Genealogy Chat

Hi,

Another query, I have found a birth record online which has Rose Godlemun b1912 Paddington listed but then there is a little mark alongside her name and at the bottom of the page there is a hand written entry for Hilda Godleman b1912 Paddington. I knew of Hilda but not Rose. They have the same mothers maiden name. Rose's vol and page number is 1a 84 and Hilda's is 1a 84a.

Is this simply a change of name or could it be twins?

Thanks :-)

it could just be a change of names

only ordering the certs will tell though

For our ref:
From FreeBMD:


Births Mar 1912 (>99%)
Godlemun Hilda L Godleman Paddington 1a 84a
Godlemun Rose Godleman Paddington 1a 84

Paddington, not Kensington, but apart from that the image of the index page shows what you've said.

Don't know, but I would guess they're twins.
Hilda has been omitted from the typed list by mistake, and added by hand afterwards?

Looking at the image on FreeBMD

One entry is handwritten at the bottom of page

Oops sorry, I have edited the original post.

Thank you for your help. I will have a look at ordering the certificates.

I can't see any later record - marriage , death, etc - in either name (unless perhaps wrongly spelled.)

Thank you for your help.

Sorry, Hilda was born as a Godlemun but her parents married a few months later. So when Hilda married she used her fathers surname but her birth is registered as Godlemun.

I can't find anything other than the birth for Rose so it must be a change of name?

Could be - the birth cert(s) will give you the answer, as already mentioned.

mother married 1912 Kensington (variant spelling)?

could this possibly be Rose's death, with age 11 misread as 41?

Deaths Jun 1923
GODLEMAN Rose 41 Kensington 1a 141

(it does say 41 in the index, but could have been mistranscribed there)

there is no birth to match that name and there is only one Rose + Godleman marriage that could account it, Fulham 1905, but that Rose had a middle name

From FreeBMD:

How can I tell if these two entries are for twins?

The two entries are for the same person - whilst a child must be registered within 6 weeks, it remains possible up to the child's first birthday, to change the names in baptism and have the record amended resulting in a second entry for the same person. In this case, because one of the entries is a late registration it is likely that it will have a suffix page number.

Rose

for the complete text, for info

http://www.freebmd.org.uk/search-faq.html#twin

I have found two birth entries with the same surname, same quarter and same district. How can I tell if these entries are for twins?

Basically there is no way you can tell for certain if they were twins but the registration information can indicate the most probable situation. There are three possibilities to consider:

- The two entries are for twins - in this case it is most likely that the page will be the same or one different between the two entries. However, one could envisage circumstances in which one twin was registered later than the other - unlikely but a possibility.

- The two entries are for different people - the page is likely to be different. Obviously if the mother's maiden name (post 1911 entries) is the same then being twins is more likely. Otherwise, for a very common surname or in a closed community with many people having the same surname it is not at all unlikely that two different people with the same surname could given birth in the same quarter.

- The two entries are for the same person - whilst a child must be registered within 6 weeks, it remains possible up to the child's first birthday, to change the names in baptism and have the record amended resulting in a second entry for the same person. In this case, because one of the entries is a late registration it is likely that it will have a suffix page number.


the third scenario does seem most like this one

the mother may have thought better of having a child with the same name :-)

From the marriage record, the mother's name was Rose - could she have misunderstood the question and have given her own name instead of the child's? The way to be sure is to buy the birth cert.

Oops!

I deleted my post re an Emily Godleman in 1911, whom I thought might have been the mother, but who clearly wasn't, in the light of Hilda's marriage cert details.

Then realised that makes JoonieCloonie's first sentence at 00:29 today meaningless to anyone reading the thread now - "mother married 1912 Kensington (variant spelling)?" - as she was talking about Emily, not Rose, the actual mother.

Sorry!

no, you're cool, ArgyllGran, that's the Rose marriage I was referring to - the variant spelling is of the surname. :-) ... GodlemAn (but born GodlemUn)

(I just wasnt sure whether BM wanted the names added here, since BM had referred to her only as "mother".)

that's also why I wondered about the 1923 Rose GodlemAn death.