Genealogy Chat

Top tip - using the Genes Reunited community

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

Brothers born 9 months apart

ProfilePosted byOptionsPost Date

brummiejan

brummiejan Report 14 Feb 2010 08:34

Being born at 34-35 weeks wouldn't affect the survival of most infants, but as he was smaller than average he would probably have been a bit more vulnerable. But then so many children died young, so who can say?
I thought as Rose has said - maybe a daughter's child??
Jan

Paul Barton, Special Agent

Paul Barton, Special Agent Report 14 Feb 2010 08:20

Thank you everybody for that. The birth dates were added to their baptism records, so I think they should be accurate. Their parents were both young, so no chance of an older sister. Thomas must have been premature. I think he may have died the following year.

Julie

Julie Report 13 Feb 2010 22:25

If the 2nd baby was born on his due date then no cos Mum would have fallen pregnant between the 22nd November & the 6th December for him to be born on the 29th August


My son was due the 30th August & i had him on the 23th June

Click ADD REPLY button - not this link!

Click ADD REPLY button - not this link! Report 13 Feb 2010 22:22

That's actually 8 months after the birth of John or 35 weeks. A normal pregnancy is about 38 weeks, so this baby would have been premature too. Premature babies wouldn't stand much chance years ago.

It seems unlikely you would ovulate and the embryo would implant in the uterus right after childbirth. The usual bleeding would prevent this. I can't imagine a couple being intimate immediately after childbirth either!

Any chance John had an elder sister? Perhaps she gave birth and the parents registered the baby as their own to save face.

Rose

AnnCardiff

AnnCardiff Report 13 Feb 2010 22:06

my Dad and one of his brothers were born within the same twelve months

doddsy1

doddsy1 Report 13 Feb 2010 19:32

My husbands brother is 10 months younger than him. One born July, one born the following May

Ann

Ann Report 13 Feb 2010 18:56

Perhaps its the baptism date you have. Some children were not baptised for a few years after birth. Although if this was the case they would prob ably had the two brothers baptised on same day.

PollyPoppet

PollyPoppet Report 13 Feb 2010 18:53

Hi if you google it will tell you
It is possible to become pregnant straight after giving birth because you are still fertile
do you have them on census this would verify it
i will have a look for you if you tell me place of birth

MayBlossomEmpressofSpring

MayBlossomEmpressofSpring Report 13 Feb 2010 18:48

Yes,

brummiejan

brummiejan Report 13 Feb 2010 18:47

Well, unusual but possible. And the 2nd brother might have been born a little early. I assume you are sure of your info?
Jan

Paul Barton, Special Agent

Paul Barton, Special Agent Report 13 Feb 2010 18:40

My great grandfather John Stewart was born 26th December 1867. I've just found a brother born 29th August 1868. Is it possible for a woman to become pregnant immediately after childbirth? Thomas was baptised the following year.