Author Topic: Apparent contradiction in Sasines - any ideas?  (Read 1041 times)

Online Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,183
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Apparent contradiction in Sasines - any ideas?
« on: Monday 25 July 16 09:07 BST (UK) »
Posting this on the Scotland rather than the Lanark board because it's really a question about how to interpret Sasines.

James Waddell, son of Gavin Waddell and Margaret Thomson, married Margaret Paterson in 1808 in New Monkland, Lanarkshire, and had seven of a family: Alexander 1809, Euphemia 1811, Margaret Thomson 1813, Margaret Thomson 1816, Alexander 1819, Dougald Macfarlane 1822 and James 1825. It seems likely that Alexander b 1809 and Margaret Thomson b 1813 both died in early childhood because the next child of the same sex was given the same name. Euphemia married a cousin, Alexander Waddell of Stanrigg. James junior married Rachel Anderson. I have plenty of information about the families and descendants of both Euphemia and James junior.

James senior was a weaver or manufacturer. In 1830 he inherited the estate of his uncle Alexander Waddell of Stonefield and from then on is designated James Waddell of Stonefield.

Now comes the bit that is confusing me.

First, a sasine dated in 1837, of which the Abridgment reads: James Waddel of Stonefield, Euphemia Waddel his daughter and James Waddel his only son seised for their respective rights Jul 20 1837 in the Mains of Bredinhill extending to a 2 merk land, and teinds; and 2 merk land of the 3 merk land of Cromlet, parish of East Monkland, under burden of £2200 over the lands of Bredinhill in bond and disp by James Tennent of Bredinhill to Alexander Waddel of Stonefield Nov 16 1825, and £4000 to the trustees of the late Alexander Waddell on disp by the said James Waddell sen Apr 28 1837

This looks reasonably straightforward (I think) - James Tennent sold Bredinhill to Alexander Waddell of Stonefield in 1825, and James then paid his late uncle's estate £4000 for Bredinhill in 1837. But note that the sasine describes James junior as only son of James senior. Therefore it seems reasonable to suppose that both Alexanders and Dougald McFarlane had died by 1837. So far so good.

James senior died in 1842, and James junior succeeded as James Waddell of Stonefield. (He died young, in 1850, in Madeira.)

What is puzzling me is a sasine dated 1846, of which the Abridgment reads: The Trustees of Alexander Waddel of Stonefield, for behoof of Alexander Waddel, eldest son of James Waddel sen, Weaver, Airdrie, and his children, grant Discharge, Dec 1 5 1846, of Bond and Disp for £500, by James Johnstone, Merchant and Agent, Airdrie, Nov 19 1834, and declare a Piece of ground with the Houses, Buildings, Maltbarn, Distillery, Mill and others thereon at the foot of the South Street of Airdrie, par East Monkland, disburdened thereof.

This appears to suggest (a) that Alexander was still living and (b) that he had a family. But if I believe the earlier sasine, he died before he was 18. I have not found him in any census.

Ideas, anyone?

 
Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.

Offline whiteout7

  • RootsChat Aristocrat
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,948
    • View Profile
Re: Apparent contradiction in Sasines - any ideas?
« Reply #1 on: Monday 25 July 16 10:31 BST (UK) »
James Waddel & Margaret Thomsons had James Waddel Weaver, Airdrie (only son alive) who then had Alexander Waddel (and his brother James Waddel?)

Sassines of two separate generations rather than one generation?
Wemyss/Crombie/Laing/Blyth (West Wemyss)
Givens/Normand (Dysart)
Clark/Lister (Dysart)
Wilkinson/Simson (Kettle or Kettlehill)

Offline GR2

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 4,621
  • Census information Crown Copyright, from www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
    • View Profile
Re: Apparent contradiction in Sasines - any ideas?
« Reply #2 on: Monday 25 July 16 10:49 BST (UK) »
Maybe Alexander (b. 1819) was still alive when the bond was granted in 1834. It may have been granted by Alexander and any future heirs for a fixed period. When the time for payment came, Alexander was dead, but the document or abridgement omitted to say "late". I have 17th century sasines where this happens, only they do say "umquhile" of the deceased.

Perhaps they have made a mistake and should have written "James" rather than Alexander. Yet both would have been rather young in 1834.

Could this Alexander be an illegitimate son of uncle Alexander, unable to inherit the main estate?


Online Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,183
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Re: Apparent contradiction in Sasines - any ideas?
« Reply #3 on: Monday 25 July 16 13:06 BST (UK) »
James Waddel & Margaret Thomsons had James Waddel Weaver, Airdrie (only son alive) who then had Alexander Waddel (and his brother James Waddel?)
James sen, weaver and later of Stonefield' was the son of Gavin, not James, Waddell. He was not the only surviving son - his elder brother John (1778-1848) actually outlived him.

Quote
Sassines of two separate generations rather than one generation?
About four generations, actually.

1. Gavin Waddell (1744-?) m Margaret Thomson
2. James Waddell (1785-1842) weaver, who inherited Stonefield from his uncle Alexander (1748-1830), younger brother of Gavin (1744-?) above
3. James Waddell (1825-1850) of Stonefield
4. James Waddell (1848-1900) of Stonefield


Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.


Online Forfarian

  • RootsChat Marquessate
  • *******
  • Posts: 15,183
  • http://www.rootschat.com/links/01ruz/
    • View Profile
Re: Apparent contradiction in Sasines - any ideas?
« Reply #4 on: Monday 25 July 16 13:10 BST (UK) »
Maybe Alexander (b. 1819) was still alive when the bond was granted in 1834. It may have been granted by Alexander and any future heirs for a fixed period. When the time for payment came, Alexander was dead, but the document or abridgement omitted to say "late". I have 17th century sasines where this happens, only they do say "umquhile" of the deceased.
That could be, but curious that a document in 1834, when Alexander was not yet 15, should be for behoof of him and his children rather than just himself?

Quote
Perhaps they have made a mistake and should have written "James" rather than Alexander. Yet both would have been rather young in 1834.
Indeed.

Quote
Could this Alexander be an illegitimate son of uncle Alexander, unable to inherit the main estate?
Only if the document did not refer to him as son of James! I am not aware of Alexander having any illegitimate children, though that doesn't mean he didn't of course.
Never trust anything you find online (especially submitted trees and transcriptions on Ancestry, MyHeritage, FindMyPast and other commercial web sites) unless it's an image of an original document - and even then be wary because errors can and do occur.