Query on registration "district"

[billymac]

Hello all ---- hope everyone had a wonderful Christmas and looking forward to the new year.
I have a quick question.
I was recently looking for some lost relatives (descendants of my grandfather's only sibling) and looked for for a birth record recently --- I came across something I hadn't seen before. The birth was sort of recent (1972 and the subject has since died youngish) but the reference and district struck me as unusual.
The reference number was 106 / AR / 231 and the district was NRH. I take this to be 'New Register House".
Is there any significance regarding the "AR" in the reference and NRH re. the district in these details.
Kind regards,
Bill

[AndrewP]

Hi Bill,

AR is the Adoption Register.

See the following webpage:
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/ ... rs/indexes

You used to be able to see one part of the adoption register - that which named the child (adopted name) and their adoptive parents and the court that awarded the adoption, but made no mention of the birth parents. I am not sure that you get to see that part of the adoption register these days.

The other part of the adoption register is the part that names the birth parents and the child's birth name. That is only accessible to the adopted person, and only with the assistance of a registered counsellor.

See the following webpage:
https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/research/ ... on-records

All the best,

AndrewP

[billymac]

Ah, thank you so much Andrew.
I had just noticed that while no image would be available of course because the birth event was less than 100 years, the result also lacked the current "certificates not available" note attached. (I realize this is a holiday break note in lieu of the usual "purchase certificate" for later events). I thought this made the result somewhat unusual.
As he was an only child and the event was many years after the parent's marriage, it did actually cross my mind that perhaps this 2nd cousin was adopted into that branch of the family.
So sad he only lived till he was 47.

[WilmaM]

Now that is a total change in policy.
Previously an adopted child's birth record was nowhere to be found - under either adopted or birth name.

I had previously searched for births I knew to be adoptees and nothing would show.
I'm not sure how I feel about this, given that even fairly young children's births are now 'marked' out as being adoption records.

[AndrewP]

Now that is a total change in policy.
Previously an adopted child's birth record was nowhere to be found - under either adopted or birth name.

I had previously searched for births I knew to be adoptees and nothing would show.
I'm not sure how I feel about this, given that even fairly young children's births are now 'marked' out as being adoption records.

I never gave that a thought. The people adopted into my family tree were always known to be adopted, so there was no thought about them being 'marked' as different; their records were there to be found, just the style of record was different from the rest. When I saw their records, it would have been in New Register House, before ScotlandsPeople was ever a concept; before most people had internet access at home. At that time, the court adoption records were available on microfiche at New Register House in the same way as the rest of the birth, marriage or death certificates were. The difference was that the birth, marriage and death certificate microfiche were self-service; the ones from the Adoption Register had to be requested from the search room official, who went to the private part of NRH to retrieve those microfiche. You were limited to 3 of these microfiche during any one day visit to NRH, presumably to stop folk from trawling through these records for any purpose beyond general family tree research. I am not sure that you get to see these court adoption certificates in the ScotlandsPeople Centre nowadays.

All the best,

AndrewP

[WilmaM]

Adoption was a touchy subject in the past - always spoken of in hushed tones or whispered behind other children's backs, with some children only finding out, shockingly, as adults that they were an adoptee! especially those simply 'absorbed' into the wider family by childless aunts or brought up by grandparents alongside teenage mums/sister.
I would sincerely hope that nowadays children know from very early on, their birth origins.

It was frustrating not being able to find a birth on SP, while their marriage etc was visible, and the births etc of other members of the family were there too.

Mind you it is now much fairer that they are registered as everyone else, but there's just still that wee niggle at the back of my mind that it could come as a shock to somebody.
Just as the current registration of a child under both parents' surnames, whether they are married or not - I find that very worrying from a security point of view as many confirmation questions for banks etc ask for your mother's maiden name. Now it's there for all to see with a quick search or two on Scotland's People.

Just my tuppence worth.

A guid New Year tae ye a', when it comes

[billymac]

Hello Wilma,
Where you mention that the mother's maiden name is visible on results of a search of recent birth events, I did not find this to be the case. In the record I searched for I got a result because I knew the mother's maiden name beforehand but that name was withheld in the result.. I found omitting the mother's maiden name in the search parameters gave far too many results to be of any use and again, no maiden names were displayed.

[WilmaM]

Sorry Billy, I perhaps didn't make that very clear.
I was referring to the fact that for the last 10 years? or so, each child born in Scotland appears to have at least 2 entries in the SP Birth index.

One under Mother's surname and another under the father's [ or if they are double barrelled, any amount of permutations of surnames!]
ie if Mary Jones married Adam Brown, then wee Jimmy would be registered as James Brown and James Jones. Previously He would only be indexed as James Brown. The registration numbers are the same.

I discovered this when looking at a friend's family. They live in a very rural area and have a fairly unique surname - all the daughters' families are registered under that surname too - although their parents are married and use the father's surname.

It just doesn't sit right with me.

[billymac]

Aha Wilma.
I agree, that scenario could present a real cause for concern.