Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - McGroger

Pages: 1 2 [3]
19
Stirlingshire / Where did grandfather Dugal McGregor alias Grame live in 1712?
« on: Thursday 06 October 16 04:48 BST (UK)  »
I’m calling on people who’ve looked at a lot of 18th century baptism images.

Here are two baptisms for my ancestors’ family:

‘Octobr 11. 1708
‘John Grame alias McGregor in Ruskanach and Janet Mcf
-arlan spouse had a lawful son baptized called Dugald wit
-nesses Malcom Graham alias Mcgregor in Ruskanach and John Mcfarlan Kirk officer’

‘March. 7. 1712
‘Gregor Mcgregor alias  Jo: [John] Grame in Ruskanach & Janet McFarl
 -an spouse had a lawful son baptised called John  Witnesses
Dugal Grame and John Mcfarlan in Corgrinan’

Taking the second one first and relying on the naming pattern, I’m assuming the two witnesses in 1712 are the two grandfathers. Corgrinan, home of the maternal grandfather, is modern day Corriegrennan, a mile or so south-west of Loch Ard. The name Ruskanach morphed into Rowchnoc, which is part of modern day Ardess, just above Rowardennan on the shore of Loch Lomond at the foot of Ben Lomond.

In the first baptism (1708) the witnesses are different. I’m thinking that this may have been at the start of winter snowfalls and the grandparents - living some distance away - were unable to get there, so a close friend or relative who lived on the same Ruskanach farm (Malcom) and a church cleric were the witnesses (I think his having the same name as the Corriegrennan John McFarlan is just a coincidence).

My question is: does the wording imply that both Dugal Grame and John Mcfarlan were from Corriegrennan? Or could he have been from Ruskenach? (But in the 1708 baptism Malcom’s domicile was recorded - not assumed - and if Dugal lived with Gregor at Ruskenach why did he not witness the baptism of his first grandson?) Or could it be that Dugal Grame was a prominent parishioner whose home didn’t need recording? Or might there simply be no significance in the omission?

Any thoughts on this most appreciated. Thanks.

Cheers, Peter

20
Australia / Was he really dead or legally on that date?
« on: Thursday 22 September 16 10:52 BST (UK)  »

My dad’s uncle, Donald M[a]cGregor (1894 Sydney) had a rough life. The youngest of the family, his mother died when he was 6. His father remarried 2 years later to a much younger woman. He was put into reform school just before his 15th birthday for being “uncontrollable”. He went to war overseas and returned in bad health, physically and mentally. He married in Scotland in 1918 while on leave. He was discharged medically unfit in early 1919 but not returned to Australia til 1920.

He appears in the NSW Police Gazette for 16 July 1930, with a warrant being issued for his arrest for Wife Desertion. A follow up note in the Police Gazette for 31 Dec 1930 says that he had been arrested and charged by Wauchope police. (He was a builder in Sydney.)

I can find no record of his death other than this handwritten note on his Service record:

“Died 18th April 1937. Historian 4/5/38”

One story handed down was:

“Aunty Nell [his sister] said he died by suicide in the early 1930s at somewhere in the Riverina; she was notified, as the only identity he had was his army pay book, in which she had been entered as his next of kin. ‘It was during the depression and he had separated from his wife, I think she may have gone back to Scotland.’”

I think the story may be typical verbal history - a mixture of fact and supposition, a bit misunderstood or lost here, a bit added there. (Would he still be carrying his army pay book around 17 years after being discharged? And it was not the early 1930s - although that was when he first deserted his wife.)

Do you think it possible that, after being charged, he immediately disappeared again, remained missing and (on application from his wife) was eventually declared legally dead (the 7 year term possibly backdated to when he first shot through, or granted in anticipation of 7 years elapsing shortly thereafter?  Would they use the wording they did in the army record if that was the case? (Possible, if the historian simply worked from a list of deceased ex-servicemen?) Or would it mean that he really died on that day?

Would love to here from people with any experience in such things.

Thanks.
 Peter

21
Stirlingshire / McGREGOR Baptism in BUCHANAN: Where exactly was “RUSKENACH” Farm?
« on: Saturday 17 September 16 05:24 BST (UK)  »


Here is my transcription of (I believe) my ancestor’s baptism record:

‘March. 7. 1712.
‘Gregor Mcgregor alias Jo: [John] Grame in Ruskanach & Janet McFarl
-an spouse had a lawful son baptized called John  Witnesses
Dugal Grame and John Mcfarlan in Corgrinan’

I also have an image of the baptism of John’s older brother, Dugal (1708), in which the name is written twice and clearly spelt, “Ruskanach”.

I’ve identified the maternal grandfather’s home, “Corgrinan”, as “Corriegrennan”, a farm visible on modern maps about a mile south-west of Loch Ard.  I’m thinking that the other witness, Dugal Grame, the paternal grandfather, either lived at or came from Comer farm at the opposite end of Glen Dhub. (In written histories, Dougal McGregor alias Graeme/Graham was the son of “Gregor of Comer”.) About halfway between was the township of Ballimore, the main meeting place for people living in and around the glen.

Apart from in the baptism record, the only other place I’ve seen the name “Rusk[e][a]nach” is in an online excerpt from Burke’s, A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Landed Gentry of Great Britain, which says it is part of Craigrostan estate: “... extending to a ten pound land of old extent, comprehending the lands of Ruskenach, Knockeild, Rouchoishe, Collneish, Auchinroy, Ashland, Cluckbug [truly!], Inversnaid, Polchrae, &c,...”

In W H Murray’s biography of Rob Roy he describes the extent of Craigrostan as: “... about 6720 acres... It extended from the Allt Rostan near the head of Loch Lomond eight miles down the eastern shore to near Rowardennan, including the entire west flank of Ben Lomond, its northern spurs, and the west end of Loch Arklet”.

I’m wondering if “Ruskenach” could be an old version of the name “Rinzoorach”. According to Canmore maps there are ruins of buildings near the modern day Rinzoorach Burn. And, according to Issue 36 of ‘Strathard News’, March 2007  (www.strathardnews.com, part of a series of articles titled ‘Local Names in the Parish of Aberfoyle’, by Louis Stott): ‘In Glen Dubh occupants of the glen would be tenants of Montrose, probably through the tacksmen. There was probably still some community organisation and the Tom-a-mhoid (Moot Hill) at Ballimore, the big township, may well have remained the central meeting point for the glen, even if it was only to decide when the cattle and other livestock would be moved from the low ground to the summer grazings behind the Bein Bhan. There the airidh (summer houses) can still be found. Rinzoorach and Glashlet still have traces of them.’
Rinzoorach farm would have been roughly equidistant from Corriegrennan and Comer.

Craigrostan certainly extended down far enough, but whether it went east enough I’m not sure. And “Ruskenach” equalling “Rinzoorach” might be a bit of a stretch. Having said that, “Scotlands Places” says, “The name [Rinzoorach] is a corrruption of Gaelic which cant be interpreted satisfactorily”, so perhaps the two names could mean the same place. 

Any help in positively locating this place would be very much appreciated.

Cheers, Peter

22
Scotland / The Scottish Naming Pattern: A Curly Question
« on: Monday 15 August 16 12:23 BST (UK)  »
Here’s a really curly one for wise and experienced users of the Scottish naming pattern. It is a real case, but I’ve deliberately refrained from using the actual names in order to avoid any possibility of unduly influencing anyone’s thoughts.

In the 1730s/early 1740s in Perthshire a couple have a family that includes one daughter. She is named after her maternal grandmother. The mother dies. The father remarries. They then have a family in the late 1740s/1750s that includes two daughters.

The pattern of the boys’ names shows strict adherence to the naming pattern. In fact, all members of this family to at least the first three children of each gender - including all cousins researched - from the 1850s back, followed the pattern 100% of the time; any apparent deviations have been explained after further research.

I have read that, at least in later times (19th century), in most of the cases like this, the first daughter born after the first wife’s death would be named after the first wife, often using her full (first and maiden family) names. And such has been my experience. But as for earlier times I’m not so sure. However, in the case I’m looking at, this certainly did not happen. The first new baby was named after the new wife’s mother (and, coincidentally, after the new wife herself). That is, the deceased wife was overlooked, while the new wife and her mother were honoured.

My question is: for the next daughter (i.e. the new wife’s second daughter), is it more likely she would be named after the deceased wife this time, or after the father’s mother? My own thoughts are that if the deceased wife wasn’t honoured at the first opportunity after her death, her name may have had to wait at least until after the father’s mother was honoured.

A seemingly impossible question, I know. But I’m asking about probabilities. With a family following a naming pattern so rigidly, might there be a “pattern within a pattern” that they might have stuck to.

I’d love to hear from any researchers who have had experiences of such situations.

Cheers, Peter

Pages: 1 2 [3]