Twins - time on birth certificate

[Ninatoo]

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

[Valda]

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

[Comosus]

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

[Shaztoni]

So that theory of times being an indication of twins goes out the window.

Sharon

[TracyL]

Sooooo... does that mean that if there is not a time they are definitely not twins?

....or not

Tracy

[Valda]

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

[TracyL]

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

[dee-jay]

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!

[Valda]

Tracy

Have you got any indication from Murial Florence's baptism of her actual birthdate?

Regards

Valda