I agree with you Jenny It seems some registrars were confused as to the rules on times on certificates in the early years Some registrars seem to have continued the practice for quite a time but it seems to have ceased by 1850 The only obvious way is to check several certificates around the one in question, not a very practical thing to do, a phone call to the local registrar might get some help though Also as still births were not recorded until 1927, it begs the question if one of twins was stillborn (so unregistered) would the other surviving twin have the time noted on the birth registration? Best wishes Nivard Ovington, in Cornwall (UK) > Time of birth being recorded on the birth registration is not always > exclusive to twins. I have a birth in 1841 where the time of birth is > given > on the certificate. I have searched the GRO index thoroughly for a second > birth in the same year, quarter, reg. district and surname there isn't one > at all. Maybe the case of an over efficient registrar, perhaps he was new > to the job and thought he ought to record every detail just in case. > > Regards > Jenny DeAngelis > Spain. > > <<> Just a note on this subject of twins which no one has mentioned yet. > If > they >> were twins it is almost certain that on both birth certificates there >> will >> be the time of birth recorded and this only normally appears in the case >> of twins.>>

HI Nivard I had wondered if there had been a still born twin and so only one is registered. But if that was the case maybe the time should not have been put on the certificate of the surviving twin. regards Jenny DeAngelis Spain. <<> I agree with you Jenny > It seems some registrars were confused as to the rules on times on > certificates in the early years > Some registrars seem to have continued the practice for quite a time but > it seems to have ceased by 1850 > The only obvious way is to check several certificates around the one in > question, not a very practical thing to do, a phone call to the local > registrar might get some help though > Also as still births were not recorded until 1927, it begs the question if > one of twins was stillborn (so unregistered) would the other surviving > twin have the time noted on the birth registration?<<