Genealogy Chat

Please see below - - - - -

Your opinions please on the following: On 7 April 1861 Philip and Emmeline Tweed were recorded in the census living in Cheveley, Cambridgeshire with a daughter Emma aged 1 month. On the same census Philip’s parents James and Hannah Tweed, also in Cheveley, were recorded with a 1 month old son Joseph. Joseph Luke Tweed’s birth was registered Q1 1861 Newmarket 3b 511 Emma Tweed’s birth was registered Q2 1861 Newmarket 3b 544 On 22 March 1861 Philip and E Tweed had a son, Joseph Luke baptised in Cheveley parish church On 18 August 1861 Philip and Emmeline Tweed had a daughter Emma baptised in Cheveley parish church. * * * * * * * * * * * * On 10 Nov 1872 William and Hannah Tweed had a daughter Edith Ellen baptised at Ashley parish church On 5 Jan 1873 William and Hannah Tweed had a son Charles James baptised at Cheveley parish church. Charles James Tweed’s birth was registered Q4 1872 Newmarket 3b 559 Edith Ellen Tweed’s birth was registered Q4 1872 Newmarket 3b 573 On 3 April 1881 William (aged 38 born Cheveley) and Hannah were recorded on the census living in Ashley with a family which included Edith aged 8 On the same census Charles Tweed aged 8 was living with his grandparents William and Sarah Millington (Sarah was previously Mrs Sarah Tweed and had a son William born 1843 What was going on here? TWINS were a regular occurrence in the Tweed family, so am I justified in thinking in both these cases the children were twins but grandparents not only took on care of one child but registered the birth and organised the baptism of ‘their’ child?

Do you have the birth certificates? That would establish if the children were twins. Also from the information you give, The babies were baptised by their parents but on different dates, I would think that unusual but nothing more than that. It just looks like the children could have been staying with their grandparents on census night. Pat

I can't think of a reason for NOT registering twins at the same time. If they were registered together, their names would be on the same (or successive) pages of the GRO index. Were there any daughters of childbearing age at the time? It seems that there were no less than NINE William TWEEDs baptised in Cheveley in the 1840s!

No birth certs yet as not my direct line, just an intriguing situation which I came across when sorting my files. Don't think its just children staying with g parents for a short time as in the first case they were claiming him as a son and in the second he was still there 10 years later. Even if they were twins I'm not sur the certs would have the time of birth as they weren't actually registered together.

Geoff, I assumed at first that they belonged to another parent but its those baptism entries which are intriguing me.

In the case of Joseph and Emma, I see what you mean. Joseph is staying with his 'parents/Grandparents' in 1861, 71 and 1881. On the IGI, There is a batism for 2 Emma Tweed for that date, Same parents. Have you seen it? Your one is Chevely, Cambridge. The other is Chevely, Suffolk. That Emma died 24/04/1862. Maybe she was a twin to Joseph and their grandparents took Joseph becaues Emma was sick? and her parents couldn't cope? Just a thought. Pat

I've just realised how silly my first reply was - they might not have times of birth on like usual twin registrations but they would have same date of birth, address and (hopefully) parents on the certificates. Problem is can I justify forking out £14 on this just to satisfy curiosity when they are really distant cousins.

Thanks Pat, I haven't 'killed off' all my lot yet so hadn't got that death on file- it would certianly explain the situation for Joseph and Emma . I think the Chevely, Suffolk entry is a member submitted entry - Cheveley is very near the Cambridgeshire/Suffolk border and there must have been someone who submitted a tree full of entries with the wrong county.

Have you ACTUALLY seen the Baptisms for yourself? I had a siuation where my 3 x GGF appears to be the fourth of ten children. I sent for his BC which listed him with the 'correct' parents (i.e., the people I THOUGHT were his parents). He appeared as a child of this family on three census.All ten children were baptised and these entries appeared on the IGI as Extractions. Only idle curiosity made me actually check the Baptisms. Nine of the ten children were correct. The tenth - my 3 x GGF - has the correct date of baptism BUT - he is the illegitimate child of his 'father's' sister! He was obviously taken on by his Aunt and Uncle and brought up as their child. I cannot work out why this entry was adulterated on the IGI and can only assume that either the Vicar, when writing out the yearly returns for the Bishop,(I used the Primary copy of the register, not the BTs) decided to hide the fact of my Ancestor's illegitimacy (the family had local clout) OR the Transcriber is somehow connected to this family and equally decided to bend the facts a bit. It only goes to prove what I keep saying - they will happily tell barefaced lies to the Registrar (who probably doesnt know them anyway) but draw the line at lying to a man of God (who probably does know all about them anyway) Olde Crone

Yes, these are taken from the register rather than the IGI. I suppose it could still be that the vicar wrote up the register later and entered wrong names, though its unlikely the Cheveley vicar would name a couple who were actually living in Ashley by mistake I agree about the way people would tell the truth in church but lie to the registrar - have several cases like that; though I also have acouple who claimed to be married when they baptised each of their 9 children and married 20 years after the birth of the last child - but that was London so I suppose they were able to find a vicar who didn't know them!