Prior to the Kincaid Clan re-emerging in the 1960s, the Buchanan Clan claimed the Kincaids as a sept of the Buchanans and marketed to Kincaids to join their Clan. However, clearly the Kincaids and the Buchanans had separate and distinct lineages. It was only because a member of the main Buchanan line married the heiress of the Kincaid of Auchenreoch estates that they became known as Buchanan-Kincaids for a period. This is what created the confusion. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Margie von Marenholtz To: kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 8:08 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test My mother used to get a Buchanan periodical before joining Clan Kincaid. Does anyone know if the Kincaids were considered part of the Buchanan Clan? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Barbara Van Hout" <dutchtreat@prodigy.net> To: <Kincaid@rootsweb.com> Sent: Monday, December 15, 2008 1:24 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > Interesting records of Scotland, some of which show a connection to the > Buchanan family: > > ROBERT KINCAID, probably son of > John K. of Auchenreoch and Agnes > Buchanan; M.A. (Glasgow 1658); > adm. about 1662 ; proposed to be trans, to > Kirkmahoe in 1672 ; deserted the charge > at the Revolution ; retired to Glasgow ; > died Aug. 1691, aged about 53. [Wodrow s > Hist., ii., 232; Reg. Old Dec., i. ; Glasg. > Tests.] > > > Kincaid, min. of Barnweil, and had issue > John, surgeon, Glasgow, died Jan. 1716; > Agnes, born 15th Nov. 1681 (marr. 20th > Dec. 1704, Thomas Buchanan, younger, > of Ardoch), died 9th June 1720. [Gray > Buchanan Coll., Lyon Office.] > > > WILLIAM CAMERON, born about > 7 1637, son of Archibald C., min. of > Buchanan ; educated at Univ. of > Glasgow ; M.A. (1657) ;....He died at Edinburgh, 29th > Jan. 1698. He marr. Mary Wauchope, who > survived him, and had issue Elizabeth > (marr. Robert Kincaid, schoolmaster, Salt- > coats), and eight others. [Glasg. Tests.; > Edin. Reg. (Bur.) ; Maitland Miscell., iv. ; > Acts of Ass., 1690, 1695.] > > > DAVID GEMMILL, eldest son of Alex- > 1798 ander G., tailor, Kirkintilloch, and > Margaret Gray ; educated at Univ. > of Glasgow ; licen. by Presb. of Glasgow > 3rd May 1797 ; min. here 1798-1815. In > 1815 he removed to Kirkintilloch, and > was chief magistrate from 1826 till his > death, 8th June 1842. He gave a site > for the erection of St David s Church > there, was the largest subscriber to the > building fund, and preached at the opening > of the church in 1836. He marr. (1) Alicia > (died s.p. 1822), eldest daugh. of John > Kincaid of Kincaid : (2) 12th Oct. 1824, > Agnes, daugh. of Walter Scott of Neilston, > Bonhill. [Watson s Kirkintilloch, 327.] > > > FRANCIS KINCAID, M.A. ; reader > 1634 1634. [Com. Records of Glasgoio.} > > WILLIAM KINCAID, vicar; died in > 1576 . > http://www.archive.org/stream/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft/fastiecclesiasco03scotuoft_djvu.txt > > > http://www.archive.org/stream/indexes500scotuoft/indexes500scotuoft_djvu.txt > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Peter A. Kincaid" <7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca> > To: <kincaid@rootsweb.com> > Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 6:05 PM > Subject: [KINCAID] Auchenreoch Kincaids was Re: 67 marker DNA test > analysis&infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland > > >> Your highlight part of the problem I have with the >> sample. To me the results would be better spread >> if I could prove that one of these were not of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Let's take sample 2617. This participant can be >> documented as a direct descendant of Rev. Joseph >> Kinkead of Killinchy, County Down (previously >> Rev. Joseph Kinkead of Stranolar, County Donegal) >> who was of the Baronscourt, County Tyrone Kincaids. >> Now the participant (Bill Kincaid author of the This I'll >> Defend) firmly believes that their ancestor was of the >> Kincaids of Auchenreoch. It is clearly written in the >> family history that two sons of Rev. Joseph Kinkead >> (William and Robert) migrated to Virginia. The Kincaids >> of Mononogalia County are the best candidates to be >> of these sons. We have a participant, sample 14530, >> who claims descent from the Mononogalia Kincaids >> and the DNA fits for a connection to 2617. >> >> Now you note sample 94749 who is a descendant of >> Quintin Kinkaid of Muff Parish, County Donegal, Ireland. >> I can't eliminate him as a descendant of the Baronscourt, >> County Tyrone Kincaids (who I noted above are claimed to >> be of the Auchenreoch Kincaids). Rev. Joseph Kinkead's >> grandson, Rev. John Kincaid, was a curate of adjacent >> Templemore Parish. Another grand daughter married into >> the Brownes of adjacent Burt Parish. The Baronscourt >> Kincaids are dominant in County Tyrone and mid County >> Donegal (there are records clearly tying the families >> together) and there are strong links to the Chester Co., >> PA and Delaware Kinkeads. >> >> Then we have sample 23547 who descends from James >> Kincaid in Dalgrain, County Falkirk, Scotland. He clearly >> is connected to Archibald Kincaid of Heuch but Archibald >> died without issue and was succeeded by his brother, John >> Kincaid of Saltcoates. These Kincaids are without doubt >> direct descendants of the Kincaids of Warriston near >> Edinburgh of which the Kincaids of Auchenreoch also >> descend (the patriarch being Henry Kincaid, second son of >> John Kincaid of Warriston). I can't connect James Kincaid in >> Dalgrain to either these Kincaids of Heuch or Saltcoates as >> there is no James of record in the family. However, John Kincaid >> of Saltcoates was the son of John Kincaid of Heuch by >> Elizabeth Kincaid - Archibald seems to have been a half >> brother (i.e. he had a different mother than John). Elizabeth >> Kincaid seems to have been a sister of William and Walter >> Kincaid of Auchenreoch as John Kincaid of Heuch named William >> and Walter as tutors to his children in his testament testamentar. >> Thus, I can't rule out James Kincaid of Dalgrain being from >> the Kincaid of Auchenreoch family. >> >> So perhaps one can see that my perspective of the data I have >> makes me suspect the Kincaids of Auchenreoch having a good >> representation in our DNA project. I certainly would be more >> comfortable will a suggested AAV if one could prove more >> samples without ties to the Kincaids of Auchenreoch. >> >> Best wishes! >> >> Peter >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> From: Sue Liedtke >> To: kincaid@rootsweb.com >> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 12:35 PM >> Subject: Re: [KINCAID] 67 marker DNA test analysis >> &infoonTheGatheringoftheClans in Scotland >> >> >> But we do have samples from some whose ancestors did not immigrate >> during >> the Colonial period and therefore are not direct descendents of the >> PA/VA >> families. Would it have made a difference in your thinking if 23547's >> sample >> was from a line down from James/Helen Scott m 1669 who had not >> immigrated? >> 94749's ancestors didn't immigrate during the colonial period. His >> results >> do not represent a colonial line. Would these lines then meet your >> criterea >> for non-US colonial lines? If more of Rev. Joseph/Francis Cochrane's >> non-immigrant line had tested would 2617's results weigh more in your >> mind? >> The testee was certainly non-US. >> >> Granted there is a disportionate number of participants from the >> colonial >> immigrants who entered VA and PA because they have been breeding in the >> US >> for almost 300 years. Since the US is where the most interest in DNA >> testing >> occurs and DNA can help untangle the various family lines, it is natural >> that these lines are over represented within the project. But there is >> also >> a disportionate (given the c1800 birthdates) representation of your >> David's >> and his possible brother George's line. >> >> We have 2 branches based on 459b (set 1 and set 2/4) of the same family >> (A). >> Both branches had colonial immigrant ancestors and those who remained in >> Scotland or Ireland past the colonial period. Arguing which branch is >> more >> ancient is futile at this point and may be futile at any point as the >> split >> probably occured well before historical data exists. The high rate of >> mutation, as exhibited in set 4 and as shown where we have confirmed >> lineage >> to a given individual in both sets suggests that deciding which is the >> oldest lineage on the number of mutations may also be problematic. >> >> It would be interesting as an excersize to shrink the chart by allowing >> only >> 1 representative of each identical result string then group together >> those >> who have a vetted or suspected common historical ancestor. Decide on an >> AAV >> for each ancestor grouping (this may have to be subjective) and let that >> AAV >> represent the ancestor. This will illimate the over-representation of >> any >> given line and should give a better picture of the overall rate of >> mutation >> for each set. If I had time, I would do this. Perhaps in January or >> February. Right now I have a Christmas tree to trim before heading for >> work. >> >> Sue Liedtke >> 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 unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to >> KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com 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 unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to > KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com 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 unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to KINCAID-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message