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
2 children born 6 weeks apart
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
AngeB | Report | 4 Oct 2014 06:24 |
I have recently obtained certificates for two births listed in the BMD Index with the same parents' surnames, and am mystified by the information shown. A couple was married in Dorset in Dec qr 1940. These certificates indicate the wife (impossibly?) had two children in 1942: |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
SylviaInCanada | Report | 4 Oct 2014 06:56 |
some jiggery pokery going on ;-) |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
patchem | Report | 4 Oct 2014 07:00 |
Do you know if the parents had any more children together? (Just trying to get some idea of the possible circumstances) |
|||
|
AngeB | Report | 4 Oct 2014 08:41 |
SylviaInCanada, thanks for your reply. These appear on the face of it to be two different children - they were registered with different forenames. I have heard of twins being born some time apart, but that is unlikely in this case given that the mother appears to have travelled/moved from London to Dorset during the six weeks between the births! Also, although the mother's (very unusual) forenames and married/maiden names were identical on both certificates, one child was registered with a father's name, the other was not. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
patchem | Report | 4 Oct 2014 08:56 |
March child is the child of the Mother plus a different father. Not necessarily that of her next husband. |
|||
|
AngeB | Report | 4 Oct 2014 09:19 |
Thank you patchem. There would have been rationing in Britain during that period, and I wondered if this may have been a means to claiming a bigger share? Otherwise I can't think of a benign reason for registering two births so close together and yet so geographically separated. There appear so far to be no other records for the March child, although this may just mean they were not married and are still living (or gone overseas somewhere). Or it may mean that there was only ever one child, registered twice in different names. Perhaps the mother's move to Dorset marked the couple's separation? Such a mystery! |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Karen in the desert | Report | 4 Oct 2014 16:13 |
|
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
SueCar | Report | 4 Oct 2014 20:55 |
My first thought was bigamy but on reading right through, would that fit? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
patchem | Report | 4 Oct 2014 21:02 |
AngeB believes that Child 1) is still living, and under that name. |
|||
|
AngeB | Report | 5 Oct 2014 02:41 |
This is difficult because I can't just spell it out here, as it is so recent, but although I know of the possible whereabouts of the February child, I haven't been able to make direct contact, so I have no idea of how much they might know themselves. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Jane | Report | 5 Oct 2014 06:16 |
My Nan said it was quite common around that time for someone to take in (unofficially adopt) a brother or sisters child and bring them up as their own. That would account for the two children being born so close and in different areas. This could have been done to protect the family name or because the birth mother could not afford to bring up the child herself. |
|||
|
AngeB | Report | 5 Oct 2014 07:35 |
Thanks for your reply, Jane. That is an interesting thought - I hadn't considered that the March child could have been someone else's altogether. The mother came from that location in Dorset, so she may have known of someone who needed care for their child and so had gone back down from London to "adopt" the baby to raise with her own newborn. I shall try to find out if there is any suggestion anywhere that the February child had a younger sibling. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Click ADD REPLY button - not this link! | Report | 5 Oct 2014 09:37 |
If you think you might want to contact her, you can find the first child's address and phone number on Google. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Kay???? | Report | 5 Oct 2014 11:01 |
|
|||
|
AngeB | Report | 5 Oct 2014 11:02 |
Thanks Rose. Quite a while ago I was in contact with someone who knew the February child, and passed on my details, but when I heard nothing more I assumed they did not want to get in touch so I have not taken it any further. I don't want to upset anyone, and have only pursued it this far because my father, now well into his '90s, would really like to know what became of the family. I posted here because I was very puzzled by this latest discovery and wondered if anyone had come across anything similar elsewhere. I really appreciate everyone's help and suggestions, thank you. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Graham | Report | 5 Oct 2014 11:20 |
Maybe the father registered the birth in London; the parents split up; she moved to Dorset with the child; she didn't realise the father had already registered the birth and decided to do so herself. :-S |
|||
|
DazedConfused | Report | 5 Oct 2014 13:08 |
My thoughts on this are with Graham |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Kay???? | Report | 5 Oct 2014 13:12 |
but why not name the father in April,? he put himself on the March registration when he himself registered the birth, |
|||
|
DazedConfused | Report | 5 Oct 2014 13:14 |
He may not have been the childs real father, hence the split. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
JoonieCloonie | Report | 5 Oct 2014 21:47 |
I happen to remember the names in question ;) |
|||
Researching: |