Genealogy Chat
Welcome to the Genes Reunited community boards!
- The Genes Reunited community is made up of millions of people with similar interests. Discover your family history and make life long friends along the way.
- You will find a close knit but welcoming group of keen genealogists all prepared to offer advice and help to new members.
- And it's not all serious business. The boards are often a place to relax and be entertained by all kinds of subjects.
- The Genes community will go out of their way to help you, so don’t be shy about asking for help.
Quick Search
Single word search
Icons
- New posts
- No new posts
- Thread closed
- Stickied, new posts
- Stickied, no new posts
Brothers born 9 months apart
Profile | Posted by | Options | Post Date |
---|---|---|---|
|
Paul Barton, Special Agent | Report | 13 Feb 2010 18:40 |
My great grandfather John Stewart was born 26th December 1867. I've just found a brother born 29th August 1868. Is it possible for a woman to become pregnant immediately after childbirth? Thomas was baptised the following year. |
|||
|
brummiejan | Report | 13 Feb 2010 18:47 |
Well, unusual but possible. And the 2nd brother might have been born a little early. I assume you are sure of your info? |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
MayBlossomEmpressofSpring | Report | 13 Feb 2010 18:48 |
Yes, |
|||
|
PollyPoppet | Report | 13 Feb 2010 18:53 |
Hi if you google it will tell you |
|||
|
Ann | Report | 13 Feb 2010 18:56 |
Perhaps its the baptism date you have. Some children were not baptised for a few years after birth. Although if this was the case they would prob ably had the two brothers baptised on same day. |
|||
|
doddsy1 | Report | 13 Feb 2010 19:32 |
My husbands brother is 10 months younger than him. One born July, one born the following May |
|||
|
AnnCardiff | Report | 13 Feb 2010 22:06 |
my Dad and one of his brothers were born within the same twelve months |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Click ADD REPLY button - not this link! | Report | 13 Feb 2010 22:22 |
That's actually 8 months after the birth of John or 35 weeks. A normal pregnancy is about 38 weeks, so this baby would have been premature too. Premature babies wouldn't stand much chance years ago. |
|||
Researching: |
|||
|
Julie | Report | 13 Feb 2010 22:25 |
If the 2nd baby was born on his due date then no cos Mum would have fallen pregnant between the 22nd November & the 6th December for him to be born on the 29th August |
|||
|
Paul Barton, Special Agent | Report | 14 Feb 2010 08:20 |
Thank you everybody for that. The birth dates were added to their baptism records, so I think they should be accurate. Their parents were both young, so no chance of an older sister. Thomas must have been premature. I think he may have died the following year. |
|||
|
brummiejan | Report | 14 Feb 2010 08:34 |
Being born at 34-35 weeks wouldn't affect the survival of most infants, but as he was smaller than average he would probably have been a bit more vulnerable. But then so many children died young, so who can say? |
|||
Researching: |