Do you have an explanation for this, two children born 4 months apart? [closed]

Question

I came across this, here are two siblings born 4 months apart.

"Connecticut Births and Christenings, 1649-1906," database, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F7W8-2GD : 11 February 2018), Miriam Fillmore, 22 Nov 1738; citing ; FHL microfilm unknown.

"Connecticut Births and Christenings, 1649-1906," database, FamilySearch(https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:F742-14R : 11 February 2018), Nathaniell Fillmore, 20 Mar 1739; citing ; FHL microfilm unknown.

Same parents, same place

Comments

Aside from the probably correct explanation below, another could be that one or both dates are for christenings, not births

---

I know this is a late comment, but I have such a case and I do know what happened. Story goes like this, about 1910 - (the story came from the sister of Martha, and I located the birth records to support the story)

Martha goes to hospital in June and delivers a stillborn son, his birth is in the public record with both parents.

Martha comes home from the hospital in June with a 3 month old daughter, her birth is in the public with both parents.

Both children are linked to the parents. Both birthdates are correct. I have found no record of the adoption, but maybe they just gave Martha the foundling and ʻfixedʻ the birth registration?

---

It is scientifically possible that a woman can give birth to babies at different months of her pregnancy. This happens when the woman has two uteruses. It just happened recently:

https://www.livescience.com/65104-woman-gives-birth-twice-double-uterus.html

---

Not 4 months apart it isn't.  The answer was already given as an error in double dating.

Mariam Fillmore born 22 November 1738

Nathaniel Fillmore born 20 March 1739/40

---

Although this particular case may be answered as a dating error, it is scientifically possible for women to have births any number of months apart, although it is rare. Some women have two uteruses and are capable of carrying multiple babies with different birth months. If you have read the article I linked to, you would see that this just happened.

---

Astoundingly rare, to the point it should never be considered as an answer to a genealogical problem which is what you are implying.  And no it is not possible, even in this case of a double uterus, for births to be any months apart.  The hormones and physiology of pregnancy prevent it.

---

You say it is not possible, and yet I just provided a very recent, well-documented case of it happening.

---

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/04/07/doctors-stunned-by-rare-twins-born-more-than-five-weeks-apart/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.44b4d0ee5f85

https://abcnews.go.com/Health/identical-twin-brothers-set-birthdays-months-due-rare/story?id=34471323

https://www.verywellfamily.com/can-twins-have-different-birthdays-2447129

---

The two eggs had to be fertilized at the same time.  The 26 day interval is near the limits of possibility of two natural childbirths in the situation given.

Again, it is astoundingly rare, to the point it should never be considered as an answer to a genealogical problem which is what you are implying. 

---

There have been cases where a woman was fertilised in two separate ovulation periods.  In other words, she was already pregnant and somehow the body didn't recognise that and ovulated again the following month (or the next one after).

Such things are rare, always have been, always will be.

---

Joe, If two people are born from a mother with two uteruses, and they both lived to have children of their own, then to arbitrarily deny one of them their heritage because you refuse to believe it goes against fair genealogy practices.

I am saying that the possibility for multiple births less than 9 months apart is proven to be real. I am saying that it must have happened before. I am saying that if there is strong evidence that two people came months apart from the same mother, then we must accept the possibility that the mother had two uteruses, rather than to arbitrarily deny one of those children their heritage.

I am also saying that this situation is rare, and that we should first look for other explanations, which are much more likely. Just don't throw the baby out with your disbelief. Keep an open mind.

---

Strong evidence is not good enough.  Try extraordinary evidence which you will not find anywhere in the genealogical record outside of the times of recent modern medicine.

Making up hypotheticals is a disservice as it allows people to try and explain away clearly incorrect genealogy.

Joe Cochoit MD

---

Strong evidence is all there is in genealogy. There is nothing else.

---

Then we are back to this never being an explanation for impossible dates.

---

The evidence shows there are no impossible dates. That is where we are with this.

---

And that attitude right there is why this is a problem.  It is just a complete lack of common sense.

---

The evidence shows there are no impossible dates. That is where we are with this.

We know humans are imperfect in our record keeping, but we also see that the world is imperfect in adhering to a set of seemingly concrete rules.

The fact that we know this has happened means there should be accurate genealogy records depicting the reality of similar events. What would truly be impossible would be if this has never happened before.

Answer 1

Nathaniel was born in the year we consider to be 1740.  The 1739 date should read 1739/40.  I verified this in the American Ancestors database, Norwich Vital Records, Norwich - V1, p. 114.

Comments

Unfortunately, family search results routinely use the first year in a double-date situation rather than the correct second year. That is one reason I prefer American Ancestors, because their entry disclosed both dates; i.e., the 1739/40 example you give. Thanks for a good answer; I would have chosen it as best if it hadn't been already chosen.

---

I think we forget that both the Julian and Gregorian calendars were in use during much of he histories of our families so you will see two dates for many people depending on which calendar was being used by the person creatng the record. It took ore than 300 years for the complete abandonment of the Julian calendar in favor of the Gregorian that more closely reflects the time taken for the earth to circle the sun. Various countries changed at different times but even after the Julian was dropped in favor of the gregorian, many individuals did not switch so there was lag time. The US changed in  Sept. 1752 with the loss of 10 days making this a very short month.The last country to switch was turkey in 1926/27. While most of the world now uses the Gregorian calendar, there are many othres in use especially by religions that determine dates for holidays abd festivals. For business use the Gregorian is used in most places.

Answer 2

Robin, the only reasonable explanation I can think of in my simple mind is that there is an error in one of the records, either in the original record or in the indexing  Unfortunately you can't see the original records.