Hi Rob I checked with the register office and Elizabeth and Thomas were twins! The number for his certificate is DNLAN7-390. This is if you order it online from the register office. You will find though that the only difference in the certificate is the name, time of birth and sex of the child, so you will need to think about whether it is worth buying at the moment. I had a similar experience. I bought the certificate for my great grandmother and I was just walking down the drive from the register office, when the register came running out crying, "wait! wait!" I went back and she said that she had noticed the time on the certificate and had realised it was a multiple birth and wanted to know if I wanted to buy the other certificate. Of course I did! Regarding John and Dorothy's marriage. They may not have been married in County Durham at all. There was a great number of people coming from all over the UK into Durham as the coal fields were opened. Maybe they came from some other part of the country. My grandmother married in Cumberland and almost straight after the wedding she moved into County Durham and had her children there. Best wishes Susan ----- Original Message ----- From: "Robyn Leeds" <honey@honeyshome.com> To: <ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [ENG-DUR] Elizabeth ARMSTRONG > Hi Geoff :) > > Thanks very much for clarifying this for me! :D I WILL one day know enough about English genealogy to not have to ask "silly" questions ... well one can hope anyway! :D > > Take care, > > Rob.l > IBSSG > Stuttgart, Germany > Honey's Home of Genealogy > www.honeyshome.com > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: GNicresearch@aol.com > To: ENG-DURHAM-L@rootsweb.com > Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 9:55 AM > Subject: Re: [ENG-DUR] Elizabeth ARMSTRONG > > > > In a message dated 21/07/2004 00:03:05 GMT Daylight Time, > honey@honeyshome.com writes: > > Would the page number be "FC 544243"? That's the only number on the > certificate but that could just be their number from this year, not 1848, couldn't > it? Wait, hang on ... The number in the first column is 389, is THAT the > number you mean? I didn't mention this in my first post either, but the > registration district is/was Lanchester, birth in the sub-district of Lanchester, > County of Durham. > > > > What was meant by the page number is not something you would find on the > certificate irself. It is the number of the page in the Registrar General's > book of copies of certificates. This is the reference to be found in the GRO > indexes (the one we should NOT quote unless we are ordering a certificate from > the FRC in London, who now have those books: it is meaningless to a local > registrar who has his own books). That reference will begin with a code for the > region, possibly "25" for the period you mentioned: later 10a, followed by > the page number. As there were, I think, four certificates per page, multiple > births might have been recorded on the same, or on consecutive pages. You > should check through the GRO indexes (available on line for a fee) for any > entries with the same surname on the same, or an adjacent, page. If you find > any they may, or may not, be of a multiple birth to the same mother. > > I agree that in England the recording of the time of birth was done only > for multiple biirths - as a general rule. However, in Scotland, for the > first few quarters after the introduction of Civil Registration there, in 1855, > it was the norm for all births. There is always the possibility that the > local registrar hereabouts was an over-enthusiastic Scot, in the same > Presbyterian tradition of recording as much data as possible as gave us the "Dade" > parish registers of the midlands and south, the "Barrington" ones locally and, in > 1855, the early Scottish birth certificates! > . > Geoff Nicholson