Is this the same person on SP

[Dennis]

Hi.

I asked SP if these two entries were the same person:

1 1923 <name removed> F INVERNESS /INVERNESS 098/0A 0171 No Image
2 1923 <name removed> F MORNINGSIDE EDINBURGH CITY/MIDLOTHIAN 685/07 0141 No Image

I received the following reply:

Good Morning,

An individual can be registered as many times as the parents wish in whichever districts seem relevant. For example, a birth may occur in one district, perhaps not the usual one in which the parents resided, and they may then choose to register the birth within the district they normally live. It's simply up to the parents as to where and how often the child is registered.

Best regards,

Daniel Hunter
Scotlands People Support Team

Do I still have to order the two documents to tell if they are the same person? Should the GROS numbers be the same if its the same person?

Name removed as year of birth is well past our cut off date of 1909. This person may be living. LesleyB

[LesleyB]

Hi Dennis

Should the GROS numbers be the same if its the same person?

The numbers will not be the same even if it is the same person as the registrations were in two different districts, and each district has a different number e.g. 685

Best wishes
Lesley

[AndrewP]

Hi Dennis,

I am surprised at the SP reply saying that there could be as many registrations as the parents wanted. In my research, I have many birth registrations made in two districts - the district of birth and the district of usual residence. I've never seen a birth registered in any more than two districts. There is a slight difference in the wording of them. The one in the birth district is the original record. The one in the district of usual residence says transcribed from registration in xxx district and is usually registered a day or two later. The most recent one of these double registrations that I have in my research is 1932.

The practice of transcribing registrations was stopped by the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) (Amendment) Act 1934.

My understanding is that traditionally the birth was registered in the district where the birth took place. In much more recent times (since the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriages (Scotland) Act 1965?) it seems to be up to the parents where to register the birth, so long as they do so somewhere within the prescribed time (3 weeks?).

All the best,

AndrewP

[Montrose Budie]

Precisely what the current situation is I don't know.

The period that we are normally searching in terms of tracing trees will be around 75 or more years ago.

The following info is taken from the 1907 edition of G. T. Bisset-Smith's "Vital Registration: A Manual of the Law and Practice concerning the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriage".

A birth was required to be registered in the registration district where it took place. The registrar was required to check that the birth took place within the boundaries of district, as well as that the time allowed had not been exceeeded [21 days back then - mb] and that the Informant was legally qualified and possessed full knowledge of of the details to be recorded.

Where the domicile of the mother was different from the district of birth, -

"Where a child is born in a district different from the domicile. the Registrar is directed to enter the domicile in Column (4) [place of birth - mb]; and if the domicile is in Scotland, to transmit a copy of the entry within 8 days to the Registrar of the district containing the domicile, who transcribes the entry into his Register as shown in Example No. 5 in Birth Register......"

I've come across many examples of this situation.

"In the case of female domestic servants and the like, their parents' residence may be regarded generally as their domicile for the purpose of this section ......"

I don't ever recall seeing such an example.


In other words such a double registration back then was due to an action on the part of the Registrar, so that I'd also question the accuracy of the comment from Daniel Hunter of the Scotlands People Support Team.


All that written it's not impossible the the original informant believed that he needed to register the birth both where it took place, and where the family normally lived, even although this shouldn't have happened if the Registrar was on the ball and asked the correct questions, - see above.

It needs to be remembered that many rural registration districts were small so that the (part-time) Registrar may well not have had an encyclopaedic knowledge of Bisset-Smith's "Vital Registration: A Manual of the Law and Practice concerning the Registration of Births, Deaths and Marriage" 440 page book.


Like AP I understand that this automatic transcription procedure ceased after the 1934 Act.

mb