Peter, Thanks for correcting the typo! Also in further searching the Kincaid Archives, I found another post by you that gave the names of James Kincaid's sons as James and John and that they both died in New Orleans but have not been able to find them in any records there so far. When Alwyn Kincaid pursued becoming Chief of Kincaid, I assume he had to file a lot of lineage papers. Do you or anyone have access to these? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter A. Kincaid To: Don W. Kincaid Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] James Kincaid and John Murdock of Washington, DC--1820 Yikes. You seem to have found a typo error on my part. The reference you cite should have the year 1825 and not 1835. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: Peter A. Kincaid ; kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] James Kincaid and John Murdock of Washington, DC--1820 Peter, In searching I found an old post by you Subject: Kincaid estate papers inventory Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:10:12 -0300 in which you had this as one of the inventoried papers: T-LX/10/11 George Kincaid's executry (d.1820). Correspondence and legal papers, including two letters from his brother James in Georgetown, District of Columbia (1835). 1799-1840. 1 bundle. Do you have access to these 2 letters mentioned and if so do they mention his children? Thanks mighty much! Don

The names of the sons and their place of death is what Heather Veronica Kincaid of Kincaid had on her family chart. The finding aid for the Lennox of Woodhead estate papers has a family tree and gives their names as John and George. Hence there is a conflict. However, there is a known error on the Lennox of Woodhead tree so I tend to give more weight to Heather's chart. I think Heather's chart was constructed by her great uncle, John Lennox Peareth, with possible additions by her uncle Alwyne Cecil Peareth (later Alwyne Cecil Kincaid of Kincaid) and his cousin. The early years is clearly based on public and estate records - possibly some from Dr. H.C. Kincaid's work. Best wishes! Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: Kincaid Rootsweb List Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] James Kincaid of Washington, DC--1825 Peter, Thanks for correcting the typo! Also in further searching the Kincaid Archives, I found another post by you that gave the names of James Kincaid's sons as James and John and that they both died in New Orleans but have not been able to find them in any records there so far. When Alwyn Kincaid pursued becoming Chief of Kincaid, I assume he had to file a lot of lineage papers. Do you or anyone have access to these? Don ----- Original Message ----- From: Peter A. Kincaid To: Don W. Kincaid Sent: Saturday, September 20, 2008 9:28 PM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] James Kincaid and John Murdock of Washington, DC--1820 Yikes. You seem to have found a typo error on my part. The reference you cite should have the year 1825 and not 1835. Peter ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: Peter A. Kincaid ; kincaid@rootsweb.com Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 12:50 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] James Kincaid and John Murdock of Washington, DC--1820 Peter, In searching I found an old post by you Subject: Kincaid estate papers inventory Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 23:10:12 -0300 in which you had this as one of the inventoried papers: T-LX/10/11 George Kincaid's executry (d.1820). Correspondence and legal papers, including two letters from his brother James in Georgetown, District of Columbia (1835). 1799-1840. 1 bundle. Do you have access to these 2 letters mentioned and if so do they mention his children? Thanks mighty much! Don 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

I wanted to address you second question in a separate post. This is a detailed post which hopefully will be read fully to understand to point being made. Let me be clear of a technicality with the concept of becoming Chief of Kincaid. The government did not formerlly specifically state who is Chief of Kincaid. This was done by the former Chief and/or the derbfine. However, in 1960 it was held in a court case that the sovereign had final say (Lord Spens case). Alwyne pursued to become entitled to bear the coat of arms of John Kincaid of Kincaid, who matriculated on 29 July 1808, and designation of Kincaid of Kincaid. He was granted this petition. As John was in possession of the ancestral lands of Kincaid and was designated the Laird of Kincaid, the implication is that Alwyne was the best person entitled to be designated Chief of Kincaid - being nearest in blood. In more modern history, when clans got in dispute as to who has the right to be Chief they look to who has the legal right to bear the coat of arms of the person last recognized as Chief. It is interesting to note that while Alwyne was not specifically recognized as Chief of the Kincaid clan, nor representer of the baronial house and family of Kincaid of Kincaid, he was referred to as Chief of the name - apparently a soft recognition of sorts given the precedent decision that year. Let me highlight that this is a reference to Chief of the Name rather than Chief of the Clan. However, the whole process really was a bit of a farce and has become even more so (a case where rules will be bent for those who pay). Let me start with John's GRANT of a coat of arms. It simply read: Kincaid John, of Kincaid in the County of Sterling Esquire Bears Gules a fess Ermine between two Mullets in Chief Or and a triple towered Castle in Base Argent masoned Sable, which last the Family have been in use to carry in their Shields from an Honourable exploit of one of their ancestors in recovering the Castle of Edinburgh from the English in the time of Edward the first, in consequence of which he was made Constable of the Castle and his posterity enjoyed that office for many years. Crest, a triple towered Castle Argent masoned Sable and issuing therefrom a dexter arms from the shoulder embowed, vested in tartan and grasping a drawn broadsword all proper. Motto, This I'll defend. Supporters, Two Highlanders dressed in the highland garb and armed with steel Cuirasses each holding a Lochaber Ax all proper. There is nothing there to say he was Chief of Kincaid or representer of a baronial house of Kincaid. It was simply a grant of a coat of arms. His son, John Lennox Kincaid Lennox, then went on and matriculated a new coat of arms - being the impaled coat of arms of John Kincaid above and Lennox of Woodhead. This matriculation, dated 12 June 1833, clearly states that he was the legal representer of both families and John Kincaid's heir male. It also specifically stated that his father's supporters were confined to the HEIRS MALE of his father. Then we fast forward to 30 March 1960 when Alwyne matriculated his coat of arms - succeeding to John's 1808 grant. At that time, Alwyne was clearly not nearest in blood to 1808 John. Alwyne was the baby of the family. He had one older living brother, William Mandeville Peareth Kincaid Lennox, and three sisters (albeit two of then were at that time deceased). At that time, Scottish succession preferred males to female. A daughter only could succeed if she had no brothers with heirs. Since William was considered heir of line of the Lennox of Woodhead estate then he let Alwyne succeed to the Kincaid arms. William actually had a hyphenated name (Kincaid-Lennox) which barred him from succeeding until he changed his name. Alwyne had no issue so ultimately these coat of arms went to William's only child, Heather, who became Heather Veronica Kincaid of Kincaid. Now, aside from this succession quirk, adding to the farce of it all is what was done for Alwyne's matriculation. What they first did was strike down John Lennox Kincaid Lennox's 1833 matriculation which had the heir male clause. The Lord Lyon declared in Alwyne's matriculation that: "THAT the matriculation and Letters Patent of 12 June 1833 in name of John Lennox Kincaid Lennox of Woodhead and Kincaid was not a proper implementation of the entails of the estates of Woodhead or Kincaid, and that the Patentee was thereunder neither Representer of Lennox of Woodhead nor Representer of Kincaid of Kincaid;" This begs one to ask how it could be that John Lennox Kincaid Lennox was not the representer of Kincaid of Kincaid but his junior descendant could be? The Lord Lyon then declares that Alwyne could bear the supporters because there is no record of an entail for them on record. There was actually an entail on record - the matriculation of John Lennox Kincaid Lennox which he just voided. The next farce was how they got around the issue with Alwyne not being nearest in blood. They declared him nearest in blood 'bearing the name Kincaid of Kincaid' and stated that that the arms were to descend to his heirs male bearing the name Kincaid of Kincaid whom failing to any younger son of Denis Peareth Hornell Lennox (Heather's son), whom failing to the heirs whomsoever next in blood of the last heir of his coat of arms bearing the name Kincaid of Kincaid. So, from then on, key to the succession would be not seniority but who bears the name Kincaid of Kincaid. This was important because the family were also heirs of the Lennoxes of Woodhead who were considered Chiefs of Clan Lennox. They prefer the Lennox title so the senior family member would have to be called Lennox and would not bear the name Kincaid of Kincaid. So when Alwyne died in 1987 Heather's son, Dennis had only one son. There was no younger son to assume the Kincaid of Kincaid name and the oldest was to be the Lennox heir. Heather was allowed to matriculate on the condition that she would later defer if another son was born. Another was not. Dennis died in 1990 removing that possibility. Hence the heir whomsoever applies. Under the old laws this would have been his Dennis' son Edward. We then get the further twist in that while Heather's matriculation was subject to conditions it did give any further conditions who was to succeed. So when Arabella was granted her matriculation they took the further step of giving it to her because Heather granted to her; specifically saying "THAT by Deed of Nomination of date 29 July 1999 the Petitioner's said grandmother did nominate the Petitioner to be Heir Presumptive of Tailzie in the undifferenced Arms of Kincaid of Kincaid." Regardless of these matriculations the Government has struck down the old laws of succession whereby son are given seniority in succession to daughters. The oldest now having the right. Hence things are now even more complicated by the fact that Heather has priority over her brother Edward. So when Don asks about lineage papers that Alwyne had to file my response is that do you really think, given what I outlined about happened, there was too strict consideration given to this. I suggest that if a person wanted to put up the large sums of money to get a matriculation, and there was no opposition, then things would be manipulated to conform to the payess wishes. I don't see anything here that really follows the spirit of traditional clan laws of succession - except perhaps Heather's deed of nomination - nor traditional legal laws of succession. This appears to be simply a case where we have a Kincaid Chief because the Crown recognized them as entitled to the coat of arms of John Kincaid of Kincaid, granted in 1808, when they went through the time and expense to get the recognition. In terms of official recognition, I find it curious that the matriculations do not have specific wording to the effect (ie. we officially recognize) but a more softer recognition by how they are styled. Heather and Arabella were both styled "Representer of the Baronial House of Kincaid of Kincaid, Chief of the Name and Arms of Kincaid" I should note that Olivia Brisbin was frequently in touch with Alwyne at the time he was getting his matriculation. It is clear from his letters that he did not know much about his lineage. He cites his uncle as the genealogist and notes that all he had was his two journals. His uncle clearly spent a lot of time researching records to reconstruct in order to reconstruct his lineages (Lennox, Kincaid, etc.). There was very little known about the Kincaid line prior to the 1808 John Kincaid of Kincaid who married Cecilia Lennox. I have great concerns about how Alwyne and his successors came to become entitled to bear the 'undifferenced arms' of Kincaid of Kincaid and be recognized as Kincaid of Kincaid, Chief of the Name. I say this because of the above and because there are too many unanswered questions - not the least of which there is evidence that the 1833 John Lennox Kincaid Lennox had a brother William. Best wishes! Peter A. Kincaid Fredericton, NB, Canada ----- Original Message ----- From: Don W. Kincaid To: Kincaid Rootsweb List Sent: Sunday, September 21, 2008 10:40 AM Subject: Re: [KINCAID] James Kincaid of Washington, DC--1825 Peter, Thanks for correcting the typo! Also in further searching the Kincaid Archives, I found another post by you that gave the names of James Kincaid's sons as James and John and that they both died in New Orleans but have not been able to find them in any records there so far. When Alwyn Kincaid pursued becoming Chief of Kincaid, I assume he had to file a lot of lineage papers. Do you or anyone have access to these?