I've not come across the middle name on any documents before, was it usual to leave it out back then?Yes. It was even commoner for people whose birth registration does not have a middle name to 'acquire' a middle name later in life.
Just realised Helen could be the same name as Ellen?Yes, very common.
Could still be his mother and she met and married Daniel later?Yes.
I'm wondering if his son was told incorrect information or if he did lie to the registrar about his father's 'death'.Definitely possible.
As far as I was aware all of my family are Church of Scotland and have found no ancestors whom were Catholic other than this Charles George McKenzie. Perhaps this is the reason Charles Snr and Mary Stewart never married?You need to see if you can eliminate Charles George as a possible father.
ForfarianGood. That looks better.
Thank you for the responses.
I believe Charles George McKenzie is unrelated as he was living in Forfar with his mother Betsy in the 1901 census. There is a Charles McKenzie in the 1901 census in Wardmill Bothy, Rescobie which matches to the 'West Mains of Turin' Rescobie location mentioned on my grandfather Charles Jr's birth certificate.
Rescobie Charles in 1901 was a Farm Servant - Ploughman which matches the occupation on Charles jr's birth cert.
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.
'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?)
[/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"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
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.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.
The amended record for Charles' birth states that he was born in 1882 with 1883 being crossed out.Do you mean the RCE page?
My second link should have been:
http://www.bac-lac.gc.ca/eng/discover/military-heritage/first-world-war/personnel-records/Pages/item.aspx?IdNumber=157077
(note to self, don't post links when thinking about starting to make dinner)
showing an address in Manitoba at time of signing up. The 1883 birth date is also clearly written.
As the RCE says that the Sheriff found for Daniel and Helen on 26th April 1883, the birth date of 18 May 1883 (which had yet to happen) was plainly wrong.
As for the date in the Canadian document, I have often notice in the Canadian census that people's ages are understated by a year. I speculate that they were asked, "What day is your birthday?", and then. "How old are you?", and that the enumerator then (mis)calculated the year of birth by subtracting the age from the census year. So anyone whose birthday in census year had not yet occurred is listed as being born a year later than the correct date.
Throwing this in as something worth looking into further. A David Cowie from Forfar was also killed in WW1, whilst serving in the Canadian Infantry. Now, it may just be coincidence, but he had a sister, Agnes McKenzie who lived in Pipestone, Manitoba:
http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/memorials/canadian-virtual-war-memorial/detail/2954486
There was a Scottish, 1883 born C McKenzie, farmer, single, who headed over to Canada in 1911 on the Empress of Britain.What date? Was he there in time for the 1911 census of Canada?
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?
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?
Just thought I'd add for the benefit of others that any illegitimate child born Scotland (where the father has signed) will appear on the Index under both parents surnames.
Annie
If you have time to trawl through the pages, as they aren't searchable by name, the arrival manifest for the ship is available at:
http://www.rootschat.com/links/01jq2/
which should provide more details and may help you confirm or rule out this chap.
There is this one -
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XYYX-XVF
Marriage ?
https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:XTVG-5NTev
"Given his age is stated as 23 in 1881 this means he must've been born in either 1857 or 1858. This is where the problems begin for me"
I've not looked at alternatives for you, but my immediate reaction is that your first sentence there is not helping you. 1857/58 is only a starting point - at the very least you need to be looking 5y either way - I normally use +/- 10y though for someone who's only 23, an error of 10y is rather unlikely.
The other aspect is - who filled the form in? I find that servants' details on censuses are prime candidates for errors - sometimes the person compiling it (the employer?) seems not to ask his servants but writes down what he thinks is the story, so age and place of birth are what he thinks his servant once said in conversation ages ago.
As I say, I'm in no position to offer alternatives but, especially if you can't find someone with those exact details, you need to widen your search criteria.
Dwelling: Little Kilmundy BothyA reasonable assumption.
Adam BALLENTINE
John TOSH
Charles SMALL
This is the only Charles Small in the 1881 census that matches with profession, age and location. So I believe this Charles Small above to be the correct one.
On searching all of Charles Smalls born in Scotland on SP in 1857 or 1858 I get nothing back at all.Also reasonable.
This leads me to a few lines of thought - either he was born with a different name OR the age stated in the 1881 census is incorrect.
I look at who he's living with in 1881.I doubt very much that this is likely to be useful. These three young men are living in a bothy. A bothy was provided by a farmer to accommodate his unmarried male workers, and sometimes married ones if their job was too far from their home to go home each night. So generally there is no reason to think that the occupants of a bothy are related to one another.
In 1883 a Charles Small marries a Harriet Patullo in Forfar. In 1881 Hariet was 18 years old and living in Forfar with her family.I think your next step is to look at the marriage certificate of Charles and Harriet. This will tell you the names of their parents. Once you have this information you will be better placed to find him.
In the 1871 census there is a 14 year old Charles Small living in Coupar Angus. He is living with his father John Small aged 57 Gardiner and his mother Margaret Small (can't make our her age). There are no other children living here, it is just the three of them. In this census it states that Charles was born in Coupar Angus not Rescobie as it states on the 1881 census. But then again I don't know if this is the same Charles ???Probably not. Charles Small, son of John Small and Margaret Grant, was born in Coupar Angus on 29 April 1856.
There is an 11 year old Charles Small living in Forfar in 1871.No, but it does more closely match his age in the later censuses.
The place of birth is correct, but the age doesn't match up with the 1881 census.
In the 1871 census 11 year old Charles Small was living with Ann Small aged 41 and a Janet Johnstone (I think it's Janet) aged 49.No. Janet Johnstone is described as 'head' and against Ann Small it says 'ditto'. In other words, Ann Small was head of a separate household, not part of Janet Johnstone's household.
Edit: I see that while I was typing this that you have come to the same conclusion as I have. But I'll let it stand anyway.Dwelling: Little Kilmundy BothyA reasonable assumption.
Adam BALLENTINE
John TOSH
Charles SMALL
This is the only Charles Small in the 1881 census that matches with profession, age and location. So I believe this Charles Small above to be the correct one.QuoteOn searching all of Charles Smalls born in Scotland on SP in 1857 or 1858 I get nothing back at all.Also reasonable.
This leads me to a few lines of thought - either he was born with a different name OR the age stated in the 1881 census is incorrect.QuoteI look at who he's living with in 1881.I doubt very much that this is likely to be useful. These three young men are living in a bothy. A bothy was provided by a farmer to accommodate his unmarried male workers, and sometimes married ones if their job was too far from their home to go home each night. So generally there is no reason to think that the occupants of a bothy are related to one another.QuoteIn 1883 a Charles Small marries a Harriet Patullo in Forfar. In 1881 Hariet was 18 years old and living in Forfar with her family.I think your next step is to look at the marriage certificate of Charles and Harriet. This will tell you the names of their parents. Once you have this information you will be better placed to find him.
In 1891 Charles Small, 30 and Harriet Small, 28 were living in Inverarity with four children. In 1901 Charles, 40 and Harriet, 39 are in Lintrathen with seven children. They are still in Lintrathen in 1911 with eight children, Charles aged 49 and Harriet 47. You might also like to look at one or more of these later censuses to see where Charles said he was born.QuoteIn the 1871 census there is a 14 year old Charles Small living in Coupar Angus. He is living with his father John Small aged 57 Gardiner and his mother Margaret Small (can't make our her age). There are no other children living here, it is just the three of them. In this census it states that Charles was born in Coupar Angus not Rescobie as it states on the 1881 census. But then again I don't know if this is the same Charles ???Probably not. Charles Small, son of John Small and Margaret Grant, was born in Coupar Angus on 29 April 1856.QuoteThere is an 11 year old Charles Small living in Forfar in 1871.No, but it does more closely match his age in the later censuses.
The place of birth is correct, but the age doesn't match up with the 1881 census.
He is probably the same Charles Small as the one-year-old in Forfar in 1861.
I note that SP lists the a birth of a Charles Henderson in Rescobie in 1859. Looking at the International Genealogical Index, there is a birth of Charles Small or Henderson in 1859, father Leonard Small or Henderson, mother Ann Mackay.
So if Charles' marriage certificate says his mother was Ann Mackay, it would be reasonable to suppose that this is your Charles Small. So go on, get that marriage certificate.
There is also an RCE in connection with this entry. I don't actually know what it's trying to say though. I will include the image of the RCE, any help appreciated here.That is unusual.
There is also an RCE in connection with this entry. I don't actually know what it's trying to say though. I will include the image of the RCE, any help appreciated here.That is unusual.
The law assumes that a child born to a married woman is her husband's, unless she chooses to declare otherwise. Leonard Small and Ann Mackay were married on 5 June 1853 in Glenisla. So the law (and the Registrar) should have assumed that Charles was Leonard's son. Therefore I don't know why it was necessary for Leonard to go to the Sheriff to get an alteration made to the certificate.
For the avoidance of duplication see another thread on the same family
http://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=767929
This has to be the most confusing part of the research I think. Having said that; he wasn't present on the birth certificate.As Ann's husband, he didn't have to be present. Nothing specially unusual there.
Something very strange there, it wasn't signed by Anne either. ???She didn't have to be present either. The birth could be registered by anyone who, in the eyes of the Registrar, was suitably qualified to supply the correct information - a grandparent, a neighbour, a midwife, a friend.
I'm not entirely sure either. It could be something to do with Leonard Small's name since Charles was born as Charles Henderson not Charles Small.Yes, that could be it. If the birth had been registered as Henderson but Leonard wanted to be known as Leonard Small, and his children's birth certificates to reflect that, then he might have needed to make a deposition and get it corroborated by a minister.
I'm not entirely sure either. It could be something to do with Leonard Small's name since Charles was born as Charles Henderson not Charles Small.Yes, that could be it. If the birth had been registered as Henderson but Leonard wanted to be known as Leonard Small, and his children's birth certificates to reflect that, then he might have needed to make a deposition and get it corroborated by a minister.
The informant is Leonard Small, presumably the father of the child. 'Not present' doesn't mean that he wasn't present when the birth was registered. It means that he was not present in the house when the birth took place.
The RCE must just be a name issue with Leonard Small.Yes, but the question then arises, why was Charles originally registered as Henderson?
The RCE must just be a name issue with Leonard Small.Yes, but the question then arises, why was Charles originally registered as Henderson?
There is also the following info in the 1851 census. This is interesting as you will notice the surname Johnstone mentioned again. In the 1871 census 11 year old Charles Small was living with Ann Small aged 41 and a Janet Johnstone (I think it's Janet) aged 49. With the information that Leonard and Ann married in 1853, the reason why she is named Small in 1851 is a bit confusing. Not sure where to go from here. This family seems so messy!I think this family is a red herring, at least it is at present. There could, I suppose, be a link further back on the Small side.
There is also the following info in the 1851 census. This is interesting as you will notice the surname Johnstone mentioned again. In the 1871 census 11 year old Charles Small was living with Ann Small aged 41 and a Janet Johnstone (I think it's Janet) aged 49. With the information that Leonard and Ann married in 1853, the reason why she is named Small in 1851 is a bit confusing. Not sure where to go from here. This family seems so messy!I think this family is a red herring, at least it is at present. There could, I suppose, be a link further back on the Small side.
It's quite normal for a married woman to be listed in the earlier census under her maiden surname. This is the family of George Small and Isabella Johnston.
I also happen to know that their daughter Ann, aged 23 in the 1851 census, could not be the Ann Mackay who married Leonard Small, because Ann Small, daughter of George Small and Isabella Johnston, married my 3rd cousin 4 times removed, Joseph Moug, a few weeks before Leonard Small married Ann Mackay. Joseph and Ann had 10 children, and died in 1882 and 1900 respectively, all in Glamis.
I suggest that you dismiss the idea that there is any close relationship between your Smalls and either of these Johnston(e) ladies, as I think that pursuing that line of enquiry is only likely to muddy the waters of your research.
Yes, but the question then arises, why was Charles originally registered as Henderson?My best guess is that it was simply a mix up. The Registrar asked "Name of child?" (meaning the full name) and the father responded with just the given names of "Charles Henderson", assuming that the Registrar would add the surname.
Yes, but the question then arises, why was Charles originally registered as Henderson?My best guess is that it was simply a mix up. The Registrar asked "Name of child?" (meaning the full name) and the father responded with just the given names of "Charles Henderson", assuming that the Registrar would add the surname.
However, the Registrar didn't add it, so he ended up as "Henderson, Charles". If you look, the RoCE actually corrects several aspects - not just the surname of the child but the year is missing from the date, and the informant's qualification for being the informant ("father") is also missing. One way or another, it's a pretty flakey job for some reason, so error is perhaps the most likely causeof the odd name.
Hi
My take is the date is for the first proclamation 14th March.2nd 21st March. and 3rd 28th March (if my maths are correct to early in the morning) proclamations were on the following Sunday's.
Banns were read from the pulpit on 3 consecutive Sundays.
Yours Aye
BruceL
Curious about your interest in Charles McKenzie WWI soldier in Canadian infantry buried in Shorncliffe.
Daniel MacKenzie and Helen Valentine Ewen MacKenzie are my husbands Great Grandparents. Their son Robert immigrated to Canada and afterwards Charles MacKenzie. Charles then enlisted with the Canadian forces in WWI but died in training at Shorncliffe and is buried there in the military cemetery.
We did not know he had married or had any family.
In checking the birth date of Charles Small MacKenzie I believe he was born in 1883 and his brother Robert in 1884. The father of Robert, step father of Charles was married before had 8 children with his first wife (Mary Callander) and then 5 including 'Charles Small' the eldest with Helen Valentine Ewen.
.
Unusually there are two parental signatures on his birth cert. His mother Helen Ewen and his father Charles Small also signed.That is standard practice when a child is illegitimate and the father wishes to acknowledge it as his.
Unusually there are two parental signatures on his birth cert. His mother Helen Ewen and his father Charles Small also signed.That is standard practice when a child is illegitimate and the father wishes to acknowledge it as his.