Genealogy Chat

...does that mean that they were DEFINITELY a twin? My gg grandmother has the time on her certificate in 1838, but to my knowledge she wasn't a twin (no sibling the same age, baptised or born).

I think there's been some people who have found that some particular registrars always put the time on any birth, perhaps specially at the start of registration - 1838 is very early. It does usually mean a twin though. Anne

Thanks, I wish there was one answer to everything though, make it a lot simpler!! I've had this cert for about 6 years now, but have only just considered her possible being a twin. There are twins in my family, just don't know where exactly they come from, have not come across one set of twins!!!

She could have been a twin and the other child died shortly after birth or was still born. In this instance I would assume the birth would not have been registered. Rose

That's what I thought possible, but what about a baptism? Or perhaps the child was baptised, just not added in the parish records?? Clutching at straws here!! Mind that there is one branch of family that I haven't been able to trace, my nana's family. They were from Germany. Hence the difficulty, maybe twins were from that side?

Chole. The only time a Time is recorded on birth cert is in case of twins or more. If one was still born as it hadn't lived it will not be recored as a birth.so you will find no evidence to support it.not even burial record unless it had lived,as it appears on birth cet evidence shows she was twin. There was no still born recorded untill about 1935. Kay.

Thanks Kay. Didn't think about stillborns! Thank you.

Does the same apply to Scottish certificates - I was just thinking how nice it was to put the time for me!! Sue

The deaths of stillborn children were supposed to have been registered since 1874. It is a known fact that some registrars recorded the time of birth of all children. Bob