Twins: Could one twin be 90 day premature,the other full-term (in 1900 Ireland)?

[hurworth]

Childbirth is more than a rupturing sac though.  The cervix would need to open, contractions would expel the baby and expel the placenta without disturbing the twin and the cervix would close again leaving the twin in place.

[Marmalady]

I very much doubt it.  90 days premature is about 27weeks gestation and survival at that gestation would have been VERY VERY uncommon.  Labour spontaneously stopping after the delivery of one twin is also very rare.

Although not a twin, my aunt survived being born at 12 weeks premature back in the early 1920's

I have previous;y told the story of her "miracle birth" here:
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=636153.msg4834773#msg4834773

[Guy Etchells]

Childbirth is more than a rupturing sac though.  The cervix would need to open, contractions would expel the baby and expel the placenta without disturbing the twin and the cervix would close again leaving the twin in place.

Yes I do realise that but the rupturing of the sac would start the process for the prem. birth.
It is relatively common for labour to start then stop after the birth of one twin but normally it restarts reasonably quickly.
What makes this case rare is the length of time between the births but though rare it is not unique
Cheers
Guy

[KGarrad]

Guinness World Records would disagree with you?!

90 days would be unprecedented!

As I said, I am well acquainted with the bureacracy involved with GWR.
It took me more than 10 months to persuade them to accept my family's 4 generations of twins.

[John915]

Good afternoon,

Childbirth is more than a rupturing sac though.  The cervix would need to open, contractions would expel the baby and expel the placenta without disturbing the twin and the cervix would close again leaving the twin in place.

Yes I do realise that but the rupturing of the sac would start the process for the prem. birth.
It is relatively common for labour to start then stop after the birth of one twin but normally it restarts reasonably quickly.
What makes this case rare is the length of time between the births but though rare it is not unique
Cheers
Guy

Guinness World Records would disagree with you?!

90 days would be unprecedented!

As I said, I am well acquainted with the bureacracy involved with GWR.
It took me more than 10 months to persuade them to accept my family's 4 generations of twins.

Whilst I wouldn't openly disagree with either of you, I will open another can of worms. Guiness book of Records as it was until 1998 only started in 1955. Therefore there is a more than even chance that not all records before that date made it into the record book. The further back you go the less likely it would be particularly if the event was not widely publicised if at all.

If as surmised on this thread it is indeed an illigitimate catholic birth then there is a more than even chance that it was not made public knowledge.

So no record book entry.

John915

[Guy Etchells]

Guinness World Records would disagree with you?!

90 days would be unprecedented!

As I said, I am well acquainted with the bureacracy involved with GWR.
It took me more than 10 months to persuade them to accept my family's 4 generations of twins.

Very possibly as modern practice is to delay birth of the second fetus until 32 weeks then perform a delivery by C-section to prevent the high risk of sequels for the mother and the fetus if left until full term.

Cheers
Guy

[zetlander]

My daughter had a daughter born late October 2001 and the Birth registration is in the December quarter of 2001.
She had another daughter born full term in the first week of September 2002 and the Birth registration is in September quarter 2002.
----------
My grandmother had very premature twin brothers born in 1911. They were covered in some oil (olive?) wrapped in cotton wool and placed in a warm place.  They both survived.
--------------
My mother at birth in 1925 was said to weigh just over 3 lbs. Her mother was 46 and my mother was her only child. Because of the risks of having a baby at that age she took some pills to keep the baby small.  Can't imagine what the pills  may have been!

[Lisajb]

Rupturing the sac - can depend on where baby's head is and whether it can block the rupture. I had 'dribbles' of fluid for three days, and labour still didn't kick in, had to be induced with my first.

[Guy Etchells]

It is good to see people are questioning information rather than simply accepting what they read.
Here are four sources from a quick Google search this morning, to support my views one reliable, two heresay and one based on hopes unfortunately not fulfilled, the first three show gaps of 87 days, 48 days and 18 days the last shows gaps of 28 days, 38 days and 84 days

The first a factual medical journal article from 2007
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01kp5/

The second I call hearsay as it is a newspaper report from 2013, with nothing to confirm the facts
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01kp4/

A third one from 2016 the first was born at 23 weeks (1lb 2 oz) doctors hoped the second would be born full term, but he was born 18 days later

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01kp3/

The final one from 2000 shows another newspaper report mentioning three different sets of twins with gaps between their births.

http://www.rootschat.com/links/01kp6/

Cheers
Guy