Hi Betty, I'd be interested if you find a James Bryce Martin amongst your Rothesay family. A great aunt, Janet McKinlay married J.B. in 1853 and my grandfather was named after him. Dont know a lot about him other than that he established a furniture manufacturing business in Glasgow. Happy hunting. Bill

Hi Madeleine, I certainly could be wrong about Faulonaloy/Fauldinloy. The question mark was because I had some difficulty reading the writing. Normally in such circumstances I trace the handwriting and the flow often helps to fill the gaps but I have to confess, as I was a bit lazy in this instance. I for one would be most interested in the school building and indeed any other history bits. All helps to get an insight into how our ancestors lived. Cheers Bill

Hello again, this is what I should be sending to the Buteshire mailing list<g>!..... I am searching for the parents of Robert McNeill born in Scotland about 1799. I suspect the parents may have been John McNeil and Isobel Gilchrist, both of Rothesay. The earliest information of this Robert McNeill being in Nova Scotia is 1821, living in Masstown, Colchester County. He married Mary Crowe (first married to a fellow with the surname Berry). Robert is listed in the 1871 census of Cumberland County, Nova Scotia as having been born in Scotland. Robert and Mary's children were: John, James, Robert L., Rebecca Jane, Joseph and Barbara. All were born between 1822 and 1838 in Nova Scotia. If any of this sounds familiar please contact me. Thanks, Rick MacNeil

Hi folks, I've just added Luke Young to the surname registry. He is researching the following surnames: BLAIR, FITZPATRICK, FRASER, MacKAY, RAE, and YOUNG Please contact hime at "mailto:luke.young@ns.sympatico.ca" if you have information to share. Good luck! Rick MacNeil

Very interesting, Peter. Will send you a scan of the photo. Betty

Once again, sincere thanks for all the input on my inheritance query. I've been away for a few days doing a bit more digging through the sasine minutes and come up with a few more bits and pieces so thought I would do a summary and update for all those who have taken an interest. Firstly the entry in the Sasine minutes of John McKinlay's (John (1) in my original letter.)purchase of property. 16 July 1750 MacKinlay John son to Archibald McKinlay in Glenchromag in a tenement yard barn and chamber lying on the Castle street upon the resignation of Mr Robert Wallace of Bush. John McKinlay married Mary Orr 1.2.1752 (from OPR) Isobel, the first of their 3 daughters was born 18.2.1853 May 1755 Orr Mary spouse to John McKinlay sailor in Rothesay a liferent infeftment in a room and westmost half of the yard.(minutes, no other information) 1837 McKinlay - John merchant in Rothesay. Instrument of seisin in favour of that tenement with the yard, chamber, barn apertiments thereto belonging which were disponed to the deceased Robert Wallace, father of Robert Wallace of Bush lying within the Burgh of Rothesay & on the south side of Castle street as nearest and lawful heir to the deceased John McKinlay son of Archibald McKinlay tenant in Glenchromag with liferent infeftment in favour of Stewart or McKinlay – Mrs Mary spouse of the said John McKinlay merchant presented the tenth day of October in the year one thousand and eight hundred and thirty seven betwixt the hours of ten and eleven forenoon by Archd Mclea (signature) Archibald McLea Writer in Rothesay. I believe too that I can verify the advise that I received from other listers that women could indeed inherit land. I hasten to comment that I believe the names are purely coincidental bespite the fact that John (1) had a twin sister Mary. (This too from 1750) MacKinlay Mary as heir to John McKinlay maltman in Glasgow, her brother German and Robertson Margaret upon Mary McKinlay’s resignation in South and North Butt Inverness (?) with Faulonaloy (?) a tenement yard and wastage and croft of land belonging thereto, fauld, more lands called Achincloich, Lands called Croft Henry. Entry 311 MacKinlay Mary as heir to John McKinlay maltman in Glasgow her brother German and in favour of – MacKinlay Daniel sailor in Rothesay upon her resignation in a tenement on the eastside of the Market Cross. (Brother german in this context I believe means full brother, having both parents in common.) In summary then, it would seem that the daughters were legitimate, could have inherited but probably didn't survive to do so. Next step I guess is to see if there was a will made at any stage. The search goes on!!! Thanks again Bill

Bill, I was struck by the mention of "Faulonaloy" in your posting. Could this be Fauldinloy? I gather the 17th century Rothesay Burgh accounts mention the "piece of land now pertaining to the Burgh of Rothesay called Fauldinloy", which was situated in High Street, near the Bush, and that this was on offer as payment for building a schoolhouse. John MOOR was to have done the work but in the end he dropped out and the work was undertaken - on August 17, 1676 - by Thomas M'KINLAY, carpenter. This comes from a paper in the Transactions of the Buteshire Natural History Society 1911 (Gleanings from the Burgh Accounts) which says, "It was not unusual for the Council to give a grant of land conditional on the grantee undertaking some duty which would otherwise fall to be performed by the Burgh." The paper goes into a bit more detail about the building of the school by Thomas M'Kinlay. I'd be glad to send details to you or anyone else interested, Madeleine In a message dated 4/26/01 9:59:43 PM GMT Daylight Time, Bill.McK@xtra.co.nz writes: << MacKinlay Mary as heir to John McKinlay maltman in Glasgow, her brother German and Robertson Margaret upon Mary McKinlay’s resignation in South and North Butt Inverness (?) with Faulonaloy (?) a tenement yard and wastage and croft of land belonging thereto, fauld, >>

Hello Listers, A photo of a memorial to victims of a fire at Ardnahoe in 1877 was kindly sent to us & we would like to know if anyone has any information about this tragedy. Apparently seven people were killed on the 8th of July 1877. Betty

Hello Listers, I am new to the list, my name is Betty Kenny & I live in Camberwell, a suburb of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. I am particularly interested in the family stories as well as the history of the times & places of my forebears. My sister, Penny McDonald Chalmers shares the research & the excitement of new discoveries. About 150 years ago, one of our gr gr grandfathers came to Australia from the Isle of Bute, he was John Crawford MARTIN, son of James MARTIN & Janet/Jean CRAWFORD. His sister, Ann Gilroy MARTIN also came to Melbourne, where she married James Maconochie from Rothesay. Also three other gr grandparents came from other parts of Scotland & we are very aware of our Scottish heritage. Looking forward to contributing & making contacts through the list. Betty

Hi everyone Also sending to the List a copy of a reply I sent directly to Bill McKinlay re his inheritance query. Graeme Gold Coast Queensland Australia Hi Bill Went through the notes that I have made from various lists, & came up with some more possibilities for you. What has been said about inheriting property etc in Scotland is: "A couple could be declared married simply by beginning to live together as man and wife, the wife taking the husband's name when appropriate (remember a married woman using her married name was a Victorian invention and to this day all married women in Scotland have their maiden name then "or" then their first married name then "or" then their second married name etc etc depending on how often they have taken the plunge, on all important court and legal documents) and most importantly all their friends and family, neighbours etc treated them as married and called them appropriately. "However there were times, such as when the husband died without a will, that the "wife" in an irregular marriage would need to establish it in order to succeed to her husband's estate. Remember it is a modern invention (1893) with the Married Woman's Property (Scotland) Acts which allowed Women to own heritable (i.e. land and buildings) property. Scots Law never did (and still doesn't) recognise so called Common Law marriages. "Also remember that in Scotland until Victorian prudery tried to hide the fact, the majority of brides were pregnant and any child born before marriage would be legitimated on the subsequent marriage of it's parents, IF they were both free to marry at the time of it's birth. Again this was important because before the modern era,an illegitimate child had no rights of succession in it's father's estate, only it's mother's and since the father would have owned all the property it would have been penniless. "Also illegitimate children could not and still cannot succeed to titles and honours and often estates were Entailed which meant that they could only pass down from father to son and the son had to be legitimate. "This area of law was a minefield and so for genealogists the court papers are a marvel and many court records are stored in Edinburgh at the National Archives. see my web-site: <http://www.highland-family-heritage.co.uk>" This all raises several possibilities: 1/ John wasn't actually married, so his "wife" & daughters weren't able to inherit his property; 2/ the daughters were illegitimate so couldn't inherit their fathers estate; 3/ women just were not allowed to own property; 4/ the estate was entailed so it could only go from father to son. I think I'll leave it up to you to try & check this one further ! Fun stuff, this Family History, isn't it ?

SUZAN MONTANO-FELTON <TATUNK@worldnet.att.net> also appears to have been struck by the virus I mentioned in last week's post, as a post with her address has been bounced to me due to the attachment !!. Again, I have taken the precaution of unsubscribing her until she has overcome the problem. Haste ye back Peter

If you have two (or more) e-mail addresses, you MUST use the one with which you subscribed for all postings to the list. -----Original Message----- From: Jennie Macfie <archive@culturalfantasists.co.uk> To: Buteshire List <ButeshireGenWeb-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Wednesday, 25 April 2001 17:53 Subject: {not a subscriber} Ownership of Land >Just two points about land ownership in Scotland - >1) until quite recently, feu duties operated in Scotland. This comes >from the French "feu" = fire, with the more specific meaning of "hearth" >and shares this with the word "feudal". >The underlying concept, as I remember it, was that the land ultimately >belonged to God, and was held on His behalf by the King, who sublet it >in a" pyramid" structure to the people who actually lived on it. The >idea that everyone was a steward of that land or house for succeeding >generations was rather a good one. But after the inflation of the 1970s >feu duties were left as an annoyingly small tax which was expensive to >collect, and after a decent interval and the usual harrumphing about >progress and change were legislated away. > >2) In the Gaelic, there is no verb meaning "to own". To translate, for >example, "That's a nice kilt you have, Ian" you would say in Gaelic >"That's a nice kilt which is at you, Ian". It may be fanciful, but to my >mind this linguistic heritage may be behind the Highlanders' lack of >interest in outward show, even to this day. Your possessions are only >"at you" - they are not a part of you and they do not change who you >are. > >My brother pointed out also that if you subscribe to this idea, cattle >rustling could never be construed as a crime... > >Both these concepts underlie what Pat Jeffs posted about individuals not >owning the land. > >atb, Jennie > >

Hi all, Is there any such thing as a probate index for Scotland? Looking particularly for my Ann WILSON (nee FERGUSON) d 1858 and/or her husband, Thomas who died prior to this - both is Rothesay. Many thanks in advance, Cathy, Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia.

Ditto again! -----Original Message----- From: MSl29@aol.com <MSl29@aol.com> To: ButeshireGenWeb-L@rootsweb.com <ButeshireGenWeb-L@rootsweb.com> Date: 23 April, 2001 00:30 Subject: Re: Laws relating to inheritance. Bill, The following from Ancestral Trails, by Mark Herber, would seem to suggest that daughters did inherit property if there were no sons. Unfortunately it doesn't take it as far as the children of daughters. Hopefully you will have more helpful replies than this. Meanwhile, this is what Mark Herber says: "Scottish law provided, until 1868, that any real property (land and buildings) should descend to the eldest son or, if there was no son, to any daughters equally, then to the surviving spouse. Therefore, until 1868, only moveable property (such as money, furniture or livestock) could be the subject of a testimentary disposition. From 1868 all property could be devised or bequeathed ..." Madeleine

Ditto -----Original Message----- From: Patricia Jeffs <Pat.Jeffs@btinternet.com> To: Bill McKinlay <Bill.McK@xtra.co.nz> Date: 22 April, 2001 19:27 Subject: Re: Laws relating to inheritance. :Hi Bill : :In Scotland ownership of property is equivalent to ownership of land. Goods :and shattles are completely separate. I have a feeling that land had to be :handed down to a male member of the family, although daughters could receive :goods and shattles. : :Putting it another way, land was held by a family, not a specific member of :a family. An individual could only hold it for his lifetime and then it had :to be passed to another family member. No individual could sell the land; it :was not his to sell. Losing it through bankruptcy was a different situation :altogether. : :The meaning of the word "sasine" is to hold. Another set of documents that :go with sasines is the "retour of heirs" which, I think, is the proof of :eligibility that had to provided to the courts by each new heir when the :property was transferred to him. : :I am not a lawyer and may have some of these points wrong. If someone else :says I am completely off the rails, I will stand corrected. : :/cheers :Pat

As per Peters comments, I am forwarding to the list replies received -----Original Message----- From: MrsIMacleod@aol.com <MrsIMacleod@aol.com> To: Bill.McK@xtra.co.nz <Bill.McK@xtra.co.nz> Date: 22 April, 2001 21:55 Subject: Re: Laws relating to inheritance. : :Yes daughters could inherit. The fact that they didn't suggests that they :didn't survive their father, nor did any of their offspring. Have you looked :for a will of John 1?. That might shed more light than the sasine records. :Irene :

Between 1923-78 the Beltona record label issued over 3000 x 78-rpm records as well as LPs and EPs. Most of these were by Scottish artists and I am anxious to find out something of their lives and careers. Scottish popular culture as represented on commercial gramophone records has been almost totally ignored and my researches aim to rectify this state of affairs. Visit my web site at www.beltonaproject.co.uk for a complete list of artists and more details of the project. I am always willing to help anyone with a query about a 78rpm record of Scottish interest (i.e When was it recorded?) Bill Dean-Myatt. bill@beltonaproject.co.uk

> An individual could only hold it for his lifetime and then > it had to be passed to another family member. No individual could sell the > land; it was not his to sell No not true. Land could be sold. An estate could be entailed which meant that it had to pass to the nearest male heir when the owner died but if the owner wished to sell during his lifetime then he could. Irene

Hi Bill and All Am I missing something here? There was just your initial post, Madeleine's answer a few hours later and your response a few hours after that "... thanks for all the input on this." and "Consensus is ..." How did you get a consensus from a single reply ? Answering my own question, logically list members must have posted useful replies direct to you. Can I ask all list members that in future where you have general knowledge or information in respect to a question such as Bill's, that it is also sent to the list, so we can all improve our knowledge, thanks. In the present case, Bill, can you provide a slightly more detailed summary of the feedback you received, which enabled you to come to your consensus. I know this will be gratefully received by several list members. TIA Peter

My sincere thanks for all the input on this. I'm splashing out and getting the CDs on Services to heirs and Retours which may help to sort out dates more specifically but they may just confirm what I know already. Consensus is that John(2) must have survived the daughters as well as other males which, although it makes for a fairly scrawny family tree, may save a lot of fruitless searching. Cheers all Bill