Hi Southpaw58
Sorry for my delay - my excuse is the computer terminally failed (motherboard caput) - migrating to a new machine tests the patience of a saint (me!) even with everything already fully backed-up.
<<If I have read it correctly, the BC for John B born 1760 son of John B and Agnes Thomson suggests the father is "John Brash younger" which I took to mean his father was John Brash and he was still alive at the time of their marriage in 1758. I have only found two options where there is a John Brash born to a John Brash in this period - son of John Brash and Christian Greenlaw or John Brash and Janet Thorntoun. I had assumed that John B h/o Agnes Thomson was the son of John B and Christian Greenlaw as their first daughter is called Christian.>>
I've given it much thought, and decided to look at it in this way:-
1. The qualification 'younger' is my starting point:
Yes it's John Brash younger in Newtown, but that doesn't necessarily mean his father was John Brash older. It can mean that there was another (not necessarily related) John Brash in Newton who happened to be older. It's a very useful qualification to have but it isn't unambiguous!
2. So, who is the 'older'?
It's fair to say these two John Brashes were definitely in Newton in 1760:
- John Brash younger & Agnes Thomson were in Newton in 1760 (and still there in 1762 having another child).
- John Brash & Janet Cumming were in Newton in 1759 and 1761 having children, so they were surely in Newton in 1760 too.
So, you'd think that John Brash h/o Janet Cummin would thus be John Brash older.
But here's a third, seemingly even older:
- John Brash wright h/o Jean Richie was in Newton 1757 and 1764, also having children, so presumably in 1760 too.
So now we have two John Brashes older than John Brash younger (there being three John Brashes co-living in Newton the qualification ought have been 'youngest' or similar). Doesn't make sense.
One way of reconciling this is that John Brash & Jean Richie left Newton for a few years and returned (so that John Brash h/o Janet Cumming was then the only older). But having said that, the births in 1759, 1761, 1762 are all unqualified. As well, we have a fourth:-
- John Brash h/o Christian Greenlaw seems to have been alive in 1760 and therefore would have been in Newton then, which also qualifies him to be the implied John Brash older. Again, two John Brash olders - not acceptable.
We can perhaps reconcile that by
a. This John Brash didn't die in 1776 as I've suggested; instead he died before 1760.
b. Therefore, perhaps it was John Brash wright h/o Jean Richie who died in 1776.
c. Also that John Brash b 1736 s/o John Brash & Christian Greenlaw had either died by 1760 or had moved away.
But rather than looking at there being only two John Brashes around at the same time, one being older the other being younger, I could reconcile all this by saying that John Brash younger (h/o Agnes Thomson) was so qualified only because his still-alive father was also named John Brash; and that any other John Brashes are not qualified because the father-and-son both alive combo doesn't apply.
Looking at dates, I think it's reasonable to propose that Agnes Brash h/o David Brown is d/o John Brash & Agnes Thomson (ages fit), thus making John Brash h/o Agnes Thomson the farmer in Newton, with an illeg dau Elizabeth who died a child in 1756.
By this convoluted route, I can then stitch everything together by having John Brash h/o Agnes Thomson being John Brash younger, the son of the still alive John Brash older h/o Christian Greenlaw (John Brash older indeed dying in 1776).
3. Now, that doesn't alter my view that John Brash h/o Mary Wallace is not John Brash younger's son. John Brash (h/o Mary Wallace) age upon death in 1850 (83) implies a birth year of 1766/67, and this is consistent with his age recorded in 1841 (70). If he were born in 1760, he ought to have been recorded as 80 in 1841 and 90 in 1850.
4. There's a slot for John Brash (h/o Janet Cummins) to be s/o John Brash & Janet Thorntoun. To maintain the argument above, John Brash (h/o Janet Thorntoun) would have to be dead or no longer in Abercorn. And my notes have this family group disappear after 1734, so that fits.
5. This leaves John Brash h/o Mary Wallace being the s/o John Brash & Janet McComie. And of course this family group doesn't spoil the argument above.
I think this has 'soaked' up everybody, with everybody slotted in somewhere with at least some semblence of a defendable rationale......
<<There is one other John Brash which I have not been able to trace as yet - John Brash born 1700 - son of Walter Brash and Helen Lindsay - who was alive in 1733 to erect the grave to his father? Do you have any insights on him/his decendents? >>
No!
That's the long and the short of it.
Walter Brash was a tenant in Philpston, as was his father also Walter.
I have nothing which suggests the family moved on. I do have a John Brash (d 1766) & Marjory Cant (d 1755) who marr 5-10-1727 Carriden and had family and died all in Bo'Ness; he could, datewise, be the one from Philpston, but I've no other reason why he should. One of their children could, again datewise, be my Betty Brash, which is why I'm keeping an eye on this family group.
Hope the above makes sense. I think we've made progress!