Puzzled about Maggie Chapman, 1898.

[DUNMAC]

Hi,
         During my re search through my wife's (Liz.)  Chapman line, I've come across something not seen before in my searches for any line researched.

Found a further Chapman to add to my tree, Maggie Chapman, 1898, the mother stated on the Statutory B.C. from ScotlandsPeople is correct, Jane Chapman and the address was correct , 11 Blackhall Road, Inverurie, matching Jane Anne's (Annie) address on her D.C. When I went to add Maggie to my G.R. Tree, I noticed there was already a son entered for that year and birthdates make it impossible that this could be correct, But Jane is down as Householder and Mother on Maggie's B.C., 204/00 0092 and Maggie noted as being Illegitimate, Jane had been married for a while by this time? Rechecked all information again, everything was correct?? but noticed this time a RCE heading for Maggie, 204/00 0092RCE, which makes the puzzle even harder to understand:
              Etc. before the name of the childs mother, insert George Paterson, Farm Servant, Etc. Etc. Paternity Action  re female child named________   _______ born 31st December 1897, at the instance of Mary Gammie against George Paterson, F.S. Somefadour?, Haughton, Alford. Court in Aberdeen and Banff found that Maggie was the Illegitimate child of George Paterson and Mary Gammie at Inverurie, 1898.

Why was the child then registerd to Jane Anne Chapman and B.C. not altered to show the correct parents and D.O.B., address. All Chapmans relating to this are deceased, so no information can come from the family. I know families tried to hide things like this but why would Jane end up with the child? Cannot find any relationship to Mary Gammie.

                                       Regards,
                                             Dunmac.

[kenjo]

Hi DUNMAC,
I wonder if what has happened....is
on the certificate....you have for Maggie Chapman....that she is correct...but possibly very close to the date of another of the mothers children....but hopefully out of the range of 6 months...
I wonder if this entry does not have anything in the lefthand column....
and the corrected entry you mention is in fact for another girl on the certificate...

for when you buy the corrected entry.....you do actually buy all of them on the certificate.
JO

[DUNMAC]

Hi Jo,
          Other two births on the page are for boys and other birth for that year to William Grant, husband. less than two months before Maggies'. I suppose child was taken in by the family, but cannot understand why registration was in  Jane's name as Mother?, no doubt Mary Gammie was some relative but cannot trace connection.
                                         Thanks for trying to answer the query, Jo.
                                                            regards,
                                                                  Dunmac.

[kenjo]

Wow!
I haven't seen that before...
JO

[DUNMAC]

Hi Jo,
          Should have passed on information that Maggie was noted as being born December of the year before noted on B.C. on the R.C.E. document, not that it helps clear up this puzzle.
                                                 Regards,
                                                         Dunmac.