary Marks 3 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Daughter
Muree Marks 1 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Daughter
What was the Erdington address for Arthur's birth and what was Arthur senior's occupation? Was the Leamington address similar to the Kenilworth address in 1901 - a pub/hotel? Have you checked both addresses on trade directories?
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda,
I, too, think that Mercy Marks at the Coventry Cross in my no. 1 suspect but despite tracking that family, I have been unable to find a link. I believe her mother's maiden name was Sandland. I have found that family in 1861 (HO107/2029 F489 P44), but am struggling to find the right family in other years.
Arthur was born at Laburnum Cottage, Erdington on 8th April 1905 (according to Directories and Electoral Registers this address was owned and occupied by a Maurice Albert Unna at the time)! She then gave her address as 1 Aylesford Street, Leamington when she registered the birth on 19th May. Electoral registers show the property was owned (not necessarily occupied) by William Summerton. On the birth certificate the father was given as Arthur Day Lawrence, accountant. On Muriel's baptism it was given as Arthur Lawrence, bank clerk, Birmingham.
I have tried to investigate the unusual middle name of Day and find some clues there but to no avail.
I did post queries on the Warwickshire and Staffordshire boards but although people tried to help, we found no concrete information.
When we stumbled across Muriel, I did think that this new information might finally crack it, but not so far!
Banging heads and brick walls spring to mind ???
Regards
Tracy
-
For what it's worth there is a young Arthur of the LAURENCE variant in 1901 Census at Aston Manor born Birmingham aged 22 'Accountant Clerk'.
-
Did you consider 'Arthur Day' LAWRENCE could have resulted from a misheard 'Arthur J.' ? :-\
-
Hi dee-jay
I have actually got the birth certificate for that one - was convinced it must be him, but traced his family back and still couldn't find the link I needed. Funnily enough, I started to have another look at him today as one of my other Lawrence suspects was discounted via contact with someone on GenesReunited. His mother's maiden name was Bamford, but tracing her family didn't get me anywhere - unless of course I am missing something :-\
Regards
Tracy
-
The 'J' 'Day' thing did cross my mind when I found an Arthur J - but then I thought I might be clutching at straws. Have you found one then?
-
Arthur John LAWRANCE variant 1881 with a sister Florance in Birmingham.
-
Are you using Ancestry for this as I can't find it on there?
-
Ancestry.com
Hope St Court 13 House 10, Birmingham, Warwickshire
Head of Household John J. LAWRANCE [yet another variant!] born 1842 Yorkshire ::)
-
On the principle that names on baptism can sometimes change from the registered name, there is a birth registered in Warwick registration district in the right quarter for the baptism.
From FreeBMD
Births Sep 1906
Marks Muriel Alice Warwick 6d 696
However there are three other Marks births registered in Warwick 1901-1908 so I wouldn't say I find it compelling evidence.
The 1901 census does show Mercy's sister Rose (as in Mercy born Walsall) as a servant in Leamington
RG13 2932 folio 166
30 Leam Terrace Leamington Priors Warwickshire
Rose Marks 17 Walsall, Staffordshire, General Servant Domestic
as well as two other sisters
RG13 2932 folio 142
Bowling Green Inn 18 & 20 New Street Leamington Priors Warwickshire
Charles Duffin 38 Old Stratford, Warwickshire, Head Married Beer retailer
Catherine Duffin 34 Princees End, Staffordshire, Wife Married
Hilda Duffin 7 Leamington, Warwickshire, Daughter
Kathleen Duffin 2 Leamington, Warwickshire, Daughter
Frederick Duffin 4mths Leamington, Warwickshire, Son
Hannah Markes 20 Walsall, Staffordshire, Sister-in-law Barmaid
Marriages Dec 1892
Duffin Charles Walsall 6b 1145
Markes Catherine Walsall 6b 1145
I think Mercy's mother's maiden may have been Morgan
1871 census RG10 3006 folio 148
30 Albert Street Sedgley Staffordshire
William Morgan 50 Willington, Shropshire, Head Married labourer
Sarah Morgan 52 Tipton, Staffordshire, Wife Married
Thomas Morgan 21 Tipton, Staffordshire, Son Labourer
Harriet Morgan 17 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Daughter
Joseph Marks 8 Sedgley, Staffordshire, Grandson
Joseph was not with his parents and siblings on the 1871 census.
I suppose it could be possible that Day is Arthur's surname and Lawrence his middle name if he wished to disguise his name in anyway. However having searched that doesn't seem to throw up any further Arthur possibilities.
Regards
Valda
-
Hi again Valda
I had the same thoughts in terms of the Morgan name, but now my brain is exploding :-\ There is a marriage between William Marks and Mary Ann Morgan in Cardiff in 1857 Mar Qtr 11a 255. There is also a marriage for a William Marks to Mary Ann Sandland in Dudley in 1864 (6c 194).
Then in 1851 Mary Ann Sandland is with her family and there is a visitor called 'Lewezer Morgan' aged 20.
In addition there is a marriage between a Walter William J Marks in 1891 in Warwick (6d 970) and Mary Elizabeth P Tracey (nee Morgan), which could be the son of William and Mary???
As I said, my brain hurts ???
Tracy
-
p.s. I think the birth record you have found may be compelling enough to spend £7 to find out for sure - would fit the'not married but pretending to be' scenario - although she did use the Lawrence name on Arthur's registration.
Tracy
-
If the relationship had broken down by the time of Muriel's birth that might account for a birth registered in her own surname and the need to give both children up for adoption. Florence could have been added as a name for Florence Judd. It is very unusual for a birth not to be registered this late but I do know of other examples. At this point Muriel as a name is probably quite popular so it could just as easily be a birth of another Marks baby in the Warwickshire registration district. All in all it is a risk.
Regards
Valda
-
Tracy
Was there any indication of the occupation and/or address of Thomas Judd in the baptismal register?
-
I imagine the Judds are this couple
RG13 2932 folio 60
57 King Street Leamington Warwickshire
Thomas Judd 25 Leamington, Warwickshire, Head Married Boot & Shoemaker
Florence E Judd 25 Leamington, Warwickshire, Wife Married
Marriages Sep 1899
Judd Thomas Warwick 6d 1202
Gallemore Florence Elizabeth Warwick 6d 1202
Gallimore Florence Elizabeth Warwick 6d 1202
Regards
Valda
-
Florence GULLEMORE aged 5 in 1881 with parents at 49 King Street, Leamington Priors, so no apparent family connection to LAWRENCE or MARKS families.
-
Hi
I did find the Thomas/Florence marriage whilst in Warwick. (Married 15th August 1899) He was a shoe maker as was his father William. Florence's father was also William and also a boot maker. Witnesses were Rose Ethel Gallemore (Florence's younger sister)and Nellie Gardener. Have found both families on the census. A couple of little co-incidences - in 1881 Florence's oldest sister Ada worked as a cook to the curate of St. Paul's (where the baptism took place) and Florence herself worked as a servant in in 1891 where the servant girl next door was a Hannah Pargiter. Pargiter was the name of the vicar of St Paul's. The Muriel baptism was the only one I could see during that time that was not carried out by the vicar, but by Wm McCleary, Officiating Minister. Have no idea what all that means but just keep looking for clues (or clutching at straws) ???
Valda - Can't believe I had never considered that she may have given up both children at the same time. I simply assumed that she gave up my grandfather then a second child 18 months later. Your idea makes a huge amount of sense - even if we disregard the birth record under her own name for the moment - the idea that something happened around October 1906 to cause her to give them both up to separate families does sound plausible.
Regards
Tracy
-
I didn't know when each child was given up. I sort of assumed they were both given up around the same time when it became impossible for Mercy to manage. If Muriel was registered in her mother's maiden name it would indicate the relationship had broken down before Muriel's birth. Mercy may already have had to give up Arthur before Muriel was born.
Have you checked the poor law records for Leamington (no idea where the nearest workhouse was ( I suspect Warwick?) but Warwick RO would know).
The children may have been given up into the poor law system when Mercy's relationship with their father broke down (I presuming it did - but without knowledge to presume/assume is dangerous). Mercy herself may have gone into the poor law system when pregnant with Muriel.
If that is the case Muriel's birth would definitely have been registered by the poor law authorities- but again that may have meant them leaving Leamington so perhaps less likely knowing they returned there.
If the adoptions were informal through the church, then there will be no record unless they passed through a Church of England children's home (in which case you wouldn't expect them to still be in Leamington).
Regards
Valda
-
Hi Valda
I suspect, at least with Muriel, that the adoption was through the church. This thread started, as you know, with my query about twins. That was the only logical explanation I could think of for two children to be given up by a, seemingly, married couple. But I suppose I am thinking in terms of life today, rather than the harder lives lived then. I do think your theory has a realistic ring to it, makes more sense than two separate adoptions. I have a feeling that there was a workhouse in Leamington, but will check. If I could just find a marriage certificate ..... ???
Tracy
-
I think it is less likely that there was a marriage which is possibly why the children were given up in the first place. The legitimate birth certificate of your grandfather I'm afraid means nothing in proving there was a marriage. There was not the paper trail there is today so basically you could bluff it out with the registrar and claim you were married (that really is the real difference with life today). I have several birth certificates which have children registered as legitimate which I can prove were illegitimate. I know of a birth as late as the 1930s (I know the person concerned) whose mother registered him as legitimate (and his siblings) when he wasn't.
Basically certificates are only as reliable as the information was reliable given to the registrar or official in the first place and yet family historians have a tendency to take them at face value.
If Mercy was still in a relationship of some sort with Arthur when your grandfather was born, it would have made it easier for her to appear at the registrar as Mrs Lawrence. If that relationship had broken down by the time she was pregnant with her second child - perhaps because she was pregnant again, then with Arthur gone some time, it would have made it much more difficult for her to have the second child registered as a Lawrence. By then pregnant and with a young child she may have been known to the local authorities because she was needing to claim financial support which is why I suggested checking the poor law records.
I don't know what the scenario actually was (I am speculating with different possible scenarios) but in checking the poor law records you can try and narrow possibilities down.
I think Leamington was in the Warwick poor law union.
If you are obtaining the risky Muriel birth certificate it may be quicker to get it from the Warwick registry office than the GRO.
Regards
Valda
-
Have just checked the address of Thomas and Florence Judd against the three Marks sisters in Leamington. The sisters were living one street apart and the Judd's were living a short walk away from them. St Paul's church was moments away from the Judd's and had a school attached to it - which should make the school admissions search a little easier if they did stay at that address.
Tracy
-
I've been wondering why no family member came to the rescue, as was often the 'norm', prior to adoption legislation of the late 1920s. Mercy's mother Mary MARKS might have been in poor health if it is her death that is registered 3Q 1907 aged 63 Walsall 6b 857, but Mercy had at least one married sister - Catherine Duffin - who might have absorbed one or more into her own family.
A baby would have required a 'wet nurse' in order to survive, so I doubt if adoption would have been a swift process soon after birth.
To add another dimension to the mystery, in 3Q 1906 there is a birth regn for Florence JUDD ref: Warwick 6d 692; the child's mother a possible contender for 'wet nurse'?
-
Could this be Muriel Florence? Although she was baptised with her birth name, is it possible she was registered with the Judd's name? If not, and the wet nurse theory is correct, there were several other Judd's nearby having children at that time.
I have also emailed St Pauls Church today to see if they may have any additional records from that era - a long shot, but worth a try.
-
Though anything is possible I doubt the baby's birth was registered as Judd pre the adoption laws of 1927 (and then it would be a second birth registration by the authorities). Why after all allow the baby to be baptised a Lawrence and why create more problems for yourself trying to explain to the registrar why the baby, not your own child, was being registered as a Judd by you, or registered by a mother whose name was totally different from that the baby's registered name. Or did the Judds (having allowed the baptism in another name) bluff it out with the registrar and claim the baby was their own?
When thinking about possible hypothesises to explain the scant facts you have, you need to weigh up what are the possibilities for and against each.
What is known at this stage is the baby/child was baptised in October though we don't know at what age. You have a risky/possible birth registration in the September quarter which could cover, given the 6 weeks grace to register a birth, any child born from late April until the end of September. Arthur the older child (we think) was born in April 1905 so plenty of time for the birth of another child. By October for a late April/May birth the child would be old enough to be 'adopted'. I wouldn't add complications about wet nurses if at this point it is possible not to get more complicated. That doesn't mean in the end it might have to get more complicated, but it is better to keep it simple if possible.
Regards
Valda