Time of birth on certificate

[suttontrust]

I'd always thought that if the time of birth appeared on a certificate, it was because the baby was one of twins.  However, we have such a birth certificate of a boy who doesn't appear to have been a twin, but who did die in infancy.  Was the time recorded if the child wasn't expected to live long?

[Lydart]

Not sure about that, but we have one birth cert WITH time, (and others without) ... I emailed the place I got it from; the reply was that they usually recorded times for each of twins, because of inheritance ... so I checked with another place, and they said the recorded time can mean anything or nothing !

You pays your money, and you takes your choice !

[Little Nell]

Was it very early in civil registration?  I have one for my gt gt grandfather in 1838 with the time on it, but he was not a twin.  And he obviously lived!

Nell

[suttontrust]

It was 1858, so fairly early.

[MaryA]

I have one in 1844 with the time on.  There is no other entry in the indexes to indicate another birth which might have been a twin.  I suppose that's open to speculation as to whether there may have been a twin who was stillborn and maybe they didn't register it?

[Little Nell]

I read in a book (can't remember which one) that some registrars got themselves in a muddle in the early days about whether the time should be recorded for all births or not.  It was not something they all did, but varied.  

I have another birth certificate from around the same date which only records the mother's maiden name, although it gives the father's name.  My father obtained this many years ago and assumed that it meant the parents were not married!  In fact the child was the last of 10!

Barbara Dixon says that one registrar put the time of birth on all certificates up to about 1850.  Another did not record the times of birth for twins at all.  So confusion reigned.  

Nell

[Lydart]

My possible twin was 1839; as I can't verify it, I've recorded the birth as 'poss twin' !  All one can do, I suppose