problems with birth records

David Ramsay · Post by **David Ramsay** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 7:42 pm

Hi, I hope someone may be able to help me out with this problem.
John Ramsay and Elspeth Smart gave birth to twins on the 4 March 1764 and on the OPR image it states that one was born dead.
and one was called John, it does not give the name of the other child.
on the IGI I have found a birth for John with the right date, but it also shows his death as the same date.
Would the have called the surviving child John as well.?
I hope someone can help
Many thanks
David

Caroline · Post by **Caroline** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:09 pm

Hi David,

I found the following on the IGI:

JOHN RAMSAY - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Birth: 04 MAR 1764

JOHN RAMSAY - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Christening: 04 MAR 1764 Kilconquhar, Fife, Scotland

RAMSAY - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Birth: 04 MAR 1764 Kilconquhar, Fife, Scotland

RAMSAY - International Genealogical Index
Gender: Male Death: 04 MAR 1764

It looks like the child that died wasn't named - I couldn't see a death date for John for the same day- where did you find that?

Caroline

DavidWW · Post by **DavidWW** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:48 pm

Given that it was highly unusual for a child to be baptized the same day as the birth, it looks like there was great concern over the continued survival of the twin who survived.

Assuming that the records found in IGI by Caroline are all extracts, these support the interpretation of one stillborn child, obviously not baptised so never "officially" given a name; with the other twin being live born, but there being sufficient concern for his survival that he was baptised on the day of his birth.

David

David Ramsay · Post by **David Ramsay** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 8:55 pm

Hi Caroline,
thanks for your message
I have an IGI individual record showing John was born and died on the same day, ??
sorry if I seem a bit dim but I am fairly new to this family searching.
On the OPR image I have it only mentions John, so do you think they just never bothered to name the twin that died, confused!!!
David

Post by **emanday** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:11 pm

Hi David,

I have seen many examples on the statutory records of the birth and death entries of unnamed children.

Russell · Post by **Russell** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:18 pm

Hi David

Our expectations have changed over the years. We now expect that a moribund child will have intervention which could perhaps resuscitate it.
Before that knowledge was available it was reckoned that the result of a labour that could not breathe was non-living therefore was a non-person.

Baptism/Christening was important to give the living child an identity.

I was looking at census returns for one of the remote Scottish islands (Colonsay is not considered remote now). They had no resident clergy and several infants were recorded as N.K. 'surname' even though they were several months old. Just waiting for the Minister to hop on a boat and officially name the child.
Superstitious perhaps about giving a name without benefit of blessing. ?

Russell

David Ramsay · Post by **David Ramsay** » Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:27 pm

Thanks all,
I will just take it that John lived and press on.
Thank you all again
David

StewL · Post by **StewL** » Sun Apr 08, 2007 2:58 am

Hello David

In my OPR births I have a spread of birth/christening dates ranging from 1,3,4,6,7,14 days after birth. I did a check of the calendars of those times and they were not related to any Sunday Kirk services, they were mid week, so as has been previously stated, I would assume the child's survival was not certain, hence the christening.