I know you like a puzzle!

[Rach]

As the date was only 1908 I am not writing full names or address. This is the Edinburgh scenario:
1. Newspaper cutting [no date]: WANTED, respectable couple to adopt child from birth: premium, no after claim.
2. 10 April Mrs R [the mother] writes to Mr and Mrs M to say 'that the event will not take place for a week or two yet. The premium offered is £5'. She goes on to say that she thinks that they will be suitable people.
3. 16 April Mrs R again writes to the above. She acknowledges that they have agreed to take baby and regrets that she cannot pay more than £5.
3. 29 May Mrs R signs witnessed letter to say that she has given child over to Mr & Mrs M and will make no after claim.
4. 3 June A Mr W [this is the only time he is mentioned] writes to Mr and Mrs M in which he says that he is glad to know that the baby was getting on nicely and telling them that the baby's mother is still at [house where she gave birth]. He agrees that Mr M can come to his office to meet him and he will go with him [it doesn't say where].
5. There is a birth certificate but the parents named on it are Mr & Mrs M and the address is where the baby's mother was living [which is not Mr & Mrs M's address]. It is signed by a Doctor.
6. There is a later birth certificate [which the child found in later years] giving the place of birth as the usual residence of Mr & Mrs M - not Edinburgh.
Mrs M couldn't have children of her own.
Can anyone explain why the birth wasn't registered in the birth mother's name? I know that at that time adoptions didn't have to be registered but I thought that the birth mother would have to be registered on the birth cert.
Mr W [not in the legal profession] was a widower with 6 children under 18.
Any thoughts on this would be most welcome.
Sorry it seems a bit long-winded
Rae

[SarahND]

Hi Rae,
My experience with a similar situation in the U.S. may not be relevant... but in case:

This was in 1916. The mother died of eclampsia at the birth of the child. There was a birth certificate, but it just says "female child" and the mother's name, stating that the mother died 1/2 hour later. I would never have found it if I hadn't known the exact date and place of birth. Ten months later, when the child was adopted, a new birth certificate was issued as if the adopted parents were the actual birth parents of the child. However, the original cert was not destroyed, and was there for me to find in the county archives 85 years later.

In your case, it may well also be the case that the birth certificate has no name indicated for the child.

All the best,
Sarah

[LesleyB]

Hi Rae
Not sure I can shed any light on the situation... but I just wondered, given the sequence of dates you have mentioned in April May and June, was the first birth certiificate issued at the time the baby was born, or later? And how much later was the second one dated?

Is/are the birth certificate(s) a standard GROS one, with refs. to the book in which the entry has originally been made? My thoughts would be to check at GROS for the original entry in the books, just incase there is anything else to be found.

I'm not sure what the proceedure was in 1908, and that would perhaps be another area to follow up - what paperwork a person would have needed to produce, if any, to register a birth. If no proof or papers were needed, I supose it would be possible to register a birth and give what information you prefered.

Best wishes
Lesley

[Rach]

Sarah and Lesley,
Thank you very much to you both for the replies. I will have a look at the ideas you have given to me and see if I can come up with anything.
Best wishes,
Rae

[joette]

I have read that it was not uncoomon for people to register the birth as if they were the parents.

I know of one in my family where the baby was left on the doorstep-they knew who the Mother was & were compensated for taking the child in,registering the Birth with them as parents,having the child christened & as far as I know the child never knew the truth.

The elder siblings had an inkling especially when this child was given educational & other opportunities the others were not-which was sad as he squandered them with the other sibs making their own way very successfully.

I had this story from my Granny & dismissed it but there are a few wee clues to it along the way.She like me had "big lugs"
The child name,the fact that the Mother was around 46-not unusual in this family mind you & in photos looks different from the other children.

[Rach]

Thank you, Joette.
That must have been what happened here with the registering of the birth as if they were the parents. I suppose both parties were happy to be secretive about it - the birth mother because she was not able to keep the child - the adoptive mother because she would be over the moon to have a child, perhaps without anyone knowing she couldn't have children.
However at that time, unlike today, adoption wasn't spoken about and it was a shock to the adult in later life when documents were discovered.
Best wishes,
Rae