Thank you Peter. Sue Liedtke ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 4:36 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Kincaid Genealogical Historiography >I am not able to give a good sourced errata for Dr. Herbert Clarke > Kincaid's (hereafter H.C.K.) paper now, but may do one sometime > for kyncades.org in the myth section. However, since the paper is > out there now I thought I would give a quick running commentary > based on documentation I have. The documentation will have to > follow on the website at a future date. > > In 1238/9 the lands of Kincaid were granted to William son of > Arthur son of Galbrait not William Galbraith. The latter is a surname > while the former may well be a ethnic identity. There is no > indication that there were lands called Galbraith. A good part of > the Kincaid lands were conveyed to others over the next 40 years. > Some remained with the heirs of Wiliam son of Arthur son of > Galbrait. There is nothing to say that the Galbrait here was Gillespic > Galbraith. Just like Simon the Fleming may have no connection to > Robert the Fleming there may have been no connection between > Arthur and Gillespic. > > Regardless of who owned the Kincaid lands at the beginning of the > 1300s, the earliest located person bearing the Kincaid surname was > in 1425. In between a lot of people had been forfeited of their > lands by treason and wars in Scotland so there is nothing to say the > Laird of Kincaid in 1425 was descended in any way from those that > held the lands in 1300. It is clear that William son of Arthur son of > Galbrait held his lands directly of the Earls of Lennox but the Kincaids > held their lands of the Hamiltons of Buthernock who held of the Earls > of Lennox. By H.C.K's reasoning the Hamiltons of Buthernock > would be first in line to be heirs of William son of Arthur son of > Galbraith before the Kincaids. > > There is no evidence of a Francis Kincaid or a Francis Galbraith > at the beginning of the 1300s. H.C.K. is making Sir William > Francis (i.e. the Frank or Frenchman) who helped in the capture > of Edinburgh castle a Kincaid. If he was his name was William > not Francis. Francis is his ethnic origin. > > The point of 1/4 of the lands of Kincaid being parted with about > 1350 seems to be made up. The lands of Kincaid had been > broken up into quarters a hundred years earlier. > > Donald de Kyncade of 1464/5 was not Laird of Kincaid. He > was junior to Robert de Kyncade de Craglokkard (Craiglockhart) > who, if he was not then Laird of Kincaid, was the one from > which the later Lairds of Kincaid descended. Donald was of > the Lairds of Kincaid line but it is uncertain who his father was. > His only son we can be certain of is Robert. > > The Laird of Kincaid in 1486 was William Kyncade of that Ilk. > The David de Kincaid who was a witness to the Ballinkere > charter was not Laird of Kincaid but he was probably his > younger brother. > > William Kincaid of that Ilk had no legitimate children. His > heir was his brother Patrick whose daughter, Elizabeth, later > became Elizabeth Kincaid of that Ilk. She married Thomas > Kincaid of the Kincaids of Coates. He was certainly not > her cousin as it was then unlawful to wed your cousins. > You needed special (and very expensive authorization) from > the Pope to marry someone who shared anything less than > a great great grandfather and that included relatives of spouses. > > I see no indication that the John Kincaid who got the lands > of Boneside was a brother of William Kincaid of that Ilk > (fl 1470s). Timeline wise he fits in the previous generation. > > Edward Kincaid was not a son of Thomas Kincaid of that > Ilk. He was almost certainly a brother. > > The evidence is that Margaret Seton was a later wife of Thomas > Kincaid of that Ilk who had married Elizabeth Kincaid, > daughter and heir of Patrick Kincaid of that Ilk. Margaret > Seton was the daughter of Sir Alexander Seton and brother > of Ninian Seton of the Setons of Tullibody. > > I don't see any evidence that Thomas Kincaid of that Ilk had > sons Malcolm and George. I believe the Malcolm and George > that H.C.K. was referring to were the grandsons of Thomas > Kincaid of that Ilk. It is also not certain if he had a son Richard. > There was a Richard Kincaid and he could be Thoams' son but > he could also have been a relative of Thomas' first wife Elizabeth > Kincaid, daughter of Patrick Kincaid of that Ilk. > > I have a copy of the Will of Isabel Kincaid wife of Thomas > Peebles and see no evidence that she was a daughter of the > first James Kincaid of that Ilk. > > There is nothing to suggest that there was a James Kincaid of > that Ilk who died about 1584. The evidence was that James > Kincaid of that Ilk, son of Elizabeth Kincaid of that Ilk and > Thomas Kincaid > > of that Ilk, was born about 1512 and died in 1604. He was > succeeded by his son James Kincaid of that Ilk who appears > to have been born in the late 1530s and who subsequently > married Christian Leslie, daughter of George Leslie, Earl of > Rothes. He died in 1606. H.C.K. has as sons of James > Kincaid of that Ilk and Christian Leslie as James, Robert, > William, Patrick, and John. James and John can be proven, > but it looks like he made up Robert, William and Patrick. T > here was another son which can be proven and that is Andrew. > There is no evidence that the Margaret Kincaid who > married Alexander Johnston of the Kincaids of that Ilk. > He was of Dalderse and there were Kincaids in that immediate > area which family she more likely a member of. The only > spouse I have seen for Stephen Kincaid was Cristian > Abercrumbie. > > I don't know where he got that Margaret Hamilton, > wife of James Kincaid of that Ilk, son of James Kincaid > of that Ilk and Christian Leslie, was the daughter of a > Kincaid. Her father was Sir Robert Hamilton of > Goslington. > > The Lang charter no. 2407 relates to James Kincaid of > Coates, not James Kincaid of that Ilk. There is no > indication that the Agnes Kincaid and Andrew Johnston > that are also mentioned in charter no. 2407 is a daughter > of James Kincaid of that Ilk. > > The James Kincaid of that Ilk who died at the end of the > 1600s did have a son Alexander but there is nothing to > indicate, other than H.C.K, that he was a pharmacist in > Edinburgh, nor do we know from Scottish records reviewed > to date, any children of Alexander Kincaid, son of James > Kincaid of that Ilk. While an son Alexander has recently > been found, a brother David has not. > > The Alexander Kincaid, writer in Edinburgh and his son > Alexander Kincaid, King's stationer and Lord Provost of > Edinburgh, are of the Kincaids of Grange. > > I leave the American Kincaids to other researchers on this > list to correct. > > It seems to me that a fundamental error by H.C.K. is that > he assumed that if a Kincaid is mentioned in a charter with > another Kincaid then they were siblings. If a Kincaid was > parting with some land then it was a practice for near heirs > to consent to or witness the selling. However, the near > heirs could have been 2nd or 3rd cousins. It was also a > practice for neighbours to witness the conveying. So in > addition to Kincaids being near heirs they could also have > been neighbours. So unless specifically stated one can't > suggest a close relationship unless a pattern emerges over > several documents. > > I think you can see from above how much of a mess > the early Kincaid history is. Sprinkled in among a bunch > of waste is legitimate records which made things look > more than it was. > > Best wishes! > > Peter A. Kincaid > Fredericton, NB, Canada > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:04 AM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Kincaid Genealogical Historiography > > >> It seems to me that it is not helpful for this document >> to be up on the Internet without an attached errata. >> Since he was a doctor who was a President of >> a genealogical association the assumption is that it is a >> professional document. However, the first part is a mess. >> He clearly pulled names out of several Scottish sources >> (and by all means not a significant number of sources) and >> made some Lairds of Kincaid that never were Lairds >> of Kincaid. >> >> While previous work can be useful sometimes old stuff >> can be to risky to keep using. As an analogy one just >> has to look at how many kids cribs, toys, seats, etc. that >> were in great shape, but that we have had to throw away >> because of their danger to our kids. Likewise, there is >> no use in bringing out H.C. Kincaid's paper without >> stripping it of its false parts. >> >> Peter >> >> >> >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Norman Kincaide" <[email protected]> >> To: <[email protected]> >> Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2011 12:59 AM >> Subject: [KINCAID] Kincaid Genealogical Historiography >> >> >>> Dear Kincaid Listers, >>> >>> I have created a new file: Kincaid Genealogical Historiography at >>> >>> http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~kincaide/Kincaid%20Genealogical%20Historiography/ >>> >>> I have added two documents: an introduction and Dr. Herbert Clark >>> Kincaid's Kincaid Genealogy, since there had been some interest in that >>> document recently I have posted his work under Kincaid Genealogical >>> Historiography. >>> >>> Sincerely >>> Norman Kincaide > > To see the Kincaid of all spellings DNA chart in Excel: > http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~adgedge/Research/April%202004/Kincaid%20%20DNA.xls > > To join the DNA project, go to: > www.familytreedna.com/group-join.aspx?Group=Kincaid&Code=J21027 > > > > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > [email protected] with the word 'unsubscribe' without the > quotes in the subject and the body of the message >