Just checked the references for the twins in my tree and PaulineJ, Pennines and Lizzie are right. My twins have exactly the same reference, although I suppose it could be possible that one twin could be the last entry on a page, and the other twin the first entry on the next page.
Esther Stead doesn't seem to be a still born baby. Her death is registered Q/E Sep 1909, Rochdale Reg Dist.
Esther isn't a still born baby as both her birth and death were registered.
Re the burials of stillborns, Cancan and I have done a lot of research in relation to the Manchester General Cemetery Transcription Project and there are many, many stillbirths recorded in the burial registers as she mentioned in her previous post. In some cases the parents names are recorded as well as the address. In one case, (which is unusual) a family have named their stillborn son and had his name inscribed on the gravestone although in the burial register he is not named.
I have just re-read the original post and Jeastead referred to a dead child being recorded on the 1911 census and wondered if this was in fact was William's twin. If the twin was indeed a stillbirth and the census was completed correctly (which wasn't always the case), this child couldn't be the twin because the census question is "Children born alive in the present marriage". Therefore a still born child shouldn't be recorded. I was wondering if Jeastead should be looking for the birth and death of another sibling
in addition to the twin she is already looking for.
Luzzu
