Dias surname

[Lodger]

Did the parents subsequently marry? Births were sometimes re-registered to give the person a "respectable" birth certificate, usually just before the person was married.

[heatherrr]

I'm not sure, can't find the 're-registered' birth, and no father is listed on the one where she's mentioned as illegitimate. Looks like I have more investigating to do

[MonicaL]

Heather, where is the snippet from that shows the re-registration in 1952? What are the words/letters on the left hand side?

Monica

[heatherrr]

It's a birth certificate from 1911, does that re-registration date look like 1952?

Here is the side bit rotated, is this the bit you were talking about?

[heatherrr]

Heather, where is the snippet from that shows the re-registration in 1952? What are the words/letters on the left hand side?

Monica

Sorry I just noticed that you mentioned 1952 here, just wasn't sure if it would make sense to be so much later than the actual birth.

[MonicaL]

Hi Heather

I read it as 1952, may not be '5' though. If not clear, you can email SP and they will provide you with an enhanced image section that should make it clearer, see www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk/content/help/index.aspx?r=1210

Reading the side note, made me think that perhaps there may have been two registrations for the same birth maybe in 1911? Sometimes happened when birth took place, different to parent(s)' usual residence. Not sure for the reasons for the registration...hopefully someone can help in this respect.

This is a geneal map of areas in Glasgow which helps a lot in giving you an idea of where districts were www.douglasbrown.co.uk/glw74map.html - map is for the period 1874 to 1900. Your birth is for 1911 so not sure if there were any changes in districts around that time.

Monica

[heatherrr]

Thanks, Monica.
I'll email SP and try to find more relatives and connect the dots.

[carolineasb]

As has been said above, it used to be the case that a couple could raise an action at the Sheriff Court to re-register an illegitimate birth of a child after the parents married.  To my knowledge this was still going on up towards the end of the 20th Century but pretty rare.

I actually read the date as 1932 at first glance which would make the child c.21 years and, therefor, possibly about to get married themselves?

[heatherrr]

I thought it was either 52 or 32. 32 would make more sense.