What am I doing wrong???

[Gan Yam]

For clarification, William (stonemason), Frances, Alexander and Barbara were 4 of Rev Dauney children?
Louisa Ellis was born in London in 1777 and remarried Mr Lamont after her Williams death?
The burial record in 1804 could be either William the stone mason or William the husband of Louisa?   
Mary Dauney was born in 1790 (cant find a birth in 1794) that would make Louisa only 13 when she was born, could she be the daughter Martha Coghill and William Dauney rather than Louisa? The baptism record doesn't show the mothers name.
As you say Martha died in England in 1793 and its known that William stonemason built his brothers house in 1795. so he and Louisa could have met at this time
Is it possible that the young Louisa (23 in 1800), and the much older William the stonemason were the parents of adopted William? Maybe Louisa was the nanny/governess for Mary originally?
just speculation of course!!

added Marriage record shows Martha as a widow and William as a batchelor

[greenvalley]

Hi Gan Yam

For clarification, William (stonemason), Frances, Alexander and Barbara were 4 of Rev Dauney children?  Francis, Alexander and Barabara were, not sure about William Stonemason, he could be a brother of Rev Dauney

Louisa Ellis was born in London in 1777 and remarried Mr Lamont after her Williams death? Yes, she was baptized 3 March 1777 in Dulwich London and married Frederick Lamont 11 July 1810 in Jamaica, The marriage states that she is the widow of Dauney.

The burial record in 1804 could be either William the stone mason or William the husband of Louisa?
Yes, it could be either man. There was a William Dauney in Jamaica who was an architect/builder, so he could be her husband, but he would have been very much older than his wife.

Mary Dauney was born in 1790 (cant find a birth in 1794) that would make Louisa only 13 when she was born, could she be the daughter Martha Coghill and William Dauney rather than Louisa? No, her name is Mary Thom Dauney. The Jamaican records state: Mary Thom Dauney, the daughter of William Danny (name written incorrectly) and his wife Louisa was born March 1794 and baptized March 1797.

As you say Martha died in England in 1793 and its known that William stonemason built his brothers house in 1795. so he and Louisa could have met at this time. Possibly, but the stonemason was in Aberdeen and Louisa either in London or in Jamaica, as her father moved there sometime after her birth.

Is it possible that the young Louisa (23 in 1800), and the much older William the stonemason were the parents of adopted William? Maybe Louisa was the nanny/governess for Mary originally?
just speculation of course!! William Dauney and his wife Luisa are definately the parents of the adopted William. After the death of her 2nd husband Louisa returns to England and lives with her son, who at that time was in Edinburgh, for a while. Both her children from her first marriage are also mentioned in her will.

Still no certainty whether she was married to the stonemason or a son of the  stonemason.

Added She actually only mentions her son Willim, probably because her daughter Mary had died in 1824

[Gan Yam]

Found the record for Mary.  That's my theory gone to pot .
Interesting parish records though! 

[Isabel H]

According to the Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Rev. Francis Dauney had a son William b 30 Aug 1756.  Could he have been the one who married Louisa Ellis? Their son William b. in Aberdeen is said to have been adopted by his uncle, which would fit since Alexander, son of Rev. Francis, was William's elder brother.

[greenvalley]

According to the Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, Rev. Francis Dauney had a son William b 30 Aug 1756.  Could he have been the one who married Louisa Ellis? Their son William b. in Aberdeen is said to have been adopted by his uncle, which would fit since Alexander, son of Rev. Francis, was William's elder brother.

Yes, but then he cannot be the stonemason, beause that William built his first houses in Aberdeen 1770, when the son of the Rev Francis was only 14 years old. That is why I discounted that option.

Also, it was the stonemason who went to Jamaica, so he has to be the vital link.

I just can't understand why a family that crops up in so many articles and references does not appear on the Parish records. 

[Isabel H]

Searching SP with fuzzy matching selected turns up a John Dauncy, father Francis Dauncy, bap. 1761 Banchory Ternan. However the date doesn't correspond with the birth date given in the Fasti for Rev Francis's son John. This may be yet another child who died. Probably doesn't help though.

[greenvalley]

Searching SP with fuzzy matching selected turns up a John Dauncy, father Francis Dauncy, bap. 1761 Banchory Ternan. However the date doesn't correspond with the birth date given in the Fasti for Rev Francis's son John. This may be yet another child who died. Probably doesn't help though.

Thanks for your help, but no, it doesn't bring me any nearer to the William Dauney conundrum.

[Gan Yam]

[
Yes, but then he cannot be the stonemason, beause that William built his first houses in Aberdeen 1770, when the son of the Rev Francis was only 14 years old. That is why I discounted that option.

Also, it was the stonemason who went to Jamaica, so he has to be the vital link.

I just can't understand why a family that crops up in so many articles and references does not appear on the Parish records. 

I can see from the directory of Scottish architects that it states 1770 against William Dauney building Marischal Street, but checking the directory for the buildings listed to him it says that the houses were built around 1780, when he would have been 24, but of course he would have been an apprentice to start with. There seems so many references to this William being the same William as the son of the Rev, brother of Alexander and Barbara and uncle to Archibald, even though the 1770 date doesn't fit.  The street and area was designed by William Law in 1767 and I'm wondering if this is were the 1770 date came from, the start of the purchase, planning and building of the street, rather than when William Dauney became one of its notable builders. Its listed as having a few "firsts" in the world, so must have taken quite a while to complete, certainly not like streets today!!
 The East side of the street wasn't completed until 1789 and some of the south parts were still being built after that!

There is a reference in Jamaican Royal Gazette in 1793 for a William Dauney arriving in the country on 25th June 1793, but Mary Thom Dauney was born in March 1794 and the record doesn't mention Louisa.  There is also a reference to a William Dauney in the Jamaican Militia in 1797. 
Jamaica seems a popular place for the children of Rev Dauney, with both a son/s and a daughter,  living  there. The family possibly returned to Scotland because of the unrest in Jamaica at the time.

I agree there does seem some strange anomalies with the Dauney family.  Why would there be no record of a pastor having his children baptised?
William the builder appears to have ended up bankrupt and there seems to have been some kind of court case a couple of years before. Aberdeen Library holding some of the documents.  It seems  obvious that William the builder is the father of William the advocate, but I agree that the dates and records also seem to imply there "may" be another William?

[greenvalley]

Thanks Gan Yam

You saw the birth of Mary Thom Dauney, in which her fathers name is written as Danny.

There is, in Falmouth, a Mr William Danny, who in 1774 is given  contract to build a church (from The History of Trelawny Parish)
it was not until the 9th of January, 1774, when it was again brought up. It was then Resolved that the several orders passed at the former Vestry respecting the building of a Church at Falmouth be rescinded--there being an Act which was passed during the sessions in December last appointing certain Commissioners for that and other purposes. In that same year the contract was awarded to William Danny for the sum of £9,000. ....  The building was completed in the year 1796. Mr. Danny received his final instalment of £3,000 on the 31st July, 1797


He also built a bridge  This system of transport continued until in 1790 a wooden bridge was built at a cost of £1,750, by one William Danny.

And then I found this: The Barracks, now the Falmouth Government School was also owned by local Government, but it appears that grants were sometimes made to the Vestry by Central Government to provide certain official amenities. In October, 1803, William Danny completed the building of the Magazine at a cost of £1,500. It was made 15 feet square with walls to 5 feet in thickness with a crown of the arch 2 feet in thickness.

The papers from Aberdeen state that William Dauney built houses in 1770 and then it leaps to 1801. That is why I think that William Dauney the stonemason/architect is a contemporary of the Rev Francis, not a son but a brother, Then all those building dates make sense.

However, I also think that the William Dauney who married Martha Coghill in 1788 and Louisa Ellis about 1793 - 1794 was the son of William the stonemason/architect. (Mainly because I shudder at the thought that the 16 year old Louisa married a man 60 years or more older than she was. And that the old man married 2 younger women within 6 years. I know that is possible, but I do't buy it.

Unfortunately, I still haven't found any births for William senior or junior, only William the grandson. I also don't know how strict they used the term "uncle". I remember that, when I was a child, I would refer to my gran's brother as my uncle Peter. Perhaps that's what happened heare as well.

Anyway, none of this is very important within the family tree, Louisa is a 3x great grandmother on the Lamont side. So William Dauney was the half brother of my 2x great grandmother.

But I cannot let it go, I just can't accept that I am unable to find these people. And I am intrigued. It's a puzzle and I will keep worrying away at it.

Thanks so far to everybody who has come up with much valued replies.