Birth Registered Twice - any thoughts

[Pdorgan]

Hi guys,

First of all I am not sure I have posted this in the correct place, if I didn't please repost in the correct place with my apologies.

I don't know why I would be surprised in Ireland, but I seem to have found a person with birth register twice. It never happen to me that I had two official registrations, mostly its difficult to find one.

Kate Halloran - Reg district: Bandon
1st registration: 28 May 1871
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/cert_amends/cert_1871/2205677a.pdf
2nd registration: 3 Mar 1873
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/birth_returns/births_1873/03203/2174276.pdf
and on top of that a baptism on 27 Feb 1873
https://registers.nli.ie//registers/vtls000634443#page/8/mode/1up

So my question:
Should I record both registrations?
The first reg. of 28 May 1871 seems to have the date changed.. but was certified by the Registrar on 19th Apr 1873, after the date of the second registration.

any thoughts or recommendations please?

Peter

[Pdorgan]

and the 1871 Registration..

[oldohiohome]

You've looked at the family longer than I have, but couldn't they have had an earlier daughter (1871) named Kate who died before the second one was born? Especially if one of their mothers' names was Kate and they wanted a child named after her? I've seen it in other families.

And I'm glad I'm not the only one who finds baptism records dated before the date of birth. I don't have any answer for that one.

[Sinann]

Baptisims before birth dates is fairly common, parents didn't always get the chance to register the birth in the time limit so fibbed about the date to avoid a fine or they simply got the date wrong.

Interesting here is that Kate's isn't the only 1871 birth certified by the Registar in 1873
This one born 1870, registered 1871, certified 1873
https://civilrecords.irishgenealogy.ie/churchrecords/images/cert_amends/cert_1871/2210143a.pdf
Also if you look at the address on both amends is included.

There is no death registered for the first Kate at first glance, I assume you have looked for a 1871 Baptisim.

Two Kate's is the most likely answer as RCs baptise a child ASAP after they are born.

[carol8353]

You've looked at the family longer than I have, but couldn't they have had an earlier daughter (1871) named Kate who died before the second one was born? Especially if one of their mothers' names was Kate and they wanted a child named after her? I've seen it in other families.

That would seem to be the reason. One is born 28th May 1871 and the second on 1st March 1873.

My husband is from an Irish family.He was named the same as his older brother (middle names were different) as the first child of that name died of meningitis aged just 9 months old.
There were nearly 2 years between them too.

Carol

[Sinann]

Almost forgot, have you found the mother in 1911 Census. Does she say how many children born and living?

[Sinann]

Image on online yet but there is a death of a Kate Halhern 1872 aged 1. I don't see a birth with this name so might be bad attempt at Halloran.

[Mart 'n' Al]

Before it was turned into a social centre, the parish church in the middle of Kingston upon Thames used to have a tablet on the wall listing about 10 or 12 children of a family. Three of them were called Richard. I must find out what happened to that tablet as it always used to fascinate me. It seems very bizarre, even if you want to carry on a traditional name, to name a subsequent child the same as one who has died.

Martin

[aghadowey]

Re-using a child's name was very common years ago (especially if the name of a grandparent or close relative) and not just in Ireland or England. My Danish uncle had 3 aunts named Olga who died as infants (even though there's no trace of an earlier relative named Olga from either side of the family) but the next daughter was named Agnes.