i'm hoping dot can help me with her experience.....tks

[booboo67]

i'm looking up a family for a friend. she doesnt know much about them and i have tried to help with the information she has given me, but it all seems very strange! 2 brothers one born 1982 she knows, the other born 1978 she thinks. the 1982 brother is known as say john smith, but when i found him on ancestry his name was say... ted john smith. his choice to drop the ted. his brother who is know as say adam smith, i cannot find. but i can find......... right year, right mmn, right place another ted john smith. when i click on the image it takes me to ancestry.com which i cannot see, making me think he wasn't born in england and probably most definately ireland. so i looked a little more. 1978 baby ted john smith was actually born john courtney (mothers maiden name) he was then registered as ted john smith and the references to that entry i cannot see. but.............. there are 3 entries/ammendments on the index, 2 have /s at the end. now i have done enough searcing over a period of 6 years to know that if you see /s on an ammendment it usually means adoption. would you think dot or anyone else who can help, that baby adam courtney was born out of wedlock and then adopted by mr smith or born out of wedlock and adopted or fostered then when miss courtney and mr smith got back together and married (i can find no english marriage) that they adopted their first son??? it all seems stranger because their 2nd son was also registered as ted john smith in 1982!!!!
just a little bit of light would be appreciated
sorry it sounds complicated but thats why i'm typing it in here cos i havent a clue
thanks all in advance

[craft1948]

I don't understand your post bez...............dot has always been very helpful on here. I've always tried to help by looking up census records but dot knows a lot more about genealogy than I ever will.

[dothawkes31]

all the hours of research I did for bez was based on the information given, and everything I found appeared to be correct as we worked though most of it together.

[dothawkes31]

booboo I can sympathise with your research dilemma and that you wasnt to help your friend solve the query. it isn't easy to grasp quite what could have happened, but if you look at it logically, they aren't going to give both sons the same name unless the first one died.
Your idea about the man adopting the child could be good, if the birth was registered as illegitimate and no father given, but the natural father was someone else, then maybe the mum wanted Mr Smith to adopt the child but they then later married?
I suggest that the registrar may be able to shed light onto the reason for the amendments as a starting point,

[booboo67]

thanks for replies