RootsChat.Com

Sorting out the Clan Iain Ruadh (CIR) groupings can be confusing, one person on a genealogy site offered up this thought that I have come to believe is probably more correct than not: briefly and paraphrasing... There is a high probability that there were quite a number of highland families that used the fairly common name of CIR.   

There is also confusion and debate as to whether it was really a separate "officially" recognized Clan or a Sept, or whether there was a Clan and a couple aligned septs occupying different areas, still foggy.  Did it arise to such a level of power as to be recognized as a Clan?

I can easily think that there were probably at least three CIR groupings based on current DNA, old trees and family lore:

1) the Haplo R1a chiefly line CIR that is referred to in old Clan Donald family trees.  Assuming that the Y DNA signature was not replaced at some point with an R1b, which would really scramble some eggs ?

2) the Haplo R1b CIR that is mentioned in history occupying the Glenmoriston area well before and during the Grant importation, and by existing DNA signatures and scant family lore of two individuals who lived in the hills above Glenmoriston (unknown whether they or their relatives are still alive),  this CIR grouping appears to be aligned with the R-BY150 Y group.

3) Another Haplo R1b CIR that appears to be associated with Loupe/Knoydart yet different than the Glenmoriston group (for at least the last 800 years) and looks to be associated with the above Peter as R-BY154. 

I have a number of john roy McD's in a branch of my tree who herald from Knoydart, but their Haplo group is I-M253 which is a common Viking marker.  Nonetheless I wonder if they are a"sept" or groupie, lol, of CIR?

Are there more CIR groupings out there, probably.  Is what I state above potentially inaccurate, you bet.  More testing and research will be required, sigh. 

I think someone told me that the Clan McDonald DNA website designated the 2nd group above as being CIR, that would be somewhat erroneous in that there appear to be at least three separate groupings as indicated above, so maybe a little premature if not deficient in scope.

That's unfortunate, It is a hard case to make to someone who knows their history already and wouldn't necessarily see the benefit of such and expensive exercise.  If you ever get the chance to speak to them, please let them know that there are a number of us who would gladly pool some  money needed to help cover the cost of the test.  All we would need is their spit.  Hate to see a missed opportunity to validate the lineage and look for that mythical SNP mutation that might show a distinction between the Craskie and Duldreggan lines or just validate the closeness of the GM Grants. 

Part 2 of 2

Several more, yawn, points need clarification. 

The "John Roy Grant" from the prison records was pretty clearly a wheelwright from Aberdeen who was holed up in Craskie "there" for a bit after Culloden and he was allowed to return to Aberdeen. 

This is a different John Grant, than John Grant Craskie Farmer age 40 when transported in 1747.  This information is obtained from a detailed analysis by Seton in a work called “Prisoners of the '45". 

Many people assume these people to be the same John (Roy) Grant and attribute DOBs of 1705 and 1706 to him as they look at the prisoner record and mistakenly assume "age 40" was calculated from the year 1745 Culloden or 1746 when John Grant Craskie farmer was a prisoner, but the record states the age was noted on the date of transport in 1747, so DOB 1707....assuming that he didn't lie about his age. LOL.

Not that John b1707 couldn't have had a middle name of Roy, it's just that there is no record that has come forth to my knowledge.  This conflation of the two john's has instilled a bit of doubt in Evelyn Goulet's previous work as to make her want to revisit this at some point in the future.

The literature is pretty clear about the concurrent existence of both Patrick "the elder" OF Craskie and John of Craskie "father of Isobel" as to solidify the reality that two Grant brothers (or ½ brothers) lived in Craskie at the same point in time and both had children there. 

The elder Patrick getting the wadset and the younger brother, John of Craskie, continued to live there in some capacity, fathering Isobel and quite likely John b1707 Craskie...speculation  sure, but the dates, location, meager records and familial circumstances appear to support such an assertion/guess.     

From the above mentioned entry "Therefore I think that this Donald may have lived at Craskie [perhaps his mother being forced by necessity to move there], but he would not REALLY be a Craskie Grant." obviously this is just one interpretation that explains this situation. 

I gladly surrender the possibility/probability that Donald Grant Craskie b1744 was not of the wadset lineage, and if by that, his labeling of Donald as "not REALLY.. a Craskie Grant" is in reference to that reality, I surrender. 

But, if by that passage, he implies that Donald Grant couldn't have been born and reared on Craskie and fathered through a Craskie branch of the Glenmoriston family tree, then I think I have shown enough potential for an alternate reality and it is just as valid an assertion/interpretation of the available information.  Obviously, Craskie was included in his U.E.L. Records for a reason.   

As always, these are just two possible scenarios based on little more than hearsay if judged in any legal environment and as such are sparsely informed pipe dreams, LOL.

As for the possibility of Y DNA shedding light on this situation: 1) Donald Grant Craskie Weaver's DNA has been tested and is known to match the the primary chiefly Grant line (there is a secondary chiefly line). 

This means he carried the same Y chromasome as the Grants of Grant and descends through a straight father to son lineage.  Dundreggan Grants and Glenmoriston Grant men also carry this same signature.   So we really can't discern much from all the men having the same Y signature.

However, little pieces of the Y chromosome mutate periodically (called SNPs).  To prove Mr. Young correct re: the presence of a Duldreggan descendant in Craskie as he proposes for Donald Grant, we would require at least two more male descendants from the Craskie line but not descending from Donald and two from known Duldreggan lines to add to our test data (which would be great). 

Then we would need for there to be a convenient mutation that would have occurred after their common ancestor (John the 3rd of GM) and before 1744 to delineate the two lines from each other and then see if Donald's DNA carried that mutation or not.

Though not impossible, it appears that this would be unlikely, still I'd love to see it.  All said, nothing is impossible and it was scrambled eggs in the glenn post culloden, so there are a lot of possible scenarios.

Yes, from said arch roy to john roy to ranald rory... the latter two were from Ken C3 N13 and Steve's father grew up there. 

Arch's lineage going back is arch ic findley ic arch ic donald.  Of the lineages that seem to exist from knoydart, I haven't found a known good match for it, thus the Y DNA. 

The Bankers come from a different s/o Arch's  - alexander arch roy, his son alex "sandy" roy was the banker.