Dear Elizabeth, Louise, Ida: I am grateful for the attention you have given to my request and for all the information shared - the legendaryhelpfulness of the genealogy community has again been demonstrated! I have a couple of questions, and then (below) some replies to your posts. Question 1: Can you explain how a McLucais family can become a McDougall family? Are there naming conventions peculiar to Scottish families of that time? A switch from MacKinnon to McKinney makes more intuitive sense to me, if only on phonic grounds. Question 2: What is "KandK" presumably in Mull? Are you all located in Canada? I thought at first that you were in Scotland. My home (from which I am on winter holiday in Texas) is in northern New York, about 60 miles south of Montreal, so I feel a certain affinity with Canadian friends. Each year we are in PQ several times, for a OMS concert, or to visit our veterinarian, or to buy apples, etc. Elizabeth, here are my responses to several of your suggestions/questions: You wrote: "Is the maiden name of Mary McDougall, that is McKinnon, new to you Ted? Would this explain your cross-over yDNA results though I would think not, as only male DNA is usually done - ie 'y'?" I reply: Yes, it is new to me, but no, that in itself would not explain the crossover, for the reason you suggest. But I am guessing that either a) an adoption or b) an out-of-wedlock birth or c) an out-of-family placement of a child, or d) some combination of the above led to a McDougall child being raised a McKinney or vice versa, and the propinquity of families of those names would provide opportunity for such events. Also, the crossover would have to have happened prior to 1792, since we have five McKinney menwhose yDNA is virtually identical, who areproven male descendants of James McKinney, born 1792 in Wiscasset, Maine, USA, in addition to Malcolm McDougall's yDNA which also is nearly identical to theirs. Thus my effort to identify Malcolm's 18th century progenitors has led me to ask these questions of you, hoping to find a likely McKinney-McDougall connection back then. This also leads me to look for a male McDougall descendant of Malcolm's ancestors today who would do yDNA testing, hoping his marker profile would be close to ours. You wrote: "Have you considered that your Murdoch McDougall, the groom in Toronto, is the son of the John McLucais and Mary McKinnon who have a son Murdoch baptised in KandK on Mull on 9.7.1826? John and Mary are married 12.12.1815 in KandK. There are another John McLucais and Mary McKinnon married in KandK on 26.1.1818. There are four children I have found so far - of either couple!! Who knows. . . . They are Murdoch, Mary c 30.6.1816, Marrion c 4.11. 1819, Murdoch c 9.7.1826 all in the OPR under McLucais and Ann c 14.8.1830 under McDougal. This Ann, 36 in 1866, could be your other witness to the marriage." I respond: Yes, that's a good suggestion, a worthy working hypothesis. If a return to the mf for the village or farm would clarify parentage, that would help. You wrote: "In summary, the way I see it so far is - some evidence, some speculation: 1. Your Murdoch is a late pioneer, coming over in the 1849-51 period with the clearing of The Ross by the Duke of Argyll 2. He came over as a bachelor and possibly alone - without his siblings and parents 3. My Neil is his uncle on this side. (There is no evidence of a John born in the 1790's on this side save John married to Jane Thoburn). 4. Murdoch bought land in Bruce County when it opened up and was surveyed in the early 1850's (Grey, Huron and Bruce Counties were settled 'late', and mainly by younger pioneer sons in the Home District who came in the 1820's and 1830's or by the later immigrants in the 1840's-50's). Places to look next are the land registry records on microfiche of the original settlers in Bruce, and the KandK baptisms for the village/farm names." I reply: Where can I learn more about the clearing of the Ross by the Duke of Argyll? And can I do the land registry records via Internet? Where to start? In speaking about your Neil and Sarah McDougall's children, you wrote: " In speaking about your Neil and Sarah McDougall's children, you wrote: "I know the lines down of Donald, Allan, Murdoch, Isabella and of course Christina, but am not familiar with, and done any research on children Mary, John and Marrion." I reply: It is possible that the Mary whom you mention is the woman who became my Murdoch's wife - can any more be known of her marriage and descendants? And finally, you wrote: "Ted, here is another possibility. I have found that sometimes when the bride is already pregnant, the couple leave the community and marry in Toronto, thus preferring the anonymity. I find that in most early marriages there are just men, the fathers, as witnesses. Before 1878 women had no legal rights, even to guardianship of their own children on the early death of a husband. When a women appears as a witness, eg your Anne, I always think it is a red flag, and the residency in Toronto possibly transitory. The fact that a witness is listed as my Neil McDougall of Mariposa is another red flag. The way to check is to cross-reference the birth date of the first child in the 1901 census with the marriage date of the parents." I reply: This is a good idea too, and I will do it if I can get access to the 1901 census. Since I am not subscribed to Ancestry.com, I will have to use other sources. Thanks again to all of you for your help. Looking forward to more correspondence with you - Ted

Dear Ted, Lots of questions to answer. Will do so in detail later this week. But for the moment the 1901 Canadian census is on line at/google 'automatedgenealogy' as are the 1852, 1906 (the West only) and 1911 at the same site, an effort made by volunteers who transcribed them from the microfilm over the last few years - and a wonderful gift to all of us. Unfortunately, as mentioned before, the 1852 is missing for Mariposa. KandK is short for Kilfinian and Kilvickson, the civil parish, one of three on Mull, it being the furthest south and covering The Ross peninsula and Broloss. McDougalls called themselves McLucais but I don't know why - I'm assuming as a result of the 1745 Rebellion. They appeared to have changed back circa 1822-28 as evidenced in the baptisms of both my family and of yours if we have the right one for you. Other names and spellings were also used. Louise might be able to help you with more aliases. I can check the Bruce County original land records from the Crown on the microfiche at our local Mormon Family History Centre. All the best. Elizabeth. > Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2011 14:09:15 -0600 > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [SCT-ISLEOFMULL] SCT-ISLEOFMULL Digest, Vol 6, Issue 297 > > Dear Elizabeth, Louise, Ida: I am grateful for the attention you have > given to my request and for all the information shared - the > legendaryhelpfulness of the genealogy community has again been > demonstrated! I have a couple of questions, and then (below) some > replies to your posts. Question 1: Can you explain how a McLucais > family can become a McDougall family? Are there naming conventions > peculiar to Scottish families of that time? A switch from MacKinnon to > McKinney makes more intuitive sense to me, if only on phonic grounds. > Question 2: What is "KandK" presumably in Mull? > > Are you all located in Canada? I thought at first that you were in > Scotland. My home (from which I am on winter holiday in Texas) is in > northern New York, about 60 miles south of Montreal, so I feel a certain > affinity with Canadian friends. Each year we are in PQ several times, > for a OMS concert, or to visit our veterinarian, or to buy apples, etc. > > Elizabeth, here are my responses to several of your suggestions/questions: > > You wrote: "Is the maiden name of Mary McDougall, that is McKinnon, new to you Ted? Would this explain your cross-over yDNA results though I would think not, as only male DNA is usually done - ie 'y'?" > > I reply: Yes, it is new to me, but no, that in itself would not explain the crossover, for the reason you suggest. But I am guessing that either a) an adoption or b) an out-of-wedlock birth or c) an out-of-family placement of a child, or d) some combination of the above led to a McDougall child being raised a McKinney or vice versa, and the propinquity of families of those names would provide opportunity for such events. Also, the crossover would have to have happened prior to 1792, since we have five McKinney menwhose yDNA is virtually identical, who areproven male descendants of James McKinney, born 1792 in Wiscasset, Maine, USA, in addition to Malcolm McDougall's yDNA which also is nearly identical to theirs. > > Thus my effort to identify Malcolm's 18th century progenitors has led me to ask these questions of you, hoping to find a likely McKinney-McDougall connection back then. This also leads me to look for a male McDougall descendant of Malcolm's ancestors today who would do yDNA testing, hoping his marker profile would be close to ours. > > You wrote: "Have you considered that your Murdoch McDougall, the groom in Toronto, is the son of the John McLucais and Mary McKinnon who have a son Murdoch baptised in KandK on Mull on 9.7.1826? John and Mary are married 12.12.1815 in KandK. There are another John McLucais and Mary McKinnon married in KandK on 26.1.1818. There are four children I have found so far - of either couple!! Who knows. . . . They are Murdoch, Mary c 30.6.1816, Marrion c 4.11. 1819, Murdoch c 9.7.1826 all in the OPR under McLucais and Ann c 14.8.1830 under McDougal. This Ann, 36 in 1866, could be your other witness to the marriage." > > > I respond: Yes, that's a good suggestion, a worthy working > hypothesis. If a return to the mf for the village or farm would clarify > parentage, that would help. > > > You wrote: "In summary, the way I see it so far is - some evidence, some speculation: > 1. Your Murdoch is a late pioneer, coming over in the 1849-51 period with the clearing of The Ross by the Duke of Argyll > 2. He came over as a bachelor and possibly alone - without his siblings and parents > 3. My Neil is his uncle on this side. (There is no evidence of a John born in the 1790's on this side save John married to Jane Thoburn). > 4. Murdoch bought land in Bruce County when it opened up and was surveyed in the early 1850's (Grey, Huron and Bruce Counties were settled 'late', and mainly by younger pioneer sons in the Home District who came in the 1820's and 1830's or by the later immigrants in the 1840's-50's). > Places to look next are the land registry records on microfiche of the original settlers in Bruce, and the KandK baptisms for the village/farm names." > > I reply: Where can I learn more about the clearing of the Ross by the > Duke of Argyll? And can I do the land registry records via Internet? > Where to start? > > In speaking about your Neil and Sarah McDougall's children, you wrote: " > > In speaking about your Neil and Sarah McDougall's children, you wrote: "I know the lines down of Donald, Allan, Murdoch, Isabella and of course Christina, but am not familiar with, and done any research on children Mary, John and Marrion." > > I reply: It is possible that the Mary whom you mention is the woman who > became my Murdoch's wife - can any more be known of her marriage and > descendants? > > And finally, you wrote: "Ted, here is another possibility. I have found > that sometimes when the bride is already pregnant, the couple leave the > community and marry in Toronto, thus preferring the anonymity. I find > that in most early marriages there are just men, the fathers, as > witnesses. Before 1878 women had no legal rights, even to guardianship > of their own children on the early death of a husband. When a women > appears as a witness, eg your Anne, I always think it is a red flag, and > the residency in Toronto possibly transitory. The fact that a witness > is listed as my Neil McDougall of Mariposa is another red flag. The way > to check is to cross-reference the birth date of the first child in the > 1901 census with the marriage date of the parents." > > I reply: This is a good idea too, and I will do it if I can get access > to the 1901 census. Since I am not subscribed to Ancestry.com, I will > have to use other sources. > > Thanks again to all of you for your help. Looking forward to more > correspondence with you - Ted > > ------------------------------- > 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