Translation needed on two records
I was looking to verify if Peter Olaus Petersen LVNX-2HC, and Jacobine Olsdatter G4BD-M1F had any children between 1863 and 1867, most of their children are 2 or less years apart in age. I also searched the stillbirths and deaths to make sure there wasn't something there. I'm just cleaning up the mess of two brothers who have the same wife and children in family search. I'm trying to find all children in the Digital Archives so that I have proof of the correct relationship, so that I can clean up this mess.
Anyway in my exhaustive searching, I've found a bit of a conundrum. It seems that Peter Olaus Petersen of Aursnes and his wife Jacobine Olsdatter had a still birth 10 January 1867. It's the second entry.... https://media.digitalarkivet.no/en/view/6482/33677/13
Also this couple has a birth of a daughter Marte Nicoline GC43-5QZ two days after the stillbirth. Marte's birthdate is 12 January 1867. https://media.digitalarkivet.no/en/view/6482/33679/46 entry #11.
What do you make of this? Is there any information in either record as to why a stillborn child is listed on the 10 January 1867 and then a live child, given a name is born 2 days later? Please help me make sense of this seemingly screwy information.
Thanks,
Anne Lund
Best Answers
-
I've looked back and forth on these several times and all I can say is that you are reading the records correctly and anyone that could explain this is long gone. You are stuck with the records as they stand.
I can come up with three theories for you, none of which has any evidence and none of which can possibly be proven. They are all based on the fact that the priest did not write down the birth date until April 18 when Marte Nicoline was christened and the midwife did not report the stillbirth until February 15.
1) These two were twins and the priest wrote down the wrong birthdate for Marte Nicoline. It should have been January 10.
2) These two were twins and the midwife reported the wrong date for the stillbirth, it should have been January 12.
3) January was really busy and the midwife got confused and reported the wrong parents for the stillbirth. It was on January 10 but the parents were not Peter Olaus and Jacobine.
As I said, you can never know and will just have to decide how to record this interesting set of facts in Family Tree. However you do, you will have to include a very long note.
(P.S. I only found your question hiding here in Other because I was wandering around still trying to figure out the best way to use and help out in this new community. If you have other Nordic questions, be sure to join the Nordic Countries Genealogy Research Group at https://community.familysearch.org/en/group/137-nordic-countries-genealogy-research and post them there so the people that can best help will see them.)
1 -
I was talking your question over with my wife and she reminded me of another, quite terrifying for everyone involved, possibility.
Sometimes when twins are being being born, after the first twin is delivered, the uterus will spasm and labor will basically stop. Maybe the records are completely accurate and this was just a horrible day. The labor was long and hard. The first twin was born and died on January 10. Jacobine's labor slowed or even stopped and it took another two days for effective labor to start up and for the second twin, who was very lucky to still be alive, to be delivered. No C-sections in those days.
This article: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2214911217300620 has this interesting fact:
"In twin pregnancies, the birth of the first fetus is usually followed by the birth of the second twin in a short-time interval, on average 1.1 days."
1 -
Sorry, all this is pure speculation on the part of me and my wife. Nothing there to prove anything, I'm afraid. All you can do is take the records a face value and make of them what you can, explaining everything in a nice note.
When you look at the stillbirth record, its second column, last line, you will see:
(Qvindkj.)
That is, Qvindekjøn or Kvinnekjøn in modern spelling = female.
0
Answers
-
Thank you Gordon, these are some very interesting ideas. In either the birth or the stillbirth are there any notes that would support the theory of a delayed second twin birth? And does the record of the still birth indicate what gender the child was?
0 -
Thank you so much Gordon. I'll have to pray about it to know what to do. I appreciate your support. I think I should seal this little daughter to her parents.
0 -
Here is a "copy" of the stillbirth record. Could you please look at it. It doesn't list the mother, only the father Peter Olaus? Petersen of Aursnes. There is different information in the last column. Different than the official doucment. The official lists 10 January 1867 as the still birth date, and the copy lists 12 January 1867 which is the date the possible twin sister was born. This copy record also doesn't seem to have a gender listed. Can you tell me what the new information is in the last column, and give me your expert opinion on if this is actually a copy of the official record? I don't understand why a copy would be different than the official. Why no mother? Why different information in the column where the report and midwife are usually listed? I know these questions may not have an answer, but if you think this is a record for the same stillbirth I'll add it to my sources as proof of more information.
Thanks so much for helping me sort this out.
0 -
Here is a "copy" of the stillbirth record. Could you please look at it. It doesn't list the mother, only the father Peter Olaus? Petersen of Aursnes. There is different information in the last column. Different than the official doucment. The official lists 10 January 1867 as the still birth date, and the copy lists 12 January 1867 which is the date the possible twin sister was born. This copy record also doesn't seem to have a gender listed. Can you tell me what the new information is in the last column, and give me your expert opinion on if this is actually a copy of the official record? I don't understand why a copy would be different than the official. Why no mother? Why different information in the column where the report and midwife are usually listed? I know these questions may not have an answer, but if you think this is a record for the same stillbirth I'll add it to my sources as proof of more information.
0