Are They Triplets?

[mgeneas]

The first recorded children of John and Susannah who married in 1761 were baptized Jan 7th 1766

"Mary, John & William daughter and sons of John and Susannah"

William is my ancestor and died 1833 age 66.
I have not been able to find anything more on Mary and John.

John and Susannah had 8 more children including a pair of twin girls buried 1777, no record of a baptism for them.

Now multiple births are in the family, William about 1766-1833 my ancestor had 3 sets of twins and 2 singles.

As this family were 'on and off' Baptists it is possible that there were children born between 1761 and 1766 and not baptized in the parish church.

Opinions please

[Annie65115]

More likely than triplets is the idea that they didn’t get round to baptising the first two children when they were babies, and instead had a batch done at once.

[bykerlads]

Yes, we have quite a few examples of siblings being baptised together in job-lots, so to speak.

[JAKnighton]

The fact that multiple births run in the family makes me suspect that they were indeed triplets. Also, and this is based purely on a gut feeling, but I would think if they were siblings of different ages then they would be recorded individually, even if it was on the same day. Obviously I have no way of knowing this.


What I would do is find out as much as possible about all three siblings to get an estimated year of birth for each (since this is pre-civil registration) and see if they match up as being born in the same year.

[mgeneas]

Thank you all for your thoughts. I am still undecided. Trees on ancestry have them as triplets, I had thought maybe twins and a single (my William) as I thought it unlikely for a triplet to survive and be as healthy as my William seems to have been.

But it does bother me that the parents married in 1761 and no mention of offspring for nearly 5 years.
For now I have them in my tree as singletons.

[rosie99]

Perhaps if you tell us who you are talking about we can look and see what we think.  As you probably know 'we'  normally treat Ancestry trees with a pinch of salt when no sources are given 

[BumbleB]

Whilst we can't know for certain, my thoughts would be for a multiple baptism, rather than a multiple birth.  Whoever wrote up the parish records may not have had additional information - other than 3 children of the same parents were baptised on the same day   

[mgeneas]

They are the Barrett/Barwick family who lived in Walgrave, Northamptonshire.
Walgrave parish records and  Bishops Transcripts have major discrepancies. Mostly in spelling.
I have transcribed them both.

Three of the 10 children of John and Susannah are recorded as burials only with no baptisms for them.
The Baptist church did not have it's own burial ground until about 1787

The Baptist church in Walgrave (nor the Record office) have no surviving records for the 18th century.

My William bapt 1766 and the youngest child Richard born 1778 are the only 2 that I have been able to follow forward. The others disappear, so perhaps they died and and the burials were not recorded in the prs
Another ancestor of mine Moses Deacon was the Baptist minister in Walgrave until his death in 1773, so I blame him.

[alpinecottage]

If they had been triplets, I think the two boys would be named first and second and the girl third.  Since they are listed as Mary, John and William, I think Mary is likely to be the oldest, followed by John and William as singletons or possibly twin boys. 
Also, triplets as first borns were fairly unlikely to survive - even today, a triplet birth is quite risky.