I found an unusual item in the O.P.R.s today, a page devoted to one family´s marriage and offspring. First the marriage in November 1797, then first son John 21/11/1798, and so first daughter Margaret 21/01/1799. Thereafter comes a list with the other eight bairns, with acceptable spacing over the next sixteen years. I expect that the widow recording the births twenty seven years after her marriage just got the date(s) wrong, and the meenister preferred not to point out the obvious to the lady of the manor........
I did have a shufty at the image, and though not too clear, it seems to have been correctly transcribed.
Unusual?
Guid hunting,
Thrall
Sixty days between births?
Moderator: Global Moderators
-
Thrall
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:34 pm
- Location: Reykjavík
-
DavidWW
- Posts: 5057
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 9:47 pm
Most unusual.
While it's far from unknown for there to be a gap of several days between the births, 8 weeks is an awfy long time.
See http://www.ucihealth.com/News/Releases/043098twn.htm .........
David
While it's far from unknown for there to be a gap of several days between the births, 8 weeks is an awfy long time.
See http://www.ucihealth.com/News/Releases/043098twn.htm .........
David
-
Thrall
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:34 pm
- Location: Reykjavík
-
donna petrie
- Posts: 82
- Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2006 2:07 am
60 days between births
HI: Perhaps it was a case of baptism recordings. I have an ancestor who was baptised the same day as his younger brother. It was very small print but I found the remark Thomas, age 3. Donna
-
apanderson
- Posts: 395
- Joined: Fri May 27, 2005 9:05 am
- Location: Stirlingshire
Hi Thrall,
I had a similar birth record which drove me round the twist.
Three out of six children were all christened on the one day, so they were easy enough to find on the OPR's - but, after the excitement of finding three in the one go, I realised that there was only four months in between two of their dates of birth and thought obviously there's something not quite right there!
To cut a long story short, I eventually found each individual birth after reading through years and years worth of births for the Parish. One of the children was born in 1806, the other 1808. This was well before the OPR's came online at SP and I haven't checked again. I did check however before the images were available and there they were, listed as born the same year, four months apart.
I keep meaning to have another look to see if anything's changed now that the images are available, but as usual, the credits vanish all too quickly!
Anne
I had a similar birth record which drove me round the twist.
Three out of six children were all christened on the one day, so they were easy enough to find on the OPR's - but, after the excitement of finding three in the one go, I realised that there was only four months in between two of their dates of birth and thought obviously there's something not quite right there!
To cut a long story short, I eventually found each individual birth after reading through years and years worth of births for the Parish. One of the children was born in 1806, the other 1808. This was well before the OPR's came online at SP and I haven't checked again. I did check however before the images were available and there they were, listed as born the same year, four months apart.
I keep meaning to have another look to see if anything's changed now that the images are available, but as usual, the credits vanish all too quickly!
Anne
-
Thrall
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:34 pm
- Location: Reykjavík
Re: 60 days between births
Hi Donna, sorry, no easy let out here, the word "born" is clearly visible by every entry.donna petrie wrote:HI: Perhaps it was a case of baptism recordings. I have an ancestor who was baptised the same day as his younger brother. It was very small print but I found the remark Thomas, age 3.
Thrall
P.S. I have an Janet Combe, mother Ann Petrie, m.01/02/1895 John Wilson, my gr. uncle. Any connection? She was from Perth/Fife.
-
StewL
- Posts: 1396
- Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 12:59 am
- Location: Perth Western Australia
Definately a poser here Thrall
Now if we were talking about modern day medicine and births, it is entirely possible that there could be a 60 day gap between births.
Caesarian section to deliver one child, and let nature take its course for second child (usually due to poor in-utero development of second child, and need to give both children a chance of survival).
Saw this on a medical programme just recently.
But I doubt it would have been possible back then as they didnt have the scans etc that would detect such problems in-utero.
Now if we were talking about modern day medicine and births, it is entirely possible that there could be a 60 day gap between births.
Caesarian section to deliver one child, and let nature take its course for second child (usually due to poor in-utero development of second child, and need to give both children a chance of survival).
Saw this on a medical programme just recently.
But I doubt it would have been possible back then as they didnt have the scans etc that would detect such problems in-utero.
Stewie
Searching for: Anderson, Balks, Barton, Courtney, Davidson, Downie, Dunlop, Edward, Flucker, Galloway, Graham, Guthrie, Higgins, Laurie, Mathieson, McLean, McLuckie, Miln, Nielson, Payne, Phillips, Porterfield, Stewart, Watson
Searching for: Anderson, Balks, Barton, Courtney, Davidson, Downie, Dunlop, Edward, Flucker, Galloway, Graham, Guthrie, Higgins, Laurie, Mathieson, McLean, McLuckie, Miln, Nielson, Payne, Phillips, Porterfield, Stewart, Watson
-
Thrall
- Posts: 388
- Joined: Fri Aug 26, 2005 4:34 pm
- Location: Reykjavík
A further perusal of the BC with a marriage and ten births revealed a death also, of the second son; in my defence for not seeing this immediately, the page is pretty blurred (yes, I´ve sent a contact form) and the death is not dated. Unfortunately this throws a large spanner into my paternal line, with no obvious lines of research, but then it took me four years to get this far (1820) so there is always hope....Thrall wrote:Thank you for that David. Do we then have a "record"?........DavidWW wrote:Most unusual.
While it's far from unknown for there to be a gap of several days between the births, 8 weeks is an awfy long time.
I´ll try to upload to the gallery if anyone should be interested. Campbells of Melfort are the parties involved, and the wording after "died" and also the first daughter´s name, "Margaret Fogo? Togo?".
http://talkingscot.com/gallery/displayi ... ?pos=-1215
Guid hunting,
Thrall
Later: I´ve just received an email from SP apologising for the focus, and refunding five credits - no photocopying at present!
Gallery url added by Marilyn
Even later; before anyone strains their eyes, a keek at the will of the late Archibald Campbell Esq. referred to (19 pages) reveals the first daughter to have been named Margaret Togo, which is perhaps not a name to bump into everyday in Argyll at the end of the eighteenth century.....
