Dare I Ask Another Question?

[Miss Poohs]

I followed on the lead given to me from Maureen (thanks again) regarding the Beaton family, and found a set of twin girls Catherine and Sarah Beaton born 2nd Oct 1863.

They are not on any of the other family censuses (censi??), so I assumed they didn't survive.

I looked for death certs and found one for Sarah 4th March 1866, but I can't find one for Catherine.

If she'd been still born would she have had a death cert or would that have been marked on the birth cert?

Other than that I'm wondering if she would have been "adopted out"?

Thanks again

[paddyscar]

Hi Miss Poohs:

There is only one death listing 1863-1956 for Catherine Beaton, female, born 1863 and she died in 1934.

According to previous posts here, stillbirths were not recorded in the 1800s
http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic. ... stillbirth
http://talkingscot.com/forum/viewtopic. ... stillbirth

Frances

[Alison Plenderleith]

Hi Miss Poohs,

I did a search on SP for *ath*rine Beaton years 1863 to 1871 age 0-8. There were 2 returned. Might be worth a look?

Kind regards,

Alison

[Miss Poohs]

Being dense but just to double check, even if it was a still birth a birth cert would be issued, but no death cert?

The two birth certs I'm on about appear together on the register and are marked "twin" on the edge of the sheet.

Sarah was born at 4pm Catherine at 6pm.

[Miss Poohs]

Thanks Alison, I tried that but it's not finding anything

[AndrewP]

Hi Miss Poohs,

Prior to the Register of Still Births, which was started in 1939, there was no recording of still births. The issuing of a birth certificate is implication of a live birth. So the birth certificate for Sarah Beaton imples that she was born live.

That given that she was not home with her parents, there are two options that I can offer: (1) She had died or (2) she was out of the house (adopted or visiting).

As there is no sign of a matching death certificate between her birth in 1863 and the 1871 census, it should mean that she is out of the house (adopted or visiting). The question remains, assuming that she was still alive, where was she on census night.

I tried searching for *at* Be*t* born 1863­­±2 years, died 1863-1871 to take in as many variations as seemed reasonable and no sign. Also tried without the first name or birth year, but within Govan and still no useful results.

All the best,

AndrewP

[Miss Poohs]

Thanks Andrew - so - I'm assuming Catherine was born alive, but wasn't part of the family.

Sarah died aged 2yrs 5 months of "debility 1 week" 4.3.1866, then on the 25.4.1866 another wee girl was born to Donald and Mary and they also called her Sarah.

Thanks to everyone for your help

[wini]

The answers on this topic may solve one of my mysteries.
My father was the youngest Born 1910 his oldest sister born 1896, the next one 1901, his brother 1905. I had thought for the era that the gaps between them were very large. I now wonder if there had been either miscarriages or still births. Not that that solves anything really, just makes me think that is what may have occurred.

wini

[Miss Poohs]

It's always suspicious when there is a large gap berween siblings in those days, isn't it?