Birth Being Re-Registered

[Rockford]

Hi Everyone,

I was at New Register House for my first visit yesterday and thoroughly enjoyed myself. It seemed weird first of all poking about in the recent records, but I got so engrossed that time and sustenance passed me by! I've now got pages of information that I'll probably spend weeks sorting out!

However, two records in particular have me puzzled. Both were fairly recent - a birth in the 1920s, and a marriage in the 1930s so I've pared down the information to the basics but would appreciate any suggestions....

The birth was registered in 192X in a rural parish in the Central Belt. No father was given, just the mother's name. Nothing unusual in that I'd imagine, as the mother wouldn't be the first farm worker to have a child outwith marriage. However, what's confusing me is that there is a note in the margin of the 192X entry, which reads "Re -Registered 18/0X/194X". There is no RCE and there was no corresponding entry in the records for 194X.
If the mother is who I think she is, she married someone from the farm 6 years after the birth took place, but this would have been nearly ten years before the the "re-registration" took place.

I'm puzzled......

The marriage that I'm confused about took place under Sheriff's Warrant in Edinburgh in 193X.

On the certificate, no bride's father's name is given in the normal space and next to the mother's name it reads "AA BBB, subsequently married to XX ZZZ". Now I would've thought that there were two options - the child had been born before the mother was married (either to Mr ZZZ or anyone else) and when BBB and ZZZ met and married they brought up the child together, although not adopted by Mr ZZZ. The second option is that Mr ZZZ was the father and was not acknowledged as such at the time of the birth. I didn't find the birth record as they rang the bell at 4.30 and I had to leave....

Does anyone have any thoughts?

Brian

[AndrewP]

Hi Brian,

The re-registered birth should be there in the index somewhere. Is it a name (surname or given name(s)) that may have been mis-spelled?

<strike>If</strike> When you are back in New Register House, make these problem searches your first ones to do upon arrival. Assuming the re-registration had to take place in the same registration district as the original registration was made and a thorough search of the on-screeen index gives no result, then go to the microfiche indexes. Each registration district has an aplhabetical index for each year. It is possible that the entry is missing from or mis-spelled on the computer index, but can be found on the hand-written index on the microfiche.

If you do find the entry there, report it to the search room supervisor to allow them to confirm it and update the index.

As for the missing bride's father's name on the marriage certificate, it certainly sounds like this child was not the subsequent husband's child and that the birth father was never acknowledged, or possibly unknown (rape could be one consideration there). Had the subsequent husband been the father, then he should have been listed as father, whether or not they were married before the birth.

All the best,

AndrewP

[joette]

Re the marriage & it occurs in Death certificates too & Father's name.
I have one marriage certificate -I am presuming the Father was the Father They weren't married his name is not on the certificate but he is registered as Andrew Scott Young(his mother married William Scott about a year later)On his marriage/death he is listed as Andrew Scott-illegitimate Mother later married to William Scott-yet I am sure William is his Father.
I also have two illegitimate offspring where one the Father is known & named,the other name blank.With both(one Marriage,one Death ) no mention of Father's name just subquently married to Joe Bloggs.

[DavidWW]

.....snipped.............

The birth was registered in 192X in a rural parish in the Central Belt. No father was given, just the mother's name. Nothing unusual in that I'd imagine, as the mother wouldn't be the first farm worker to have a child outwith marriage. However, what's confusing me is that there is a note in the margin of the 192X entry, which reads "Re -Registered 18/0X/194X". There is no RCE and there was no corresponding entry in the records for 194X.
If the mother is who I think she is, she married someone from the farm 6 years after the birth took place, but this would have been nearly ten years before the the "re-registration" took place.

I'm puzzled......

......snipped............Brian

The most likely reason for such a re-registration is that the child/person involved decided that they wanted their birth certificate to show the name of their father; this being done via a re-registration, and there should be a matching record in the indexes. If you can't find it next time, seek the assistance of one of the NRH supervisors, - if the first one can't solve it, then persist until you get someone who knows what they're talking about.

For such a re-registration I have to confess that I'm unsure what standard and level of proof was required, - some I'd imagine, but did it require a court action ??............

David