OPR terminology

[jimmain]

In reading OPR birth records, I understand that someone noted to be ‘in’ a certain farm, was a tenant farmer. Reading OPR records of a later date, one then comes across that individual being now noted as ‘of’ that farm, meaning that that person was now an owner. What would change the circumstances of that person to allow him to become an owner?

[Forfarian]

In reading OPR birth records, I understand that someone noted to be ‘in’ a certain farm, was a tenant farmer. Reading OPR records of a later date, one then comes across that individual being now noted as ‘of’ that farm, meaning that that person was now an owner. What would change the circumstances of that person to allow him to become an owner?

(a) they managed to get enough money together to buy and (b) the landowner became willing to sell. The latter possibly being the more important.

[jimmain]

I appreciate your comments. Thanks, Jim

[Rosinish]

In reading OPR birth records, I understand that someone ‘in’ a certain farm, was a tenant farmer. Reading OPR records of a later date, one then comes across that individual being now noted as ‘of’ that farm, meaning that that person was now an owner. What would change the circumstances of that person to allow him to become an owner?

Hi Jim,

"of" that farm could also possibly just mean living there....depending on space for writing.......maybe similar to the term "of this parish" 

Have you anything with dates, his name & the farm name & address which may help someone find if he actually did own it later or do you already have that fact 

Annie

[Forfarian]

"of" that farm could also possibly just mean living there....depending on space for writing.......maybe similar to the term "of this parish" 

Conventional wisdom says that 'of' followed by the name of a place within a parish specifically indicates ownership, 'in' implies long-term residence and 'at' implies short-term residence.

Out of curiosity I have just checked my records and of 715 marriages in Scotland transcribed from the parish registers, only 121 contain the phrase 'of this parish' while 342 say 'in this parish'. 56 say 'of the parish of' and 166 'in the parish of'. So although 'spinster of this parish' is a sort of cliché, 'of' is actually less common than 'in' (in Scotland, at any rate).

I also note a couple of instances where, the banns having been called in two parishes, the register of parish A describes the couple as 'of this parish' and 'of the parish of B' while the register of parish B describes the same people as 'in the parish of A' and 'in this parish'. 

So I deduce that nothing can be read into the use of 'of' or 'in' when it refers to the parish as a whole.

I cannot think of an easy way to check the usage where the person involved is described as 'of' a particular place which is within a parish, but in a quick check of some baptisms all those where the parents are described as 'of' do refer to people who owned land; I know they did because of the registers of sasines.

To disprove the conventional wisdom stated above would require finding a reference to someone being 'of' a particular place whom I know not to have been the owner of the place in question. So far, I have not found such a reference.

[Rosinish]

Forfarian,

I know you have a great knowledge of many things but I didn't really think much of the difference between "of/in" 

I did say "possibly".........meaning if he didn't have proof then maybe someone could help out to clarify 

No harm in trying to help where someone may be unsure 

Annie

[Forfarian]

Absolutely no harm - it was just that your comment piqued my curiosity and I thought I would test the 'conventional wisdom' by comparing it with actual facts.

It's easy to search my database by a phrase, but searching for the word 'of' or the word 'in' is a bit pointless

It did occur to me that I could search for an individual who is described as both 'of xxx' and 'in xxx' in different documents, but that does require using a particular xxx. I did so, using Stanrigg as xxx. I have 19 people whose notes contain 'of Stanrigg' and 4 whose notes contain 'in Stanrigg' and there is no-one whose notes contain both. Of these four, two are baptisms of grandchildren of the then owner, one is a series of sasines between 1663 and 1685 relating to the father of the '1st of Stanrigg' and the last one is one of a family of 11, some of whose baptisms say their parents were 'of Stanrigg' and some of which say 'in Stan(d)ri(d)g(g)(e)' (variations in spelling of Stanrigg are why not all these children came up in the initial search for Stanrigg).

This means that I have now definitely found people who I know (from the sasines) owned property being described as both 'of xxx' and 'in xxx' in the baptism registers, thus casting doubt on the reliability of 'conventional wisdom'.

To actually disprove 'conventional wisdom' I now have to look for someone whom I know to be a tenant described as 'of yyy'. I have yet to come up with such an example.

[Rosinish]

This means that I have now definitely found people who I know (from the sasines) owned property being described as both 'of xxx' and 'in xxx' in the baptism registers, thus casting doubt on the reliability of 'conventional wisdom'.

To be honest I hadn’t thought deeply enough about the meaning of both but I will now (something else I’ve learned).

Reading the post I thought jimmain wasn’t too sure himself either possibly assuming from the person's occupation, might not be able to afford to to buy 

What would change the circumstances of that person to allow him to become an owner?

I also have another theory as to becoming the "Owner" if his occupation might not have been a great paying one, it may have been willed/inherited

Annie

[Skoosh]

 Quite part from the personal circumstances of a particular laird, Scottish agriculture went through various periods of depression as the Corn Laws were repealed and cheap colonial preduce became available. The invention of the refrigerated ship on the Clyde saw the first imports of lamb & beef from NZ & Oz and lead to sheep numbers here plummeting. Around Glasgow hay production remained profitable as the city's horses had to be fed but this is bulky stuff and needed ready access to rail & canal, with "town manure" being carted out in exchange.

I can think of a case in the recession post the Great War for example, when a farmer I knew, whose father, a gamekeeper, bought two farms in inverness-shire. Farms whose former owners kept to the crown of the road such were the profits to be made from lambs & wool.

Skoosh.