Number of Children

[melvinboy]

Is there anyway of finding out from a birth certificate how many children a couple already had.My gran Mary Hanley married Robert Hepburn in 1900 , 2 months before she turned 16 (this wasnt known to anyone until she died).She had her first child Mary in 1903,she always told everyone she had 12 children but we can only ever find 11.From 1903 until 1926 she had one every 2 years,i was thinking how did she not have any in the first 3 years of her marraige ? I was thinking she may have had one then that maybe died as another 2 of her children died as toddlers and she counted them in amongst her 12.Can anyone help ?

[nelmit]

Is there anyway of finding out from a birth certificate how many children a couple already had.My gran Mary Hanley married Robert Hepburn in 1900 , 2 months before she turned 16 (this wasnt known to anyone until she died).She had her first child Mary in 1903,she always told everyone she had 12 children but we can only ever find 11.From 1903 until 1926 she had one every 2 years,i was thinking how did she not have any in the first 3 years of her marraige ? I was thinking she may have had one then that maybe died as another 2 of her children died as toddlers and she counted them in amongst her 12.Can anyone help ?

Hello,

There is no way of knowing how many children she had from a birth certificate.

There is one Hepburn child born in Ballingry in 1900. Perhaps this is your missing birth.

Kind regards,
Annette M

[paddyscar]

Hi Melvinboy:

Where were they from, or where were they married? It might narrow down the possibilities.

I've not seen such a thing on birth registrations, but that's not to say it never happens. Some one with more knowledge about them will confirm that for you.

1900-1902, she may have had miscarried a child, or even not actually conceived during that time (it does happen)

As to 12 children, rather than the 11 you can count up, is it possible one of those 11 births involved twins, one of whom died? A twin birth would be noted on the birth registry.

Frances

[melvinboy]

They married in Ballingry in 1900,then they moved through to Lanark in 1901/2 and then they moved back to Fife where they stayed until they both died in the 60's.I will check the Ballingry death out this may have been the missing child,thanks.

[ASGROOMBRIDGE]

I have a fantastic birth registration from February 1855, it states that the mother Lucinda Semple maiden name Murray her 5th child, it also states that there were 3 boys living 1 boy and 1 girl decesed. It is a double page document.

It also gives the age of the parents as well as date of marriage.

lovely document,

Audrey

[DavidWW]

Unfortunately it was only in 1855 that there was the info on the previous wains, but just numbers of males and females, further split between living and deceased.

Note that some registrars got confused and included the child who was the subject of the 1855 registration in the total.

David

[ASGROOMBRIDGE]

Yes this one did, sadly the poor wee chap passed only a couple of months later,

Audrey

[David Lang]

I had this problem with my Great Grandparents , we knew they had at least 9 children , my dad remebers his aunts and uncles.

We also knew where they stayed ( or so we thought!!!) Born Campbeltown/dumbarton , married Campeltown , 1901 Census Dumbarton.

I just narrowed the years down to when I knew a child was born and where they where living.This gave me gaps when there could have been a child born.

So on to SP and searched the required Parish using the surname, I did deaths as well as I thought if they died young their DC will be there.

I got another 2 this way including my grandfather's twin sister.

I hazarded a guess using the naming patterns that ther might be a Lachlan Lang in there somewhere , searched it and low and behold he was there but boen in Dunfermline, also died there as did his younger sister.

Its not that hard a piece of paper and the rough facts can narrow the search greatly

[DavidWW]

A worthwhile technique in a situation such as faced David here is to assume that the family stuck to the traditional naming pattern, -

First son named after father's father
Second son named after mother's father
Third son named after father
First daughter named after mother's mother
Second daughter named after father's mother
Third daughter named after mother

Especially where a commonly occurring surname is involved, this can cut down the number of possible births that need to be considered.

OK, if the family didn't stick to the above, or similar patterns, then it could be time wasted (incidentally, such a search will also pick up the alternative naming pattern where the order of the paternal and maternal names used was reversed so the the mother's father's name was used for the first son, etc......), but most often, I've found, worth the effort.

In addition, any births where there are family surnames used as middle names have to be prime candidates !

David

[Rockford]

Second son named after father's mother
Third son named after mother

No wonder they're so hard to find......

It's good advice, though, I've found a few relations by using the naming patterns, although it's sometimes easy to confuse generations, which is a bit of pain. I was convinced that official records were wrong when I found two brothers going to the USA to stay with their auntie, who I was convinced for weeks was their sister....

I wonder if people in years to come will have difficulty with the Kylies, Jasons and Chardonnays!!

Brian