On Mon, 14 Jan 2002 16:02:14 +0000 Allen Long <longjaa@sbu.ac.uk> writes: >Hi Roger, >I checked with the National Archives in Edinburgh >today, the Sasine records as well as the Wills and >Probate records are not available outside the >National Archives. I found a review of the >McCulloch Thornhill book by George Dixon who wrote >the earlier pamphlet on the history of Thornhill. >Now I know why McCulloch won't reply to me. Dixon, >in effect, says the book is largely derivative and >lightweight. So you are saying that in asking McCulloch for sources?, McCulloch could only say "Dixon is the source of all" and McCulloch would be embarrassed to say that so McCulloch does not reply. >Dixon says' Thornhill's historical significance >lies in its being a preGeorgian planned village of >known origin, the heart of the volume for the >general reader (of the McCulloch book) lies in its >account of the years 1695-96'. Dixon says this >part of McCulloch's book is drawn almost entirely >on Dixon's own work. > >I can understand the Marjoribanks migrating up to >Thornhill after 1695 to join this planned >community. As I understand it, they were there >earlier than 1695. Isn't that correct? You are addressing Roger & he may have answered by now. But, the battle of Bothwell Bridge was 22 June 1679 (OS or NS?) and Rev. George Williams margin note by the grave of Samuel M'banks (1690) in Thornhill indicates that Samuel was at that battle & Roger (& now we) assume Samuel thus fled to the Thornhill area right after that battle never returning to Dumfriesshire. One might assume he sent for his family after the battle or snuck (correct English is sneaked?) back for them. (I bet snuk or snuck is in OED. Is this a southern USA or hillbilly (Elizabethan) word? I suspect the latter since my parents & the maid claim to not know snuck. Do you Brits use snuck? I can't find it in Webster which makes me look down on Webster. <grin>) Even David M'banks' Hearth Tax in Boghall in 1694 is prior to 1695. Of course Boghall is nearly a mile east of the church in Thornhill & across the parish line in Kilmadock parish today. It looks to me like Kincardine went to a lot of trouble to annex Thornhill considering the shape of Kincardine parish. I wonder if taking Thornhill into Kincardine parish was to get settlers' tithe into the parish coffers. No, not the settlers of the planned community since the community was founded after 1695 & Sam Mbanks is buried at the church in Thornhill in 1690 meaning the church is older than the feu'ing of Thornhill. Just when did the Thornhill church get built and when did the parish get this odd shape? Sounds like a question for Dixon. Page 134 of the McCulloch book says the oldest grave found was 1675 so the church might be that old. That page also says Gabriel Norrie gave the land for the church so I guess there is a deed which gives the date, so there is a known answer. Does Dixon or McCulloch state the date that Gabriel gave the land? Gabriel Norrie is buried there but the dates were not readable. Gabriel's wife's dates were buried & not read. One does not build a church until there is a population wanting it. So, the Thornhill area must have been built up prior to the building of the church probably prior to 1675. I guess Sam who died 1690 did not go to Thornhill because it was a planned community, since he went to the area prior to 1695 & I think the earliest precise location we have for his family is Boghall 1694 just east of what I assume are the past & present town limits (as defined by the built up area vs. countryside). I would say it is 9 tenths of a mile from Boghall to the Thornhill church which is at Norrieston which is older than Thornhill? Did they divide up Scotland into boroughs so that there is no where that is not in a borough? Is that a true statement even for England? Well I digress. In 1690 when Samuel died, Boghall surely would not be in Thornhill & Thornhill did not exist by that name, right? Gee! all I meant to answer was Allen's question: "they were there [Thornhill planned community] earlier than 1695. Isn't that correct?" & I devolved into considering "where" as well as "when". The short answer is yes, the M'banks were in the area of what became Thornhill before there was a planned community at Thornhill. Anyone disagree? Allen before the above quote you said: "I can understand the Marjoribanks migrating up to Thornhill after 1695 to join this planned community." Yes, I agree with you that that would have been an understandable reason & agree that that is not the reason that the Marjorybankses settled in the area since they got to the area earlier. >Allen >I'm phoning Mrs Brodie later today. Are you commissioning her to look at the Earls of Perth's records or sasines or both or other? -- James W. Green III/285 Agnew Rd/Winnsboro SC 29180 CSA home: 803-635-9236 http://members.FortuneCity.Com/jgreen http://Genealogy.Org/~green & working on: http://freepages.genealogy.RootsWeb.Com/~jwg3 ________________________________________________________________ GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO! Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less! Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit: http://dl.www.juno.com/get/web/.