Confused! Twins died but burials 2 - 3 months later

[B17_Fan]

I have found a record for twin girls, Winny and Sarah Spicer, born in 1760 in Burghclere.
Here is the baptism records for both girls..

SARAH SPICER baptised Burghclere 28 May 1760 daughter of Thos & Elizabeth, twin, dead
WINNY SPICER baptised Burghclere 28 May 1760 daughter of Thos & Elizabeth, twin, dead

As you can see, in the notes it says on both "Twin, dead"
I'm thinking maybe they were baptised and died the same day?
But I have found that they were buried later.

Winny was buried on 01 July 1760 and Sarah was buried on 17 Aug 1760

Just wondering, if they died on the same day, why would the funerals be different days?
Unless, the notes on the baptism record were added later.

Can't figure it out!

[Ayashi]

I wonder if the original image showed one of the parents as deceased, not the twins (who then both died later). I've seen mistakes like that before.

Not that I can see any obvious burials for the parents :/

[MaureeninNY]

"Unless, the notes on the baptism record were added later."

I'm inclined to think that this was the case.

Maureen

[StanleysChesterton]

As has been said, maybe that was added later.

Many vicars made all sorts of notes in their parish registers - and if he was involved in any family history/tree work he'll have known that these little notes help people who come looking at this stuff.

He'd have written the note to assist anybody that was looking at the registers in the future.... maybe even a memory jogger for himself if he thought it important to instantly spot that if asked to look up people.

Also, all that settlement stuff was important as everybody had to belong to a parish to get benefits ... so keeping on top of who everybody is in the registers was important in case of future claims that somebody came from that village or one near it and somebody was looking through to see if the person seeking assistance elsewhere was "on their books".

[Kimbrey]

The Hampshire Buriel Index has:-

Winny Spicer - buried 01 July 1760 at Burghclere
Sarah Spicer - buried 17 Aug 1760 at Burghclere

Thomas Spicer m Elizabeth Lovelock at Shaw cum Donnington Berks in 1750 -both "of Chievely Berks"

They had 10 children several died in infancy

Google "Kingsclere Families" and follow the links to the database and you will find them plus lots more Spicers ! 


 Kim

[silaswall]

You have probably already noticed that Thomas and Elizabeth had other children with similar entries. The baptisms of Elizabeth, Giles, Joseph and Luke also state that they are dead. Records for the burials are much later. I did wonder if a sympathetic clergyman bent the rules. Baptising the children although they had already died and so allowing a burial in consecrated ground. The fact the burial dates are so much later? Appalling handwriting may be? I am as confused as everyone else!

I am descended from Hannah Spicer who married Richard Garrett.  This Thomas and Elizabeth had a Hannah born in the correct year. There is a burial four months later. Suspect there may be other children somewhere. 

[Kimbrey]

I should add that this database was compiled and maintained for several years by John Lewis who has had to give it up.

[B17_Fan]

Thankyou everyone for your replies.
I'm thinking that it was maybe a local vicar who was keeping his records up to date. But it sure makes it confusing for us!

been looking at the kingsclere families database and i think they have got something wrong. I am descended from Hannah Spicer, one of the 10 children. They have her being born in 1765 and dying the same year.
The one i have was born 1770 and died in 1838 in hannington. she married richard garrett.

I'm confused again now. were there 2 hannah's born into the one family? The later born being named after the deceased one?

They don't seem to have my hannah in the family of 10.

Confused!

[miw]

If you can get an image of the original register it may be possible to confirm that the fact they had died was recorded later.  It may be in different ink or handwriting or have been obviously squeezed in.