Rule Family from Linlithgow 1600's - 1800's

[pashak1]

Hello, I am hoping to find some help researching my Rule ancestors in Scotland. Since it seems to have been a common name in Linlithgow, I am not sure that I have the correct parents matched with the children, so I will just post what info I have and please let me know if it is wrong/ or anyone has any other info about earlier generations. Thanks!

Thomas C Rule, b. 10 Jan 1824 in Renfrewshire, to Robert Rule & Agnes (Bowie?)
Robert Rule, b. 10 May 1802 in Renfrewshire, to Robert Rule & Jean Boune (Bowie?)
Robert Rule, b. 2 May 1768 in Linlithgow, to James Rule and Margaret Hardie
James Rule, b. 20 Aug 1735 in Linlithgow , to James Rule and Helen Archibald
James Rule, b. 24 Dec 1711 in Linlithgow , to Alexander Rule and Jonet Thomson
Alexander Rule, b. 5  Feb 1682 in Linlithgow, to James Rule and Marion Peebles (Peebls)
James Rule, born c. 1640

[ColC]

I was a little concerned about the move from Linlithgow to Paisley but it looks like James Rule and Margaret Hardie made the move after 1777.

Most of their children born Linlithgow seem to have married in Paisley.
John 1760, Agnes 1762, David 1764, Mary 1766, Robert 1768, Margaret 1770, James 1773, Bartholomew 1775, Alexander 1777.

Colin

[pashak1]

Thank you for your reply. Would you have more information about James Rule, born between 1640 - 1650 in Linlithgow? That is where my trail goes cold, I see many other family trees that trace back to a David Rule (b. 1590) who is linked to the Turnbulls, but I can't find evidence of this connection. Any help would be greatly appreciated!

[ColC]

The earliest birth/baptism records on Scotland’s People at Linlithgow:

James 21/04/1616, William 1/08/1619 John 12/09/1621, their father was David, I presume the 1590 one.

Also Elizabeth 28/12/1632, no parents named, the next RULE birth in Linlithgow is 1658, so there may be gaps in the records?

The earliest marriage on SP is Jennit in 1667, followed later by James, David & John
   
The only James Rule on SPs records in Scotland is in Edinburgh, parents John & Bessie married there 9 Feb 1647.

 1/12/1647, parents Johne Rule & Bessie Brown but that does not fit the naming pattern of his children below.
Except John & Bessie’s other children born Edinburgh were Marione 1649, Johne 1650 & Alexander 1651. So was this the John born 1621?

JAMES RULE married MARION PEEBLES 12/12/1676
Children: Anne 1677, Jonet 1678, Issobell 1680, Alexander 1682, and James 1683.
Possible unnamed children buried 1686 & 1693 father James.

Colin

[ColC]

PS:

Likely Burials Linlithgow.

JAMES RULE 23/09/1727
MARION RULL (PIBELLS / JAMES RULL) 00/11/1729

Colin

[pashak1]

Thank you for giving your perspective, and for the burial information. I think it's a logical theory that there ARE gaps in the SP records, and that one of David Rule's three sons - William, John, or James - is the father of the James Rule who ends up marrying Marion Pebbles. I have seem a few family trees on Ancestry.com that name William as the father, but cannot confirm this. I was hoping that perhaps there are local historians or other local family records in Linlithgow that might fill in the gaps.

[goldie61]

From familysearch:
Births: There are no entries for December 1642–August 1647 except eight for February 1644. There are no entries for November 1647–November 1649. There is one entry for August 1650–August 1651 and one for December 1651–May 1653. After December 1655, however, there is a separate record for November 1651–July 1660. Most of the entries are different from those in the principal register. A half page at May 1796 is pasted over and entries are pasted over on several pages for 1800–1806. Nine entries for 1797–1808 are inserted at September 1807. Mothers' names are not recorded until July 1633 and are again omitted January 1688–July 1691.
Marriages: The entries are actually proclamations. There are no entries for December 1719–May 1730. The fact of marriage is sometimes added to the entries, and after 1760 entries of irregular marriages occur frequently.
Deaths: The record is mostly all treasurers' accounts

[pashak1]

Wow!! I had no idea, thank you very much for your reply. I have dismissed so many family relationships based on the fact that there was no record of them in SP, now I have to really go back and take a second look at everything I have. 

[Forfarian]

I have dismissed so many family relationships based on the fact that there was no record of them in SP

Even in the 1800s there are many people whose baptisms and marriages are missing from the surviving records, and the further back you go, the larger the proportion of missing records.

The important thing to bear in mind is: just because there is only one possible candidate in the surviving records does **not** mean that it is the right person. You always need to look for some sort of evidence to corroborate a link.