RootsChat.Com

Thanks Pheno for responding.

I deliberately didn't want to give paper-trail info because it's truly irreconcilable and therefore zero help and 100% hindrance. Believe me, after 20 years every evidential avenue has been analysed to death!

The paper trail is explicitly contradictory; any conclusion using some evidence can be refuted with certainty with another piece of evidence. I've already said that the birth record cannot be true because the mother as recorded had died three years earlier. Worse, the child was born in 1853 seven months after my 2xgtgdfather married so-called wife 3 - at the address where the recently-wed couple lived. I know what you're thinking, but when wife 3 gave birth in 1855, she recorded that child as her first child. And even that wasn't true, because she had had an illeg child back in 1850. (And my interpretation of the DNA comparison concluded that she wasn't the mother anyway.)

I wanted the DNA evidence to stand by itself on its own merits. What do the various comparisons mean? If anything?

It seems ludicrous to me that, at this relatively few number of generations back, two unrelated people can have a better DNA match than two related people. My own conclusion is that we're at the level of random noise where no conclusions can be made (but then, I can't get my head around how DNA results seem to be interpreted by many). GEDmatch seems to agree by setting a default of 7Cm as the minimum below which results are not meaningful - and the comparison figure of 4.6Cm is well below that floor. But some DNA Analysis tools (like DNAPainter) assert that a figure of 0Cm is still within acceptable range; to me, this is head-over-heels logic confusing what is possible in pure mathematical theory with what is probable in actuarial reality.

So, my question is: what does the DNA evidence, and the DNA evidence alone, say?

Awaiting with interest!

To LizzieL: not as far as I'm aware and the chances are vanishingly small: 1st born Haddington; 2nd born Stirlingshire; 3rd born Ayrshire with all three families researched well back in time.

carolbee and Fordyce, do you have any ideas about the parents of Jemima Bruce who married Alexander Cruickshank?

I see that I have transcribed her in 1841 as Jamaima and in 1851 as Jamesina, but FreeCEN has Jamaina in 1841 and Jammina in 1851. She must have died before 1855, because there doesn't seem to be a death on SP.

I've only just seen this.

This is her burial: Burial: Jemmina Bruce 15-11-1851 Keith - 1829 Burial Book - Page 107 (Name: Helen Gilbert & William Laing. Section Number on Plan 93. Extent of Ground 10 feet 6 inches.)

This is her husband's death: Alexander Cruickshank age 86 ma=Gilbert - D-1906-159(Keith)-99 SPI. His mother being a Gilbert explains the Lair owner.

Jemima Bruce was born abt 1817 in Grange per 1851 census.

A near miss, but a miss nonetheless: Jamima 2-11-1823 Grange to William Watt & Janet Bruce. In Nethermills (wit: George Bruce & William Cassie).

The only Bruces born in Grange around the time are those of William Duff Bruce and the nearest date-wise is Anne 17 Feb 1817. Maybe she took her's sister's name after she died. That's my best offer!

I do not know who Helen's parents are and our chat is part of me finding part of the proofs to the answer. Helen seems to link to all the Clark in a way.

OK. That's fine. My concern was that many others had come up with at least two views as to her parentage, one of which can be dismissed out of hand and another is unlikely, and I couldn't tell whether you were coming from their direction or not. But I'm surprised that Rev Weir didn't know her parents but knew her sister. Which is why I was pressing. And still am!

But, before dealing with Helen Weir ms Clark, some findings on the Simpson side.

a granddaughter of the said Elizabeth Clark a Elizabeth Simpson married a James Mitchell from Park Home Dufftown 4th March 1820 this is tracible or proven, and therefore possibly makes her mother Jean Turner who is recorded having resided in Crossburn before being buried 30 JAN 1821. Dying of course first. Why parentage is an uncertainty because there is a Margaret Turner marrying a John Simpson 1787 in Keith, but no Jean recorded to my knowledge

As it happens, I have James MITCHELL & Elizabeth SIMPSON in my tree database. And just to complicate things further, I now see he is a gdson of John ORD & Helen BURGES who are my 6xgtgdparents. I have their son Robert MITCHEL who died 27 Apr 1819 at Parkmore, Mortlach and his wife Mary Ord died 28 Dec 1830 at Parkmore (MI in Mortlach c/y). And the adjacent MI for the family of their son James MITCHELL, up pops the name of Elizabeth SIMPSON (LIBINDX's headstone refs M(O)48 and M(O)49 with Elizabeth erroneously indexed as M(O)89). I hadn't made the connection. Have now!

Now, that's a by-the-by in our discussion. But I can now trace Elizabeth SIMPSON. She died 16 May 1880. By coincidence I already had the page of her death registration which confirms her parentage as John SIMPSON & Jane TURNER (image attached). So John SIMPSON ought to be the son of Elizabeth CLARK? LIBINDX NM167159 has his MI: died 18 May 1846 age 86. So born abt 1760 (in Banffshire per 1841 census). His burial record shows Mr John SIMPSON 25 May 1846 Keith. And LIBINDX headstone Ke(O)434 shows he died age 86.

So, John SIM(P)SON  was born abt1760. But no records show a Clark mother. So I need help here - where's the connection to (a) Rathven (b) Clark? I'm afraid I'm going to take some convincing that this Keith Simpson line is connected to our Rathven Clark line. But serendipitously this exercise has connected a spare branch that was lying around into my main trunk. So, as they say, that's all good.

That's the second of my three 'threads' I mentioned. Next I'll cover the Rathven Clarks you mention. As you know there are zillions of Clarks kicking about and whilst I and others had untangled them to a degree of certainty, there were and are all sorts of loose ends, one or two of which I'm trying to tie up as a result of your posting. Not just all those Burnsides (I remembered another one - Burnside of Tynet) but a surplus of Jameses and Johns. And when two cousin Clarks marry and one of them has both parents named Clark, you know you're in for a brain-squishing ride.

Quite a lot to respond to! As I see it there are three threads to your query, so I'll address each one separately.

First is Helen Clark w/o George Imlach and witness 1717/8/9.

"Too near affinity" : I found this. Key sentence: "In the country districts other Bishops and himself knew that not only marriages of too near affinity, but marriages of too near consanguinity, were of sadly frequent occurrence in the homes of the poor." - The Bishop of Peterborough, Hansard debate 12 Jun 1882 re Marriage With A Deceased Wife's Sister Bill.

There's the affinity that's 'too near' - e.g. wife dies, husband marries her sister. The original text expands upon the issue being debated. Even though this is 1882, the phrase with that meaning is surely equally applicable back in the day.  So I'm satisfied that that turn of phrase is nothing to do with age. And indeed this implies the couple involved are older rather than younger.

Here's the link: https://hansard.parliament.uk/lords/1882-06-12/debates/4208ee11-6540-473d-8f04-48ac71977c72/MarriageWithADeceasedWifeSSisterBill—(No75)

I must confess it's not obvious who is being too close to whom, and in what way. But there is scope. I have both Jean Reid and Helen Clark born about 1690-95. I personally would focus on Helen's mother Agnes (w/o Charles Clark) whose surname I haven't been able to identify (I'll come to why I have that parentage later). Suppose it was Reid? 

The Helen Clark who was witness 1717, 1718, 1719 wouldn't be the Helen Clark who married James Weir - with her last child born 1752, she'd be far too young to be a witness then. I believe it's safe to disassociate the two of them. In the same way, the Helen Clark who married James Weir would have to be exceptionally (but not impossibly) young to have married George Imlach in 1725. Given that the other Helen Clark was probably still around at the time, I take the view that on balance it was the Helen Clark of full age who married him (especially in view of my comments above), not the minor Helen Clark.

Part two to follow, when I surface from having too near affinity with dusty parliamentary records.

An update: after a serious canter around Minutes from several Presbyteries and Kirk Sessions in Banffshire and Orkney, Strathbogie Presbytery Minutes 7-3-1733 (pg 241 CH2/342/5) has this "Mr Alexander Geddes Student in Divinity now in Keith Parish...". Alexander Geddes h/o Janet Cuie was in Nether Clune in Deskford before and after this date, so that settles it: the Probationer who preached at Deskford and the Schoolmaster who messed up his Deskford Kirk Session Minutes are two different people.

I'm interested in the Schoolmaster rather than the Probationer, so I can put the latter to my MiscRef files, tentatively assigned as son of George Geddes & Margaret Innes of Kempcairn, Keith (thus born late 1709 which I still think is too young to have graduated in 1727, at only age 17).

But a big skeleton fell out the cupboard. Our Birsay Alexander Geddes was accused of Jugling (look it up!), Disenginuity, Breach of Promise and Indecent Behaviour. His ordination had to be delayed because it was objected to; and the alledging Presbytery of Kirkwall clashed with the neighbouring Cairston Presbytery which Birsay parish is in. The latter defended him to the hilt; the former was severely put out and got cuttingly pompous in the criticism of their so-called affectionate brethren down the road; and I think the Synod got involved. Maybe Orcadians know all about this Island-wide scandal of the 1730s. And I do now...

These Minutes, all now freely available of course, can be a goldmine if one can take the time to wade through them.