Show Posts
1
Fife / father of john miller
« on: Wednesday 22 October 08 21:53 BST (UK) »
dear all
I don't know wether this would be better on beginners but here goes. I've got stuck with the miller search I've been doing I've got back happily to william miller born 17/11/1696 to john and jannet anderson in Kircaldy. I've looked on SP and found his siblings (isobell 1699,henry 1700, james 1703) witnesses for last 3 include a John Miller (bayllis crops up on last 2 associated with the name either prefix of after). I can find no wedding for john miller and jannet anderson trying all sorts of SP tricks as mentioned else where.
Where can I go next? I've looked for the birth of John miller in fife between the dates of 1641 and 1676 (ie 20 to 55) to cover hopefully first and second family. this gives me 47 in fife if I look at kircaldy i get 6 possibles. One has the father as John, in 1645.
This would make john 51 at time of william's birth and 58 at the time of James. If this was a second family this is possible? It might also explain why there is no John as first son. (they have followed the scottish tradition following this.
Does the above seem reasonable?
andy
I don't know wether this would be better on beginners but here goes. I've got stuck with the miller search I've been doing I've got back happily to william miller born 17/11/1696 to john and jannet anderson in Kircaldy. I've looked on SP and found his siblings (isobell 1699,henry 1700, james 1703) witnesses for last 3 include a John Miller (bayllis crops up on last 2 associated with the name either prefix of after). I can find no wedding for john miller and jannet anderson trying all sorts of SP tricks as mentioned else where.
Where can I go next? I've looked for the birth of John miller in fife between the dates of 1641 and 1676 (ie 20 to 55) to cover hopefully first and second family. this gives me 47 in fife if I look at kircaldy i get 6 possibles. One has the father as John, in 1645.
This would make john 51 at time of william's birth and 58 at the time of James. If this was a second family this is possible? It might also explain why there is no John as first son. (they have followed the scottish tradition following this.
Does the above seem reasonable?
andy
