Parlane in Kippen

[apanderson]

I know what you mean Dave - happens to me on a regular basis  

According to the BVR's, these are the John Parlans born over that neck of the woods . . . .

1.
Son of Walter Parlan and Helen Gilfillan
No date of birth listed, christened 11th November 1749, Kippen

2.
Son of James Parlan and Elizabeth McLucky
No date of birth listed, christened 25th July 1758, Kippen

3.
Son of John Parlan and Janet Buchanan
No date of birth listed, christened 21st December 1760, Baldernock

4.
Son of Walter Parlan and Isobell Thomson
No date of birth listed, christened 12th June 1774, Gargunnock

5.
Un-named male child, son of Walter Parlan, no wife listed
No date of birth listed, christened 15th October 1749, Kippen

Anne

[JoMC]

Anne

Dave and I have found all those already -

We homed in on the McLucky one because they lived Third.

Gadget

Added - also, they fit with the naming pattern of the children

[JoMC]

I will repeat what I said earlier -

Either the MI is wrong or the engraver got it wrong and you won't convince me otherwise. John was dead by 1851 and probably before the 1841 - that is what Tracey said on her first message.

Gadget

Added - I've had a good look at the 1851 image it is Mrs James Parlan, F, widow, 70

[apanderson]

I'm not trying to convince anybody - just trying to help 

These MI's are from the Mitchell & Mitchell pre-1855 books and yes, I agree that they can be wrong for umpteen reasons. You'd be amazed (or maybe not) at how many of the transcriptions in these books are completely wrong.

My all time favourite was Hellen Kekkijoo of Dunipace. This entry had intrigued me for some time and when I eventually found the stone, it quite clearly says Hellen Kerwood . . . . . need I say more?

I don't ever 'guarantee' dates on MI's to be correct, I just pass on as much info as I can and it's up to the individual to research further.

Anne

[JoMC]

Sorry Anne 

Dave and I have been working on this all day and have been going around in circles with the John *rl*n*s as the previous messages on the thread will show.

The only one that fits the evidence is the James and Elizabeth one b. 1758. Tracey said that he was dead by 1841 and must have had a good reason for saying that.

The MIs - I've seen some of them. One of mine had an ancestor about 50 years older than her husband and who would have given birth at 67 

Gadget

[daval57]

If you two kiss and make up, I'm off for that wee sherry this time! 

Tracey, glad we cleared all this up for you - snigger, snigger!
Dave
 

[apanderson]

What do you mean Dave???

Us ladies don't need to kiss and make up, we didn't fall out - did we Gadget?

Silly boy Dave - are you sure it's just a wee sherry you're having?

Anne

[daval57]

I'm just being a bloke!

[JoMC]

No, Anne. Think it's just frustration that the records aren't clear enough and in the end we have to use probability 

No will/TT found for John, although his son and wife left TT or inventories. I wonder if there's anything in the Kirk Sessions Minutes 

I think Dave might be having some of the RabRory stuff that was on a photo thread earlier today 

Tracey might be able to use some of the MIs to track the earlier generations. They seem to have been in the area for quite some time.

Gadget