Robert Aitken dilemma

[jimmain]

I am currently researching Robert Aitken/ Janet Main, married 1795, Slamannan.
This Robert could have been the son of Robert Aitken/ Janet Wallace, (Robert, born 1770 Muiravonside), or Robert Aitken/ Agnes Burn, (Robert, born 1772, Muiravonside).
Robert Aitken/ Janet Wallace were married 1766, Muiravonside. They had the following children in Muiravonside, Falkirk & Slamannan: Robert 1767; Margaret 1767; Robert 1770 (Janet Main 1795?); Thomas 1772 (Margaret Mitchell 1801); Thomas 1777.
Robert Aitken/ Agnes Burn married 1762, Muiravonside.
They had the following children in Muiravonside: Robert 1765; Marion 1767; Margaret 1770; Robert 1772; Thomas 1775.
I suspect that the Robert who married Janet Main was the son of Robert Aitken/ Janet Wallace, but have not been able to prove this based on the OPR records I’ve reviewed. I would appreciate hearing from anyone who might be able to shed some light on this dilemma.

[JMStrachan]

What did Robert Aitken and Janet Main call their second eldest daughter? If they followed the Scottish naming pattern, she would have been named the same as Robert's mother. So was she a Janet or an Agnes? Not conclusive proof, of course.

[jimmain]

They had the following children in Slamannan: Mary 1796 (Thomas McKenzie 1828); Robert William Aitken 1797-1851 (Margaret Arthur 1822); Janet 1800 (Thomas Hardie 1830); Jean 1802-95 (James Leishman 1825/ James Eaglesham 1847); James 1805-64 (Ann Scott 1823); Margaret 1808; Thomas 1810 (Mary Turner 1833); David 1812; John 1816 (Agnes More 1853?); Beatrix 1820 (John Deas abt 1841). So, Janet being the second daughter, led me to conclude that Robert's parents were Robert Aitken/ Janet Wallace, but as you note, this is not conclusive.

[JMStrachan]

It's a good pointer towards it being Janet who was the mother, though - especially as they didn't name any daughters Agnes. Later children were probably named after aunts and uncles. So if you can find out the names of the siblings of the two lots of possible parents, that might produce yet further evidence for it being Robert and Janet.

You may never get definitive proof, but when you go back that you often have to make reasonable assumptions instead. Providing you're always aware you've made an assumption I think that's okay. (Not everyone would agree!)

[jimmain]

Thanks for that. I tend to agree with you.