Confusing Birth Records of two children born in Toronto/Canada in same place/day.
A new family member has popped up that we did not know about. His name is Stephen He is unknown to us. Here is my research I provide. Its a bit verbose but I suppose I like to give the impression that I'm not trying to get someone else to do my work, but to show I have done some work myself but have not come to a conclusion.
Finding a new family member is nothing new, to genealogy research. However the mystery is that there is another person who we DO know about called John and he was born on the same day delivered by the same doctor in the same house. Same Parents.
Possible conclusions:
Maybe Twins, where one died (Steven) and thus was little known to subsequent family's, thus we didn't Know anything about it.
However I can't find any death records for Steven. Now this might be normal I suppose, in that families may have just quietly dealt with it. But one would think there would be a record of some sort. The birth record for Steven does not for example say Still Born as it does for others. Also the Birth register of the names are not together, eg one following the other in numeric order. They are far apart. I don't know how registers occur but I would have thought that if there were twins they would have been recorded together. Also if one died shortly after birth wouldn't that be registered?
Additional thought. In the one record there are two doctors present it appears. At the bottom of the pager there is a date, not a birth date. I ASSUME this is the register date. I wonder if the one doctor registered the one Childs birth on one date and the other on the other date. The two doctors might have done it at different times. Steven on July 20 and John on Nov 30. Thus they would appear at different places in the register.
Still all conjecture. It would be really helpful if I could find a death record of something for Steven if it is the case that he died (or even lived).
If you could provide any feedback or answers that would be great. Ps for us Steven is the odd man out. That is he is the one that we don't know anything about. Also one bit of additional info. The last name of Steven Has been listed as Huster, properly it is Hustler. I changed in on one DB maybe Ancenstry cant remember now. This is a common error to mispronounce the last name. Because it is a bit odd. I think the origin of it is from the leather industry and horses.
Here are the links.
Here is the birth of Stephen Hustler or Huster (as some have it)
https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/3:1:9Q97-Y3S8-FHD?view=index&action=view&cc=1784212&lang=en
Here is the birth of John Hustler (btw the fathers name is John Hustler also). It is also interesting that it appears on this record there were two doctors present. The same as the above record and another. If I read it right.
Thank you.
PS 1911 census has John 1 Years old listed but no Steven.
Comments
-
Very interesting. Per the records, John and Steven, born to the same parents, were not recorded at the same time. The initial name, Steven, never died, married or appeared in a census. John, a name that was not registered until several months after the birth, also appears in the 1911 and 1921 census. No Steven.
I also note that within the months between the first and second registration, the family had moved from Shaw Street to Mortimer St. And Mortimer Street does not give a specific street number.
Without definitive records, we cannot be certain. HOWEVER, it appears that the child Steven later was called John. This happens. My mother did not discover until after her marriage that her birth name, registered at birth, is nothing like what she went by. (Her parents divorced.) My friend named her son one thing and then a few months later changed it to something else (Scott became Lucas) - but I think they had the changed recorded. So it appears within a few months of birth, Steven's name was changed to John - I think. I quickly checked a couple family trees and do not find a Steven as a close ancestor (to be named after).
The family may have thought that registering the birth later as John corrected the record. Indeed, I am not sure why a second record of the birth would be made several months after, if not to change something. But that is conjecture.
A deeper search may find a baptism record (Church of England) for John, that might give his first and middle names. I do not see a middle initial on his marriage record.
0 -
Thank your kind help and interest.
The two name approach as you have stated could be true? The two Registers however is a nagging issue? But then I don't know the protocols of the registers. Also the two doctors in the one record another oddity. Oddly as coincidence would have it, I am a twin and later in life my mother had said that she meant one of the names that she gave to my brother, was meant for me. Your are right, from my research Steven never comes up again in connection with John eg John S Hustler. I have subsequently uploaded to FamilySearch the marriage certificate. No Steven is mentioned.
But if you like twists here is one.
So this John Jr. As I will call him does have a son and names him STEVEN. Born in 1950. Tragically in 1953 Drowns in Toronto harbor. Which really only adds more mystery. Did John Jr Use the name Steven for his son as a memory of his long lost twin brother who died earlier, or some sentimental reason as that was his first name his family named him???
Here is a link to Steven born in 1950
https://www.familysearch.org/en/tree/person/details/PS3P-CRF
So this goes in the well that's interesting/odd category??
I will, I think upload the document with the suggestion that this is the same person as John until further info comes to light. In other words accepting your explanation that this is the same person. Unless someone else provides some further evidence. I will not add Steven as a second name however of john as we have no evidence of that officially, nor will I add a additional brother of Steven. All to be safe.
Regards and thanks.
0 -
It occurs to me that the fact that two doctors were listed on the new record could be due to adjusting the initial listing (by changing the name). The family talked with the second doctor and requested a change to the record, and he also included the name of the doctor initially reporting the birth. This is just supposition/conjecture. But having two doctors indicated on the record is odd, especially since only one is listed on the record closer to the time of birth.
0 -
Thank you for your thoughts. This does provide some explanation for the two Registrations. I will include it in my explanation.
Thank you.
0
