Adoption and the 1939 register

[Annie65115]

On the 1939 register, if someone changed their name (usually by marriage or occasionally by deed poll), the register was amended to show this.

What about if a child was subsequently adopted? I think that adoption had been formalised and properly registered in England by then. Was the 1939 register amended to show the adoptee’s new name?

[DianaCanada]

This is a good question! I have a relative, with her husband (no children born to them) in Hayes, Middlesex. They have an 8 yr old girl with them. This is how the household is listed:
Conroy, Michael
             Mary E.
(written in green ink), Gilbert, Constance M.
Jeff, Alfred (Mary’s brother)

In the 1950’s Constance M. Conroy married a Gilbert, but the listing for FreeBMD lists her twice, as Constance M. Podgur.  A child by that was registered Jun Q 1931, Marylebone, MMN Podgur.
My assumption was that the Conroys brought her up, but was there a formal adoption.
From the 1939 there are no actual surnames or dittos for Mary or Constance, which plays havoc with the indexing!
Not much help to you, but a similar issue.

[CaroleW]

Just registering an interest for notification purposes.  May shortly have a similar situation when a birth cert arrives

[rosie99]

This is a good question! I have a relative, with her husband (no children born to them) in Hayes, Middlesex. They have an 8 yr old girl with them. This is how the household is listed:
Conroy, Michael
             Mary E.
(written in green ink), Gilbert, Constance M.
Jeff, Alfred (Mary’s brother)

In the 1950’s Constance M. Conroy married a Gilbert, but the listing for FreeBMD lists her twice, as Constance M. Podgur.  A child by that was registered Jun Q 1931, Marylebone, MMN Podgur.
My assumption was that the Conroys brought her up, but was there a formal adoption.
From the 1939 there are no actual surnames or dittos for Mary or Constance, which plays havoc with the indexing!
Not much help to you, but a similar issue.

In this case I would have thought that the 'original' birth certificate from GRO should show whether an adoption has taken place. 

[Mvann]

Hi all

I have seen a family on 1939 with 2 children that have had the surnames changed afterwards an adopted written next to the names

Jon

[DianaCanada]

This is a good question! I have a relative, with her husband (no children born to them) in Hayes, Middlesex. They have an 8 yr old girl with them. This is how the household is listed:
Conroy, Michael
             Mary E.
(written in green ink), Gilbert, Constance M.
Jeff, Alfred (Mary’s brother)

In the 1950’s Constance M. Conroy married a Gilbert, but the listing for FreeBMD lists her twice, as Constance M. Podgur.  A child by that was registered Jun Q 1931, Marylebone, MMN Podgur.
My assumption was that the Conroys brought her up, but was there a formal adoption.
From the 1939 there are no actual surnames or dittos for Mary or Constance, which plays havoc with the indexing!
Not much help to you, but a similar issue.

In this case I would have thought that the 'original' birth certificate from GRO should show whether an adoption has taken place.

Thank you, Rosie.  I will add her to my list of certificates to purchase!

[CaroleW]

I have today received the birth cert I mentioned earlier & it has Adopted written in the margin.  This was a child born legitimately in 1929 but whose mother died when the child was only 9mths old.

Suspect the child was given a new name but it’s linked to another post so we shall see what we can find