In a message dated 4/7/01 5:44:28 PM GMT Daylight Time, MSl29@aol.com writes: Can anyone help with the meaning of flyting? I had assumed it was the same as flitting (which I understand to mean moving house stealthily, to avoid creditors etc). Hi Flyte or flite according to my dictionary is a North British or Scottish dialect word meaning to scold or rail at. So it is not the same as flitting at all <g> (as you thought). Flitting by itself does not have the connotation of stealth. Flitting just means moving house. But doing a moonlight flit has the implication of moving to avoid creditors etc. Irene

I believe in this context it was verbal abuse or an exchange of insults. My dictionary actually says in verse but I think it may have had a wider usage in the past. Comes from flyte - to quarrel. The kirk sessions sound like a fascinating read. Bill.

Thanks, Bill, for the explanation of flyting. Foolish of me not to think of looking it up in the dictionary! I should say too that I have been reminded that in Scottish use the term flit means simply to change abode, not necessarily stealthily. Madeleine In a message dated 4/7/01 9:44:15 PM GMT Daylight Time, Bill.McK@xtra.co.nz writes: << I believe in this context it was verbal abuse or an exchange of insults. My dictionary actually says in verse but I think it may have had a wider usage in the past. Comes from flyte - to quarrel. The kirk sessions sound like a fascinating read. Bill. >>

CRAWFORD & ARDNAHOE -------------------- A few additional notes to round out Lynn Prettyman's discussion of a few weeks back... __________________________________________________________ CRAWFORD -------- John Crawford (15 Ju 1756-13 Fe 1838) who farmed Ardnahoe for some fifty years was the eldest son of John Crawford and Margaret Wilson (aka Marion McWilliam) who married in Rothesay 3 My 1753. I a fairly certain that John was descended from a namesake burgess of Rothesay (fl 1576). On 21 Fe 1791 he married Janet Crawford (1763-22 Mr 1851) in Rothesay. Janet is most probably the fourth child of Daniel and Elizabeth in Kingarth and sister of Andrew who farmed Langalchorad. Crawfords were still farming there in 1928 (testament, Rothesay sheriff court). As far as I have been able to determine John and Janet had only one child, Margaret (12 De 1791-11 Ja 1793) and as farming held no appeal for his seafaring merchant brothers (or nephews for that matter all of whom left to make their fortunes in the fish-curing business in Wick) the lease passed out of Crawford hands upon his death. His immediate younger brother was Rothesay ship owner James Crawford (19 Oc 1758-29 Oc 1805). The brothers and their families were close in life and remain so in death buried side by side in Rothesay Cemetery. James Crawford is my 4x great-grandfather. ARDNAHOE -------- I have the complete details on the ownership of this farm but the file is missing in action at present somewhere in my paper jungle. As best I can from memory - Ardnahoe was originally held by John Glas(s), scion of the senior branch of the Glas(s) family. It was sold around 1565 to Robert Stewart and held by the latter's descendants (inc John fl 1649-75 & Robert fl 1691-1700) to sometime in the first half of the eighteenth century when acquired by the Bute Estate. At an early date the mill of Scalpsie and its mill-lands (originally a separate grant under the general feu charters of 1506) were attached to Ardnahoe. As with the majority of the farms on Bute it was occupied in multiple-tenancy. This usually meant two working families including an assortment of farm servants, unmarried aunts and uncles plus elderly in-laws. Each farmstead was in the truest sense a small fully contained and self-sufficient community (c 8-25 people) but (virtually unique to Bute) not 'communal' in the Highland manner, rather, each family worked its own allotment. "ARDNAHOE" (the promotory above the cave -cove in the modern sense) is one of Dr. McLeas literal Gaelic toponyms that is truly on the mark as a descriptive name. The cove was one of the settings for a rather unusual interlude in Bute history. After the roof was blown off St Blanes in December 1675 Kingarth became a 'mobile' charge until the completion of (what came to be known as the) Mid-Kirk at Langalchorad in October 1680. The pulpit, rescued from the ruins, traveled a circuit like a medieval court as services were held in four locales including Ardnahoe cove when weather permitted. Services were conducted by elders and/or visitors as the incumbent (the eccentric Mr. James Stewart) was nowhere to be found! Evidently still shell-shocked from his narrow escape from death two years earlier when the chamber of the manse collapsed behind him and plagued by his life-long battle with real and imaginary curses he is absent from the scene for the entire period, but that's another story altogether! Graham Noble Kingston, Ontario, Canada ___________________________________________________ GO.com Mail Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com ___________________________________________________ GO.com Mail Get Your Free, Private E-mail at http://mail.go.com

Can anyone help with the meaning of flyting? I had assumed it was the same as flitting (which I understand to mean moving house stealthily, to avoid creditors etc). However obviously wrong there because I have come across references where that wouldn't make sense. For example (from Kingarth Kirk Session records): 25 April 1665 : James Frissell his wife compeired and was reproved for scolding hir husband and flyting and was appointed to pay Gabriell, the officer, ane shilling and if evir shoe wer found in the lyke again to stand in the gogs and pillar." 26 March 1699: James M'Kaw was summonsed "for flyting and craving for his debts on the Fast day and he was admonished on his declaration and confessed his ignorance not knowing it was a fault and promised by Gods strength he would never do the like." (1770s/90s?): James Hunter and his wife were summoned for "Flyting, squabling, fighting and casting firie turfs at each other on the Sabbath day." I don't have a direct note from the minutes. The above comes from an article on the Kirrk Session Record of Kingarth 1641-1703 by the Rev W T Smellie in the 1939 Transactions of the Buteshire Natural History Society. Names mentioned in article include FRISSELL, GRAHAM. M'KINLAY. OCONACHAR (all schoolmasters); M'KIRDIE, (kirk officer); WAKER, HUNTER, M'CARTURE, MILLINE, RODGER, STEWART, M'NIVEN, M'KAW. SIMME, GLASSE, M'INTYRE, N'PERSON, M'KAMIE, M'NIVEN, HYNDMAN, N'KIRDY, M'NEILL, N'CONNOCHIE, HUNTER, M'PHIE, FLEMING, (some transgressors, some church officers etc). I'd be glad to do look-ups but should stress this is not a full list (even of names mentioned in article) so anyone with an interest in Kingarth around these dates might want to check the session minutes themselves, Madeleine

Thanks Pat, That explains much but also opens up all sorts of questions like where his money came from!!! "I shouldn't think heritors were paid. Heritors were appointed to run the money side of parish or burgh dealings. They were appointed because they owned sufficient land to be able to contribute financially to the needs of the rest of the people. Not exactly democratic, but there you go. /cheers Pat Jeffs"

Another question. After most listings of males in the OPRs an occupation is given, ie seaman, miller etc. What in the 1750's would a Heritor do? It seems in various literature it is a position within the parish council but would it have been a paid occupation?

Thanks Peter, much appreciated, It hadn't occurred to me that a remarriage was the reason. Back to the drawing board. I do actually have another Isobel McConachy / McKinlay marriage, in 1722 which had always fitted the picture nicely. Guess I'm getting tripped up with too many like names and the one locality. Bill

Posted on: Buteshire Scotland Queries Reply Here: http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/genbbs.cgi/Scotland/Bute/10520 Surname: McLAUCHLAN ------------------------- Hi! I have a John McLauchlan married to Catharine Smylie in 1844 at West Kilbride. Children: John born 1848 William born 1850 Thomas born 1858 Catharine born 1861 died 1866 (5 years) Agnes born 1864 Charles born 1867 John married Hannah Robson in Oct 1868 at Cumbraes, Bute. Children: John William Catharine Charles James William married Isabella McDermaid in Sep 1872 at Cumbraes, Bute. Children: John born Nov 1874 Helen born abt. 1880/81 (Could be more children but that was all in 1881 census). Thomas - I have no further information. Agnes - I have no further information. Catharine - died. Charles - I have no further information. Is there anybody out there with any connections. I would dearly love to hear from you. Regards Wendy P

Hi Bill I shouldn't think heritors were paid. Heritors were appointed to run the money side of parish or burgh dealings. They were appointed because they owned sufficient land to be able to contribute financially to the needs of the rest of the people. Not exactly democratic, but there you go. /cheers Pat Jeffs ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill McKinlay" <Bill.McK@xtra.co.nz> To: <ButeshireGenWeb-L@rootsweb.com> Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2001 4:23 PM Subject: Heritor > Another question. > > After most listings of males in the OPRs an occupation is given, ie > seaman, miller etc. What in the 1750's would a Heritor do? It seems in > various literature it is a position within the parish council but > would it have been a paid occupation? > > > ==== ButeshireGenWeb Mailing List ==== > *********************************************************************** > The Buteshire GenWeb page is at > http://www.rootsweb.com/~sctbutes/ > > ============================== > Search over 1 Billion names at Ancestry.com! > http://www.ancestry.com/rd/rwlist1.asp > >

I'd be interested in comments on the following. I found the following record in the OPR film 1041085 for Rothesay. May 1753 McConechy & McKinlay John McConechy in Bogany and Isobel McKinlay daughter to Archibald McConechy in Glenchromag were booked the 11th and married June 7th. At first sight it simply seems to be a mistake by the recorder. Archibald McKinlay and his wife Isobel McConachy were tenants of Glenchromag at this time, this from both other family marriage records and also a property transaction in the sasines register. The problem arises, not only in the lack of a birth record for Isabel McKinlay (other than patron submissions in the IGI) but the following entry in the OPRs December 1730 Isobell daughter to Archibald McConachy in Glenchromag & Isobell McConachy his wife was born 25th & baptised 27th instant. This again is at a time when there are other McKinlay christenings at the same location, eg: April 1833 Janet daughter to Archibald McKinlay in Glenchromag and Isobell McConachy his wife etc. There is no marriage record of an Archibald McConachy to an Isabell anyone in the appropriate time frame. To me it seems highly unlikely that there was an Archibald McConachy/Isobel McConachy and an Archibald McKinlay/Isobel McConachy living on the same little block of land over a thirty year period but equally it seems highly unlikely that two generations of records could be equally confused. One thing is for certain - I am definitely confused!!!! Has anyone else come across similar - apparent - discrepancies ??? Bill

Bill You said ... >I found the following record in the OPR film 1041085 for Rothesay. >May 1753 >McConechy & McKinlay >John McConechy in Bogany and Isobel McKinlay daughter to Archibald >McConechy in Glenchromag were booked the 11th and married June 7th. This type of entry usually means that the spouse is a widow, and her father's name has been given to show her maiden name. Thus ... >December 1730 >Isobell daughter to Archibald McConachy in Glenchromag & Isobell >McConachy his wife was born 25th & baptised 27th instant. ... is probably this same Isabel. Now you need to find a marriage of an Isabel McConachy to a MacKinlay lad before December 1730. regards Peter Cook Rossmoyne Western Australia cookfmly@bigpond.com http://users.bigpond.com/cookfmly/ or http://cookfmly.rootsweb.com/ for research names List maintainer of the ButeshireGenWeb mailing list.

Hi All, I am also using Aol 6.0 and have not had any trouble with this list. I did have trouble with another Rootsweb List that I am on - all the messages were getting garbled and were awful to try to decipher. I was using the digest mode of that Rootsweb List. I unsubscribed from the digest mode (D) and then re-subscribed to the single mail (L ) and the messages came through absolutely perfect. If you are using the digest mode and are on AOL, I would suggest giving it a whirl. You could also try emailing AOL with your problem. They were unable to help me (they told me that AOL can't handle foreign languages - which is ridiculous) but they may be able to help you. Leanna

Thanks for the information, Kathy. If anyone else on AOL is having problems, or can assist, a small group of AOL subscribers is working on this off list. If you pass your contact details to me off list, I'll pass them on. regards Peter -----Original Message----- From: Worthink@aol.com <Worthink@aol.com> To: ButeshireGenWeb-L@rootsweb.com <ButeshireGenWeb-L@rootsweb.com> Date: Monday, 2 April 2001 03:51 Subject: Re: AOL 6.0 and Rootsweb >You commented that AOL 6.0 users can only sent in HTML and that messages will >be rejected by Rootsweb. I use AOL 6.0 and have not had any problems. >Kathy Worthington >

You commented that AOL 6.0 users can only sent in HTML and that messages will be rejected by Rootsweb. I use AOL 6.0 and have not had any problems. Kathy Worthington

Sorry, seems I was a bit ahead of myself on the AOL thing - should have read all my inwards mail first. From the list owners list ... <<In a message dated 3/31/2001 10:52:36 AM Pacific Standard Time, JYoung6180@aol.com writes: > Our fearless "list guru" programmer Tim has found a work-around for >the AOL 6.0 HTML problem. :-) > As I understand it (and I'm not saying I do) AOL added a space >(possibly inadvertently) in a line in the headers of the emails and >that resulted in RootsWeb's (Tim's) HTML stripper not being able >to process these messages as plain text. Tim has now made an >adjustment to make up for AOL's change (error?). > Never-the-less I stand by my cynicism. Peter

No new members this week. ****** ****** ****** Thinking of upgrading to AOL V6.0, then think again. I understand that AOL V6 only allows users to send in HTML format - this type of message will be blocked by RootsWeb, and will continue to do so as this has been the rule since day one. It's one of the keys to a) lower volumes of mail and smaller digests, and b) reduction of potential virus attack - it is possible to include self executing statements in html format e-mails. It also ties in directly with the no attachment rule. Looking at this cynically, as far as AOL are concerned if they set HTML as standard, the message size at least doubles, so it takes twice as long to send and receive, hence they get at least twice the money from their subscribers with timed accounts. Personally if I was in the same situation, I'd choose another ISP. ****** ****** ****** This may be of interest - as with all things web based, the "Caveat emptor" buyer beware warning definitely holds true. Any correspondence on the subject should be with the lady whose address is given below. > Subject: Ethics > > Hi everyone. this came as a message from the listowner for the Rockingham, New Hamspshire list that I belong to. I thought everyone ought to see what is going on. Mr. Marston has asked that we send this along to the lists we belong to so I am doing so. Please read the whole message to see what is going on. I think at the very least we ought to take it as a warning and a reminder that not all we find is correct information and just use it as a tool to look further. > >************************* >> Dick Marston wrote: >> >> Listers: >> >> I have naively included a link to GenForum for those wishing >> to post and respond to Rockingham and Marston surname >> queries. Furthermore, I have innocently posted several >> responses on those forums. Today, I have amended the link >> on Rockingham's Queries Index Page to read as follows: >> >> **If you want still another place to search and post, try the >> Rockingham County message board on >> [genforum.genealogy.com/nh/rockingham/ ] >> WARNING!! Any information which you share on GenForum's >> message boards may be copied by Genealogy.com >> [/FamilyTreeMaker.com] and sold by them for profit either as >> data included on a monthly/annual subscription or as a CD >> for purchase. Much of this information is totally unreliable. >> Caveat emptor [Buyer beware]. In order to see what, if any, >> information Genealogy.com has acquired from your >> voluntary contributions, you will first need to subscribe to >> their service available to paying members only.** >> > > I am SO angry I could spit!! Until I started checking up on this fiasco about my father's pedigree, I had NO clue that Genealogy.com was doing this. I want to declare WAR! I can't get through to their leaders, but I sure would like to get through to their potential customers and unwitting voluntary contributors. > > Please feel free to copy and paste [or send] this warning wherever, or to whomever, you think might do the most good. You may post it as your own message or as a quote from me, whichever you prefer. Your help will be greatly appreciated. > > Denise > dcmeta@interx.net > One Planet ~ One People ****** ****** ****** Feel free to join in and present your own items. Peter Cook cookfmly@bigpond.com List maintainer and Co-host with Barbara < babrown@fast.net > of the ButeshireGenWeb mailing list.

Cathy are you sure they were married in Bute? There is a marriage listed for Jane Wilson and Dugald Campbell at the LDS site for the same date in Barony, Lanark. Its possible of course that the proclamations were made in more than one parish and, as I will be going through the OPR films for Bute round about their wedding aniversary next week, I'll see if they are there. Sometimes a parents name is to be found there- (on the marriage proclamations) which can narrow down the hunt. Bill

Hi all, Not sure if anyone can help me, but here goes anyway. Jane WILSON, born Rothesay, Bute sometime between 1823 and 1829. Married Dugald CAMPBELL of Dunoon, at Rothesay, Bute, 4th April 1848. They then migrated to Melbourne, Australia. Children: James b 1849, St Kilda, VIC, Australia. William b 1850, St Kilda, VIC, Australia. Theodore Dugald b 1851, St Kilda, VIC, Australia. Annie Laurie Ferguson b 1853, St Kilda, VIC, Australia. Then, for some reason they returned to Scotland where the following child died - no record of birth either in Australia or Scotland. Charterina d 1857, Bute, Scotland. In 1858 they came back to Victoria, Australia on the ship "John Barbour" where several more children were born and Jane and Dugald both died. I am trying to find their parentage etc as "unknown" on their death certificates. Does anyone have any links or suggestions? Many thanks in advance, Cathy, Blue Mountains, NSW, Australia.

Posted on: Buteshire Scotland Queries Reply Here: http://cgi.rootsweb.com/~genbbs/genbbs.cgi/Scotland/Bute/10519 Surname: ------------------------- Hi Sheryl, I too have the common links with the Bannatyne/Robertson as does Peter (hi Peter)and I've done a little searching on this one. Your Margaret's parents were John Bannatyne and Jane Bannatyne and from the 1881 Census we get their ages ... Dwelling: Drimaghinear Census Place: Kilmory, Bute, Scotland Source: FHL Film 0203564 GRO Ref Volume 554 EnumDist 5 Page 4 Marr Age Sex Birthplace John BANNATYNE M 74 M Kilmory, Bute, Scotland Rel: Head Occ: Farmer Of 40 Ac 20 Arable Employing 1 Boy Jane BANNATYNE M 60 F Kilmory, Bute, Scotland Rel: Wife Occ: Farmers Wife Ronald BANNATYNE U 22 M Kilmory, Bute, Scotland Rel: Son Occ: Farmers Son Flora BANNATYNE U 19 F Kilmory, Bute, Scotland Rel: Daur Occ: Farmers Daur Margaret BANNATYNE U 16 F Kilmory, Bute, Scotland Rel: Daur Occ: Farmers Daur William GORDON 15 M Glasgow, Lanark, Scotland Rel: Servant Occ: Farm Servant I searched the IGI for John's birth without any luck but assuming that the Jane's maiden name is also Bannatyne (see the IGI entry for their marriage)/ ... >john BANNATYNE >Sex: M >Marriage(s): >Spouse: Jane BANNATYNE >Marriage: 11 Jun 1857 >Kilmory, Bute, Scotland Then Jane must be this girl ....... >Jean BANNATYNE >Sex: F >Event(s): >Birth: 1 Feb 1820 Feorline, Kilmory, Bute, Scotland >Christening: 11 Feb 1821 Kilmory, Bute, Scotland >Parents: >Father: Neil BANNATYNE >Mother: Ann SILLARS This is a good place for Peter to take over as he has this family on his Family Tree. I'm iterested so keep me posted as to what you find. Best wishes Eddie Dowds edowds@usa.net