Just because a website gives Thomas Kincaid's parents as James Kincaid and Janet Simpson does not mean it is true. The evidence I have certainly does not indicate this. James and Janet's son is another Thomas. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas Kincaid andElizabeth Chielsy > Sue, I agree with you that it would be good to get another sample from > this > Kincaid family of Falkirk. > > The Family Search website gives James Kincaid (son of Thomas) and Janet > Simson/Simpson (daughter of Alexander) as the parents of Thomas > Kincaid/Elizabeth Chiesly. Which Thomas was the possible father of > James/Janet who married > Aug. 7, 1730 in Falkirk, Sterling, Scotland according to church records. > > Barbara >

This connection of Thomas Kincaid/Elizabeth Chieslie as son of James/Janet is also on p. 125 of Bill Kincaid's book in the chapter on "The Falkirk Kincaids." I recall that you disagreed with something about this family...was it that James Kincaid/Janet Simpson were not the parents of Thomas, or that James Kincaid/Janet Simpson was not James Kincaid in Dalgreen, the Jacobite, who supported Bonnie Prince Charlie, the young pretender, in 1745? Barbara -----Original Message----- From: Peter A. Kincaid Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:31 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas KincaidandElizabeth Chielsy Just because a website gives Thomas Kincaid's parents as James Kincaid and Janet Simpson does not mean it is true. The evidence I have certainly does not indicate this. James and Janet's son is another Thomas. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:36 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas Kincaid andElizabeth Chielsy > Sue, I agree with you that it would be good to get another sample from > this > Kincaid family of Falkirk. > > The Family Search website gives James Kincaid (son of Thomas) and Janet > Simson/Simpson (daughter of Alexander) as the parents of Thomas > Kincaid/Elizabeth Chiesly. Which Thomas was the possible father of > James/Janet who married > Aug. 7, 1730 in Falkirk, Sterling, Scotland according to church records. > > Barbara > 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

I know I'm not a fan of Ruth's anymore but this is a silly question. Has she not read the posts in this thread or even the subject line? The sources are in the posts given. I was simply pointing out that Lesley made an error in giving the name John when she should have been stating the name Thomas. There was no John marrying Elizabeth Chiesly. It was Thomas and it is his parents she is talking about. Peter From: [email protected] Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas Kincaid&Elizabeth Chi... Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2010 10:52:15 -0500 (EST) Peter, What are your sources for the children born 17 May 1730 and 11 Jul 1731 being named Thomas and not John? And what is your source for a Thomas instead of John marrying Elizabeth Chiesly? Ruth In a message dated 12/11/2010 8:37:48 A.M. Mountain Standard Time, [email protected] writes: Except that the 17-May-1730 and 11-Jul-1731 baptisms she cites were not for a son John but for sons named Thomas. It wasThomas Kincaid who married Elizabeth Chiesly not John Kincaid. Just to be clear, even if a mother was a Kincaid when we do Y-DNA testing it is the father's DNA that is being passed on. There would be no Y-DNA trace of the mother in a participant today. Unfortunately, it is quite likely that the participant has a separate paternal lineage than the ancestor in question because they match no other Kincaid. Until a matching result is found for a participant in another branch of Thomas, one assumes that the participant's Y-DNA is not representative of the Kincaids of Dalderse or Grange or Candie. Legally the participant represents the line but genetic representation is another matter. Peter

Bill Kincaid's family charts are not all reliable. He has James Kincaid who married Janet Simpson as likely the son of James Kincaid in Dalgrain. James Kincaid who married Janet Simpson was the son of Thomas Kincaid in Dalderse as clearly stated in his marriage record. He also has them as the parents of Thomas Kincaid and Elizabeth Chiesly. The evidence supports that James Kincaid and Janet Simpson were the parents of Thomas Kincaid of Yonderhaugh. I am not 100% certain but I believe that Thomas (m. Elizabeth Chiesly) was the son of John Kincaid and Jean Kincaid. James Kincaid in Dalgrain was married to Helen Scott and their son James was married to Elizabeth Crawford. I believe I provided the information for this for the vetting of Gene's line. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 11:53 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomasKincaidandElizabeth Chielsy > This connection of Thomas Kincaid/Elizabeth Chieslie as son of James/Janet > is also on p. 125 of Bill Kincaid's book in the chapter on "The Falkirk > Kincaids." I recall that you disagreed with something about this > family...was it that James Kincaid/Janet Simpson were not the parents of > Thomas, or that James Kincaid/Janet Simpson was not James Kincaid in > Dalgreen, the Jacobite, who supported Bonnie Prince Charlie, the young > pretender, in 1745? > > Barbara > > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter A. Kincaid > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 7:31 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas > KincaidandElizabeth Chielsy > > Just because a website gives Thomas Kincaid's parents > as James Kincaid and Janet Simpson does not mean > it is true. The evidence I have certainly does not > indicate this. James and Janet's son is another Thomas. > > Peter > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Barbara Van Hout" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Friday, December 10, 2010 6:36 PM > Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Vetting #186057 Martyn Kincaid toThomas Kincaid > andElizabeth Chielsy > > >> Sue, I agree with you that it would be good to get another sample from >> this >> Kincaid family of Falkirk. >> >> The Family Search website gives James Kincaid (son of Thomas) and Janet >> Simson/Simpson (daughter of Alexander) as the parents of Thomas >> Kincaid/Elizabeth Chiesly. Which Thomas was the possible father of >> James/Janet who married >> Aug. 7, 1730 in Falkirk, Sterling, Scotland according to church records. >> >> Barbara >> > > 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 > > 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