Charles Small born c1857. Angus - Rescobie or Coupar Angus.

[Liviani]

I believe I have found him on the CWGC site.

Rank:Private
Service No:859557
Date of Death:08/01/1917
Age:34
Regiment/Service:Canadian Infantry 179th
Bn. Grave Reference:
T. 496. Cemetery:SHORNCLIFFE MILITARY CEMETERY
Additional Information:Son of Mrs. Helen Mackenzie, of Smith's Property, Whitehills, Forfar, Scotland.

I think I have found my answers now. Thank you both for your help.

Sad to think that he probably never married, given that no wife was mentioned in the additional information and he was still unmarried in the 1911 census.

[Forfarian]

There are Canadian soldiers' records online - try Library Canada to look for them. Could he have been in the Canadian census in 1911?

[Liviani]

No he was still in Angus in 1911 in Airlie Parish with a birthplace of Forfar, Forfarshire.

I tried looking through some passenger lists but couldn't find much out. Will be something else to investigate.

[CaroleW]

So it looks as though he was born as Charles Small but took his stepfathers surname from when his mother married.

Is there anything  on the outgoing passenger lists for him between 1911 - 1917 as it seems odd he was in the Canadian Infantry if he never left Scotland

[Liviani]

Struggled a bit with trawling through the passenger lists as there are so many 'C McKenzies', 'Charles McKenzies' and 'Chas. McKenzies', also the alternate spelling of 'Mac'.

I think I'll leave the passenger lists for another day when I can have a proper look.

As for my great-grandfather's birth certificate, I noticed there was an amendment available to view free of charge. It said the following;

'With reference to entry No 221 in the register book of births for the year 1882, insert the following note on the authority of a certificate in the form of Schedule (Tr??), to the following effect:

In an action relating to the paternity of a male child born May 18th 1882 at the instance of Helen Ewan or McKenzie, residing in Dundee Road, Forfar, wife of Donald (Thought he was Daniel?) McKenzie, Farm Servant, also residing here, with consent and concurrence (I think?) of the said Donald McKenzie, her husband, and him for his interest, pursues (?) against Charles Small, Labourer, residing in Glamis Road, Forfar. Defender, the Sheriff Substitute of Forfarshire (Forfar District) upon the 26th day of April 1883, found that the said child was the illegitimate child of the said Helen Ewan or McKenzie and Charles Small"

This is rather interesting I think. Does this mean that Donald or Daniel McKenzie took legal action against his wife and Charles Small to determine paternity? I'd not heard of this before. I'd heard of mothers and fathers being brought before the Kirk Session but I don't believe this would have happened in 1883? Not sure when Kirk Session's stopped calling in illegitimate births.

Now, what does this amendment mean? The child is already registered as Charles Small with his father being noted as Charles Small and also signed by him. I'm not sure why an amendment was required?

Little bit confused now.

[CaroleW]

Sorry - totally unfamiliar with Scottish law etc 

As you say - paternity had already been admitted by Charles Small's name/signature on the birth cert and the fact it was registered as Small and not Ewan.  I wonder if this was for maintenance or inheritance purposes?

It may be that as Helen had married by then - she had to have her husbands permission and consent to take such action but I'm guessing really.   I don't think Daniel brought the action against his wife and Small

Daniel & Helen are still together in 1901

[Forfarian]

'With reference to entry No 221 in the register book of births for the year 1882, insert the following note on the authority of a certificate in the form of Schedule (Tr??), to the following effect:
In an action relating to the paternity of a male child born May 18th 1882 at the instance of Helen Ewan or McKenzie, residing in Dundee Road, Forfar, wife of Donald (Thought he was Daniel?)

Donald and Daniel are used interchangeably -if you are looking for a Donald and can't find him, it's always worth trying Daniel, and vice versa.

[/i]McKenzie, Farm Servant, also residing here, with consent and concurrence (I think?) of the said Donald McKenzie, her husband, and him for his interest, pursues (?) against Charles Small, Labourer, residing in Glamis Road, Forfar. Defender, the Sheriff Substitute of Forfarshire (Forfar District) upon the 26th day of April 1883, found that the said child was the illegitimate child of the said Helen Ewan or McKenzie and Charles Small"

Does this mean that Donald or Daniel McKenzie took legal action against his wife and Charles Small to determine paternity?

No, but obviously he would have an interest in the case because if it failed he would have to support his stepson. As a married woman Helen would not have been able to go to court without her husband's agreement, so it looks as if they went to court jointly   

I'd not heard of this before.

It's quite common. I have one dating from 1796, which is well before the start of civil registration, so obviously there is no Register of Corrected Entries, but I found all the court papers in the National Archives of Scotland.   

I'd heard of mothers and fathers being brought before the Kirk Session but I don't believe this would have happened in 1883? Not sure when Kirk Sessions stopped calling in illegitimate births.

Depends where it was. In some parishes they went on longer than in others. Mostly they had given up in towns by the late 1800s, but some rural parishes still pursued fornicators later than that.

Now, what does this amendment mean? The child is already registered as Charles Small with his father being noted as Charles Small and also signed by him. I'm not sure why an amendment was required?

Probably because although he signed the birth certificate he was failing to pay far the upkeep of the child.

Incidentally, although it doesn't say so specifically, this is an extract from the Register of Corrected Entries (RCE). Once a certificate had been completed, the only way to alter the information was by getting some sort of official approval. Quite a lot of the entries in the RCEs relate to changes of babies' given names, and quite a lot are the result of actions for paternity. Among other reasons for an entry in an RCE are in death certificates when the cause of death had not been determined before the death was registered. There is a set of RCEs for each registration district, and when anything is recorded in the RCE an oval stamp is placed in the left-hand column of the certificate with the RCE reference number (which you don't now need to quote in these days of computerised access).

[Liviani]

Very interesting, thank you for that information.

So it sounds like it's more of a child support issue or inheritance thing as was said. This makes sense. Just out of curiosity, was there any legal system in place back then whereby the father who is not residing with their child had to make payments to the family where the child resides?

[CaroleW]

No different back then than now.  If ordered by the court, the father of the child paid maintenance irrespective of whether the mother had married since the birth.

The principal being - why should Daniel McKenzie financially support another mans child when that man was single and in employment

Another consideration here was perhaps the age difference between Daniel & Helen.  If Daniel had died while Charles was still a child - Helen would at least have had some money coming in to support him