Birth of Mary Bridget Cullen, 1903, Enniscorthy

[Wexflyer]

I hear you all and what everyone says is logical but I am still wondering about an adoption, which may be a red herring.....
This is in fact a cancelled order by the Adoption people as per The Adopted  Children Register maintained by an tArd-Chláraitheoir in accordance with section 22 of the Adoption Act 1952 shall, notwithstanding the repeal of > that section by section 7 (1)—
 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/21/section/84/enacted/en/html
 

This makes no sense to me. The reason being that the birth registration was cancelled in the 1960s, when she was in her late 50s - how can that be connected to an adoption?  If she was adopted (which is not clear), it would have been way, way before the 1952 Act, which was the start of legal regulation of  adoptions in Ireland. AFIK, there is no official record of adoptions before 1952. Also, it is very clear that she was born to legally married parents, as part of a larger family.

[myluck!]

Have you looked for Mary Bridget's baptism?
Especially if she married outside the area as a letter of freedom would have been required.

It is highly unlikely that she was born outside the area and then registered not once but twice by a maternity nurse.  It is more probable that if her mother's was in Wexford (as the census in 1901 and 1911 shows) and her father was living in Dublin (as the 1901 census suggests) that perhaps her father was not actually John CULLEN but that traditional meant the husband's name was put on the records regardless.  A church record could be annotated.

The most logical reason for the record change was that it was the 1960s  before it was noticed

[myluck!]

... her marriage was in Rathdown,Co. Dublin in 1945 to Richard McDonald as per marriage record aka McDonnell as per gravestone. ...

Marriage record in Rathdown 1945 Q3 V2 P396
names shown as Richard McDONNELL and Mary CULLEN

[Sinann]

It doesn't look like a cancellation order due to adoption, it clearly refers to a second entry, if she was adopted both registrations would have been cancelled.

[Wexflyer]

I was previously told that:
This is in fact a cancelled order by the Adoption people as per The Adopted  Children Register maintained by an tArd-Chláraitheoir in accordance with section 22 of the Adoption Act 1952 shall, notwithstanding the repeal of > that section by section 7 (1)—
 http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2010/act/21/section/84/enacted/en/html
 
Peggy

I think you have been misinformed.
The full text of the 1952 Adoption Act is available online at
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1952/act/25/enacted/en/print
All amendments are also available online, including Sect. 7 of a 1964 Act.
I see no provision to cancel original birth registrations. The cancellation or amendment of registration which is provided for is that of entries in the register of adoptions, not the register of births.

As has already been suggested (Sinann?) I think the only ways to square the circle between the written record and you family tradition that either people were inventing tales (which is possible), or else this is not the correct Mary Cullen.

[Wexflyer]

It doesn't look like a cancellation order due to adoption, it clearly refers to a second entry, if she was adopted both registrations would have been cancelled.

In addition, I would again point out that the Adoption Act was only passed in 1952. If this Mary Cullen was adopted it was 40 years or more before this act was enacted!

[Peggy13]

Hello,
I am positive that I have the right person, the only questions are why 2 birth records and why is she not on the 1911 census, and why is the father not with the family in either 1901 or 1911? I have found a Mary Cullen in a convent school in 1911 in New Ross, the right age, but how to know if it is the right person. Thanks everyone for your input. 
Peggy

[Wexflyer]

Hello,
I am positive that I have the right person, the only questions are why 2 birth records and why is she not on the 1911 census, and why is the father not with the family in either 1901 or 1911? I have found a Mary Cullen in a convent school in 1911 in New Ross, the right age, but how to know if it is the right person. Thanks everyone for your input. 
Peggy

Let me summarise my take on this.
- The double birth registration is not uncommon. Mistakes happen.
- The cancellation of the second birth registration is not connected with any adoption. It was cancelled simply because it was a dual registration.
- Any adoption for Mary Cullen occurred long (40+ years) before any legal regulation of adoptions.   
   As such, there will not be any official record of her adoption (if there was an adoption).
- The father was not with the family on the 1901 and 1911 census for straightforward reasons.
   * In 1901 he was presumably still a soldier - he is shown as a soldier on 1900 birth registration
    (link provided earlier). He could have been stationed anywhere - Britain, India, South Africa...
   * In 1911, he is working in Dublin, Myluck! provided the link earlier.
- Giving children to be raised by childless relatives certainly happened. This happened with a sister of my grandfather, who was given to the family of a first cousin of my great-grandfather, in England. No one in the family ever understood why my great-grandfather did this, but he did.

[dathai]

could you give a link to the one in convent school in 1911
these are all related to head of household
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ivd/