crossed out entry on freebmd ?

[garstonite]

Thank you very much Merry ...I had an idea it was something to do with adoption - or should I say , because I knew she was adopted I tended to think that ...for the record - she went out with my wife last night ( she is 17 years younger ) and is now on the couch in front of me fast asleep worse the wear for too much white wine ....lol

thanks to all who answered - I think this little problem has been solved ...cheers
allan

[Olde Crone]

Oh dear, I struggle with this answer!

Why on earth would a BIRTH register have any reference to adoption - which is supposed to be private and is listed on a separate register of adoptions?

I think it is incidental to adoption and probably merely shows a change to the original birth cert before adoption takes place - perhaps to remove a father's name.

I have a friend who was born and then adopted in Liverpool in 1946. His birth reg shows no such "s" suffix.

OC

[kiterunner]

I found a post on an old Genes Reunited thread which says that:

"in these earlier birth indexes there is no indication or amendents to birth GRO indexes that show .....it was in 1960 that any indication that adoption or name alteration shows in the GRO indexes,,,

an adoption or name change will show the entry number for the adoptee in the Adopted Children Register,,,followed by--/S or /A.against the original birth GRO index"

http://www.genesreunited.co.uk/board...thread/1025826

I don't know whether this is correct, though.

[Merry]

That would fit with the two people I know of who are adopted whose birth names I know, One born 1935 and adopted in about 1940 - index entry looks normal. One born 1968 and adopted the same year - has a four figure page number followed by /S

[Olde Crone]

But can anyone suggest an administrative reason why adoption would be flagged up in this way in the GRO indexes?

(All the registrations I have seen with suffix A, have all been ones missed off the register page, so 123A is an addition to page 123. Nothing to do with adoption).

OC

[Merry]

I don't know, but in 1960-something the GRO wouldn't have envisaged us searching via computer, so an individual would only have a hope of seeing their original registration if they already knew their birth name. That's all I can think of.

[Olde Crone]

Mmm, I wonder. I have heard stories - which I thought were probably apocryphal - of people trying to get their original birth certs in the 60s and 70s and being refused by the GRO, who said something like "we know what you're up to" (it was illegal then, of course).

Although - as an original birth cert says "ADOPTED" on it, I don't see why they would need to flag up the index as well.

So - if there have been one million adoptions since 1927, there ought to be one million registrations with an S suffix. Or whatever the relative number is for the 1960s and 70s.

OC

[Olde Crone]

Thankyou for the link, Kate. Interesting that a Registrar says there is NO adoption significance in the S suffix!

OC

[Merry]

I tried to do a search on ancestry for the page number ????/S but that didn't work.

I looked at a few GRO pages and on the ones I looked at (Smiths in 1968) there was probably an average of one entry per page with the page number crossed through and a four digit/S ref replacing it.

[kiterunner]

Originally Posted by Olde Crone

Thankyou for the link, Kate. Interesting that a Registrar says there is NO adoption significance in the S suffix!

Yes, but presumably he was a local registrar and didn't work directly for the GRO.