General Chat

Don't discount a possible infant death of the first child and the same name being used for a susequent one.

thanks Shirley, Im pretty certain that he wasnt the bioogical father of this child but I guess if both parties say that he was then thats the reason why its been reregistered. I guess the original birth dcertificate wouldnt have any fathers details on. It would appear then that an adoption was unlikely.

bit of a dead end im afraid!

thanks for your input tho
Sue

I know of an instance where a child was born to a single mum so reg in her surname. when she later married her new husband wanted to adopt the child so that they all had the same surname . He and the birth mum had to go through a formal adoption even though the mum was his biological mum. The new name is on the adoptions register and not the normal GRO record His first birth record has a small s against the page number so anyone applying for the cert would only get the small version which doesnt show the parents details

the parents were probably the same just not married when the child was born so the birth was under the mums maiden name. Once they married the child can be registered under fathers surname Would only apply if it was the birth father

yes i think the mother married after my relative was born, but this is in the last 20 years so thecopy of original records are not online just info from the database. WOuld the child have been legally adopted by the new partner for this to happen?
thanks

Could be re registered. Did the mother marry between the dates?
PS
Is there a note against the first reg?

Hi
I am puzzled by a relative who seems to appear in the births register on 2 seperate years under different surnames. Mothers maiden name is the same, same county and same christian names for the relative. Does this mean a possible adoption as I understood adopted chuildren only appeared under the original registration
thanks