Is there any significance in the presence or absence of the S? My family's BURN seem to have been consistently without the S for almost 300 years. Does it matter? My interest comes in part from the fact that several BURN convicts transported to Australia in the first fleets were from Ireland. It doesn't seem to have been a misspelling, of BYRNE perhaps, and was happily retained by BURN families in both New South Wales and Tasmania. Sadly not a convict in sight anywhere in my lot; they all 'came free'. John Edmonds

"Black Watch" or the "Government" tartan has been used by the British Army since the 1740's and by a number of clans and individuals since that time or even earlier. This tartan is regularly worn by the GRANTS, MUNROS, AND CAMPBELLS. Many clan tartans are variations of the "Black Watch" a few with an added color over layed stripe. In lighter shades the tartan is the "Sutherland District" tartan; in darker shades it is the tartan of the Argyll and Sutherland Regiment. Since it is used by such a wide spread people it is also sometimes used for the "National tartan" The reason it is called the "government" tartan is that all clans in government could wear a tartan that did not conflict. Some information from "Tartan for Me." and etc. readings. Hope this helps. Chrissie, so any Scott may wear the "Black Watch" especially if they do not know what clan affiliation the are. *******************************Rea ----- Original Message ----- From: chrissie <chris@chrissie.demon.co.uk> To: <BORDER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Wednesday, April 12, 2000 9:06 AM Subject: Black Watch Tartan > Hi Listers, > Would anyone on list know anything about the Black Watch Tartan, which > family or clan are allowed to wear it etc. ? > Family Legend says my family are, but need information to either prove or > disprove this. > Many thanks, > Chrissie. > >

Acording to the Osprey Men-at-Arms Series, the Black Watch wore Government Pattern tartan with a red overstripe until 1812. After that presumably the overstripe ceased. Clive Dakers.

Can I please add my thanks to all contributors to the Reivers discusson Judy -----Original Message----- From: Debora Marzec [mailto:DMarzec@email.msn.com] Sent: Tuesday, 11 April 2000 11:18 AM To: BORDER-L@rootsweb.com Subject: Thank you. Thank you to everyone who has discussed the Border Reivers both on and off list. I've learned a lot. Debora. ______________________________

Hi Listers, Would anyone on list know anything about the Black Watch Tartan, which family or clan are allowed to wear it etc. ? Family Legend says my family are, but need information to either prove or disprove this. Many thanks, Chrissie.

Another very interesting book on the Borders is "Scottish Border Country" by Andrew & John Lang, published by Senate, an imprint of Tiger Books International. ISBN 1 85958 543 4. This book was first published in 1913 as "Highways and Byways in the Border" Ann Leith Melbourne, Oz. _______________ Ann Leith aleith@wire.net.au

I am really enjoying the discussion on the Border Reivers.  My family "Dixon/Dickson"  were right in the thick of things, and from further investigation, I have found this to be the natural state of things.  My ancestors prior to that time were involved in the 'Battle of Stamford Bridge' where the vikings made war on King Harold to soften him up for William at Hastings.  So William accorded the survivors (as there were no ships left after Stamford) land in Northumberland from whence they spread on both sides of the borders.  They all finally ended up in Roxbourghshire and thereabouts as septs of both Clan Keith and Clan Scott.  Neither of these clans recognizes them nowadays as members of the clan but they are permitted to sport the tartans.  As no viking or descendant that I ever knew would wear a skirt, the Dixon/Dickson family to this day, don't.  Here in Canada we are now Dickieson which is a bit closer to the original DeCae's son that is the Norwegian, but we are still very proud of our Reiver roots.  This was the way life was at that time, and no one probably thought it was wrong.  Only our civilizing has shown us this, and in a lot of areas of the world, that civilizing still has not taken over.  Humans (in my belief only and not to be confused with fact) are by their very nature, a tad lawless when it is necessary, and a bit of the romantic makes this fun.  But to the points I wished to raise.  Firstly, although the Armstrongs are the female line of my family, I would not expect them to recognize me as a sept or clan member; and understand if they don't.  They have enough trouble keeping track of Armstrongs without listing all their septs.  Secondly, although we don't Raid and Pillage today, we cannot hold shame for those of our families who did in the past - that's the way it was then, this is how it is now. (even tho there are those who work on Wall Street who probably still do Raid and Pillage) 8=)  and Thirdly, to who is the head of a clan - it also states in information on our being a sept of the Keiths, that the leader of the Dicksons is the leader of the Keiths.  This does not mean that a Dickson leads the Keiths.  It means that a Keith, being a leader of the Keiths, with the Dicksons as sept, is also the leader of the Dicksons.  At least this is what it was meant to mean and I for one understand it as such. (this from the Nova Scotia branch of the Keiths).  Thanks for the bandwidth - I'll go back to reading your posts now. Thomas Dickieson North Bay, ON, Canada (proud of my heritage, whatever it may be)

In reply to the Lion of Liddesdale's reply to Joy regarding clans, tribes, families and the like, especially with reference to Croser and Nixon families, the "Acta Parliamentorum Jacobi VI, AD 1587" lists the "Niksonis" and "Crosaris" amongst the "clans" of the "Middle Marche". So can the Crosers and Nixons consider themselves clans? My ancestors were Littles also mentioned in the list of 17 Border clans. How influential, or how much of a nuisance the Littles made of themselves I have little idea, but I suspect they combined with their neighbours the Armstrongs to help built the Armstrongs reputation to an even higher (or lower) level. Please do not let this posting at all malign the Lion of Liddesdale - I thoroughly enjoy his in-depth information on Reiver subjects. Cheers Doug -- Doug Bailey - BAILEY.O@xtra.co.nz 233 Heretaunga Street West Hastings, New Zealand. Phone: 64 - 6 - 876 8787

Hi Miriam, Here is your FISHER family in Bowden 1881 census, including James C. Dwelling: Cottage In Bowden Census Place: Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Source: FHL Film 0224039 GRO Ref Volume 783 EnumDist 1 Page 9 Marr Age Sex Birthplace James FISHER M 57 M Livingstone, Linlithgow, Scotland Rel: Head Occ: Railway Lab Isabella FISHER M 48 F Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Wife James C. FISHER U 19 M Roxburgh, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Son Occ: Railway Lab John FISHER U 13 M Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Son Handicap: Imbecile Occ: Scholar Catherine FISHER 9 F Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar Alice FISHER 11 F Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar William FISHER 7 M Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Son Occ: Scholar Robert FISHER 3 M Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Son Thomas FISHER 8 M Bowden, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Grandson Occ: Scholar There is no Janet ROBERTSON listed for Bowden, only two Janet Robertsons in Roxburgh in the 1881 census are both aged about 20 as follows:- Dwelling: 10 Foot Of Horsemarket Census Place: Kelso, Roxburgh, Scotland Source: FHL Film 0224041 GRO Ref Volume 793 EnumDist 12 Page 15 Marr Age Sex Birthplace John ROBERTSON M 45 M Kelso, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Head Occ: Slater Margaret ROBERTSON M 44 F Kelso, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Wife Janet ROBERTSON U 20 F Kelso, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Dau And Dwelling: Craigend Census Place: Stitchel, Roxburgh, Scotland Source: FHL Film 0224043 GRO Ref Volume 808 EnumDist 1 Page 6 Marr Age Sex Birthplace George MERCER M 40 M Gordon, Berwick, Scotland Rel: Head Occ: Gamekeeper Eliza MERCER M 39 F Whitekirk, Haddington, Scotland Rel: Wife Maggie MERCER 7 F Edgerston, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar Jessie MERCER 4 F Stitchill, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Daur Occ: Scholar Georgina MERCER 3 F Stitchill, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Daur Mary MERCER 8 m F Stitchill, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Daur Janet MERCER U 39 F Gordon, Berwick, Scotland Rel: Sister Occ: General Servant Domestic Janet ROBERTSON U 21 F Morebattle, Roxburgh, Scotland Rel: Servant Occ: General Servant Domestic Hope that all helps Best regards - Mike Simpson, Penrith, NSW Email: agene@bigfoot.com HomePage: http://www.bigfoot.com/~agene

Hello all, It appears in my post to Joy, that I have misrepresented something. When I use the terms clan and tribe, I am using them interchangeably. I understand that Clan is a touchy word. I've tried to mix the words together in an attempt to not offend anyone. In doing this, I've made myself quite unclear. From now on, I will just use the word clan. Doug is right, according to Fraser, the Nixons and Crosers were their own respective clans. In my personal opinion, modern clan societies are just a little off. Stephen Maxwell

Clive, Clan is a very debatable word. The Highlanders say that is from the Irish Gaelic, meaning family. However, Irish historians in turn have said that the word was never applied to the whole family, and the Highlanders misused it's meaning. Furthermore, the Scottish government used the term Clan when referring to the Borderers and Gallovidians. So who's right? Probably they all are. The word obviously had different connotations to different peoples. The Lowlanders never considered themselves clannish. However, the Borderers were not Lowlanders, and were viewed as savages and very tribal by the people of Lothian. Clan is just a Highland term for a tribal system. The Borderers lived by a tribal system as well. Most them were not Irish in origin like the Highlanders were (although some of them from Galloway probably were), so they probably preferred their own terms for the system. At some point however, Clan became a part of Scots dialect, and was applied to the Border families, probably not wrongly. The term was used quite often in documents in the sixteenth century. The Borderers themselves usually just referred to themselves as belonging to a name. The Highlanders have been trying to separate themselves from the Lowlanders for a long time, and it seems the Borderers are doing the same now. Shunning tartans and Gaelic terms. It all seems to be a pretty mute point to me. Stephen Maxwell

Is there anyone out there that has access to the 1881 and 1891 census for Bowden, Roxburgh? If so, would you be willing to do a census lookup for me? I am looking for the following names: James Colvin Fisher - (age ~29 in 1891 census) and his wife Janet Janet Robertson - age ~15 in 1881 census Regards Miriam ______________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

Barbara; Have you checked the naturalization records available, I believe, from the LDS Church, for St. Lawrence County, NY. As you know many of the 1800's Scottish people went first to Canada and then down the St. Lawrence River to settle in Northern New York, both Jefferson and St. Lawrence County. My TURNBULL family settled at Rossie, NY in 1820. They were from Jedburgh. One article I have states the trip to the US took some 7 weeks back in 1820. They traveled on the St. Lawrence River on Durham boats. Hope this helps with your TAITS and anyone else researching in NNY. Julia ________________________________________________________________ YOU'RE PAYING TOO MUCH FOR THE INTERNET! Juno now offers FREE Internet Access! Try it today - there's no risk! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.

Hi Barb, I wonder if there could possibly be a connection with our Taits from Hawick. My ancestor PETER BLAIR married ELIZABETH TAIT of Hawick in 1839. It seem the marriage banns of Elizabeth Tait and Peter Blair were read in Maxton 17/3/1839, and the marriage took place at Jedburgh 29/3/1839. Elizabeth was the daughter of WILLIAM and ELIZABETH TAIT of Hawick and she was born approx. 1810. I have also noted a record of the deaths of two Taits, from an index of deaths recorded 1825-1862 - George who was a Mason, 4/5/1853; William who was a carrier12/10/1833(?). William may well be the father of Elizabeth b. 1810. If you think there is a connection, I would very much like to hear from you. Tait has been used as a given name down through the generations in my Blair family. Peter Blair and Elizabeth Tait emigrated to Australia in 1839, shortly after their marriage. Kind regards, Glennys Gow in Lismore, NSW, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Tait" <taits@execpc.com> To: <BORDER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Sunday, April 09, 2000 3:45 PM Subject: Hawick history > Lately there have been searchers concerned with people that lived in Hawick, > Scotland in the early 1800's. I was wondering if anyone had any history > about the place back then...ie.population, politics, favored religion? I > have a family that did not say anything about their homeland once they came > to the US in 1834. That too is a mystery, because I donot know if they > spent some time in Canada, before settling in Waddington, New York in 1834. > I do know that the oldest son chose Canada as his home for the majority of > his life. Is there a book or books that I could read that would get me up > to speed on this passageway to the North American continent from Scotland in > the mid-1800's? > Barb Tait > > ______________________________

Joy, Reference you querey about the ROUTLEDGES/ARMSTRONGS. As far as I am aware the Clan system was a Highland thing and was not appropriatly applied to the Lowlanders. They may have had family ties etc. As for the Chief of the Nycsones (Nixons) being their leader, well this seems hardly plausable given then strength of the Armstrongs. They were a smaller family and did indeed ally themselves with the Armstrongs and also with the Elliots and Crossers. The reference to being a broken clan means that they were 'men without a responsible head or chief, but not necceserilly outlaws'. Clive Dakers, like most borderers striving to find a reiver connection, DACRE?

Hello, One of my ancestors was christened in Nichol Forest. To date all I have been able to find out is that it is on the border in Cumberland. Can anyone help with any info please? Nancy

Joy, Now, before I go further, I should say I think they are great fun and a great way for us Scots descendants to get together. Unfortunately, they are not based on firm historical grounding. During the nineteenth century there was an emphasis on all things "Celtic" and Scottish. During this period, many lowland families wanted to be associated with Clans. Clans only actually existed in the Highlands, Galloway, and the Borders. The word Clan, and it's meaning is highly debatable, so I won't go into it. Not every family in Scotland was a Clan. If you define Clan as being tribal, and its members pledging allegiance to a chief, than the Borderers were Clansmen under that definition. Highlanders claim they were not. However, numerous letters from the government mentions the Border tribes as Clans. In the 16th century some of the Borderers referred to their families as Clans, but most referred to themselves as surnames, or graines (sp?). They were tribal, unlike the definition of Clan, their allegiance to their families is not in question. I should add, every part of Scotland was Clannish until the Norman's brought feudalism. The Danes and Saxons did not event the Policy, the French did. The Norman's didn't manage to bring everyone under their rule, so Scotland ended up with places like the Borders and Highlands. Clan Societies have made Clans out of surnames that were never clans, and have glossed over surnames that were in fact tribal. There is no Clan Croser or Nixon that I am aware of, yet these two families were very much their own animals. The Routledges are mentioned in the Steel Bonnets, and a few other books I've read. They were active in the West Marches, and were targeted by Lord Dacre in 1526 to be raided and brought to justice. Odds are, they were their own tribe, and the societies today just haven't dealt with them properly. I will try and do some digging for you. I know the Youngs started their own Society, so perhaps you could look for other Routledges and start from there? Stephen

LOL Gary, I didn't mean to slight the Stewarts. I should have clarified and said those Stewarts who happened to be in the bussiness of Kingship (James IV-VI), and not the other Stewarts (i.e. those Highland and Border rascals). Sorry for the mistake, and ride with the moonlight! Stephen

Thanks Stephen, Very informative. Heather ----- Original Message ----- From: <LionOfLiddesdale@aol.com> To: <BORDER-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, April 10, 2000 2:59 PM Subject: Re: Border Reivers. 'old hands' please help. > OK, I'll take a shot at the reivers. Feel free to burn and despoil my > homestead if I've gotten something wrong. The following is a brief summation > of the reiver time period. > > The Reivers were active in the closing years of the Scottish War of > Independence, to James VI, acquisition of the English throne. However, laws > against raiding and the like were written down as early as 1245. It would > seem, from what I've read, that the Normans did not have complete control > over the area. > > During the War of Independence, Bruce initiated a scorched earth policy. The > Scots couldn't beat the English in open battle (in most cases), so they > relied on guerilla warfare. After Bannockburn, Bruce encouraged his Border > subjects to burn and spoil Northern England. The English Borderers spoiled > the Scots in defense. Bruce eventually passed laws requiring Scots Borderers > to arm themselves. Reiving took off in a big way after this. > > They're raiding was made easier by the shaggy ponies the Borderers rode so > well, called a bog trotter in England, and a Galloway in Scotland. Edward > introduced hobblers in the Scottish Wars, many of these hobblers seem to have > belonged to the Gallowglass mercenaries. The reiver put these beasts to use > in a way the Gallowglass had never thought possible. When the English > reivers served the Tudors in Ireland, they made the Black and Tans look > smurfish in comparative. > > It's important to understand that the while the reivers were living in an > area between two powerful nations, and they were being exploited. The crowns > of both countries pushed the riding surnames to feud with each other, and > spoil their own country's land. When we read about Sim the Laird Armstrong, > John Forrester, or Jock Eliot, it's important to understand that what they > did, was for their family's survival. Whenever the Stewarts visited the > Borders it was to burn them and hang thieves. Borderers were actually > forbidden entry into Lothian upon pain of death at one time. If we're going > to view the reivers subjectively, then we have to look at these things. > > Anyway, after the crowns were united, the Borders became the Middle-shires. > King James broke the power of the Border families. Many men (not just > reivers) were hanged, drowned, or sent to Ireland. many family chiefs turned > their backs on their kinsman, Walter Scott of Buccleuch (The same Bold > Buccleuch) was probably the worst offender. I believe there are actually more > sheep in the Borders today than people. > > Moss troopers later appeared on the Border, and the Moffats and Maxwells had > a go with Cromwell in 1645, but for the most part, the Borders were quiet. > > As many have said, G.M. Fraser's book is probably the best. It mostly covers > the 16th century, when the great surnames were at there rowdiest. > > Hope this helps a little, > Stephen Maxwell > > > >

I'll do my best to catch up with the recommendations on the list but from a great distance. Would appreciate a few words on the period over which the reivers were significant and the area they operated over; Is there a web site? I am ignorant but I've heard my children's BURN ancestors were quite notorious. They seem to have been quite unremarkably respectable since before 1770! Thanks, John Edmonds Moriac Vic. Australia