Genealogy Chat

Hi, Please can you put me right on this, because I thought each birth had to have a different GRO ref? So if there were twins I thought that they would be just one or a few numbers away from each other? Does anyone know please. Suzanne

NO..........the ref no: refer to the Vol and page number there are more than two on a page some from other families all with the same page and volume number the certificate itself will have different numbers. So unless they run out of room on the page the twins would have the same Ref No

Thanks F.C. (Why do I feel ashamed - maybe because Ive been doing this family tree thing for so long I think I should know everything!!) Suzanne

But Suzanne if you knew everything you wouldn't need to be on here............what fun would that be. Fiona. Who's glad she dosen't know everything!

i can't remember the name for sure,was it the Walton sextuplets from a few years ago,i bet that entry really looks different. Glen

It's true - I've just checked on Ancestry and my twin sister and I both have the same reference number.

I have twins in my family with different reference numbers.

Imagine the mum visiting the registrar. He or she had a book to write the birth cert records in. He/she took all the details. At the end of the Q the registrar had to copy out all the birth registations from his records onto loose sheets for the GRO. You could fit eight birth records onto each side of each sheet. The sheets would be numbered, so the first 8 registrations would have a page number and the next eight the following page number and so on. So several babies would have the same GRO reference when they were eventually indexed by the GRO. If the mum had a multiple birth then often the children would all have the same page ref. But if when the regiatrar copied the details onto his end of Q sheets, one twin was the last on a page and the next twin was the first on the following page, then they would have different page numbers for their GRO ref. Merry

I have twins with different reference numbers. Kim

Hi Suzzane, Tje twins name may not be together as if its a common name they are placed by the first name alphabetically, (so its its a Smith there could be pages in between). My twins though had consecutive numbers and same reg dist obviously. Sheila

I don't think they were placed alphabetically for GRO indexing purposes, but by the order in which they were registered. Otherwise you would see names all from the same part of the alphabet sharing a page of GRO index......but you don't. See my previous reply. (Names are sorted into alphabetical within each page if you view on FreeBMD) Merry

This thread got me thinking about the Walton sextuplets. I had nothing better to do, so looked them up in December 1983. One was 36 0580, two were 36 0581, two were 36 0582 and one was 36 0583. You might be interested!

going on what John has found about the Wlaton sextruplets it seems to have no ryhmh or reason but I think generally speaking for multiple births you can almost guarantee that the page numbers will be the same or if not then at least just a few numbers away. Suzanne

John's refs for the sextuplets follows the same system as the Victorian era, except there must only be two entries to a page, so: someone elses baby was the registration taking the first entry on page 1580, then the first of the six, next page, second and third of the six, (0581) next page, fourth and fifth of the six (0582) next page, last of the six and someone elses baby. (page 0583) Merry

That's what I thought - 2 children per page. Just a change in stationary!

My Grandad was a twin but him and his sister have different page numbers

I came across an entry the other day which gave 190 and 190A respectively as the page numbers!!

I have twins alphabetically a page apart, but running birth refs 5a 640, and 641 unfortunately they died and have the same ref. 5a 510 Bob