Opinions please

[carol8353]

These twins births are really bugging me.

If they were twins you’d expect the numbers to be consecutive  not 9 apart.
You can’t tell me that they registered Annie and then 8 more people came in to register their babies before the clerk got round to completing the forms for William?
Okay their deaths were 3 apart numbers 182 and 185,but of course they didn’t neccesarily die at the same time.

And as they were in the same 1/4 could the deaths have been recorded before the births???


Births Sep 1916
 
Barleycorn  Annie  mmn O'Brien  W.Ham  4a 562 
Barleycorn  William  mmn O'Brien  W.Ham  4a 573   

Deaths Sep 1916 
Barleycorn    Annie    0    W.Ham    4a   182    
Barleycorn    William    0    W.Ham    4a   185   

What does anyone else think...........apart from that we have no idea who their parents were.
I know we could buy one of the certs,but my friend (whose family this is) is doing a one name study and it can work out very expensive 

Regards

Carol

[kathb]

Just a thought. Perhaps the registrar turned more than one page in the volume by mistake when he/she made the second entry.
?regards Kathb

[Marmalady]

These twins births are really bugging me.

If they were twins you’d expect the numbers to be consecutive  not 9 apart.
You can’t tell me that they registered Annie and then 8 more people came in to register their babies before the clerk got round to completing the forms for William?

As those numbers are page numbers, rather than entry numbers -- theres something like 30+ entries between the two registrations (4 entries per page)

Another possibility is two separate families -- pairs of siblings marrying

[weste]

Perhaps William's birth should have been 563 and lost consecutive sequence due to poor concentration.

[lizdb]

My first thought is that they are not actually twins, but that there are two Barleycorn/O'brien marriages and sadly the babies from each (who were born within the same quarter)  both died within weeks of birth.
But even as I type this I wonder if it is just too many coincidences!

Off to look for Barleycorn/OBrien marriages . . .

[weste]

Wonder whether either survived long enough to be baptised, so parents could be checked. I agree the first thoughts could be 2 obrien barley corn marriages.

[youngtug]

Maybe,,,,,,, William died at or soon after birth and the person registering the births thought that they didn't have to register him, only to be told when they returned that they should have, So back to the registrar again, hence the difference of several pages of births.

[lizdb]

Off to look for Barleycorn/OBrien marriages . . .

...... And cant even find one, yet alone two!!!!!

I'm beginnig to like weste's idea that Williams birth reg has an error when the index was typed up, and should read 563.

[josey]

Maybe,,,,,,, William died at or soon after birth and the person registering the births thought that they didn't have to register him, only to be told when they returned that they should have, So back to the registrar again, hence the difference of several pages of births.

Very plausible theory.

And as they were in the same 1/4 could the deaths have been recorded before the births???

Hope I've understood what you're asking  - as far as I know there were separate registers for births, deaths & marriages so the page numbers in the deaths volume could well be different sequences to the births volume. I am prepared to be corrected....

Josey