William ( younger ) Innes

[GR2]

The Innes database held by the ANESFHS has the following origin:

"This ancestral database was developed from the genealogical files of the late Thomas Lorne Innes of Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. They were made available courtesy of his wife and family. The information represents over twenty years of research into the genealogy of Scottish families that bear the name of Innes, and required numerous extended stays in Scotland to access original material in various archives there."

[Forfarian]

Based on your new list I agree that information on the list that many of us got from the Aberdeen people leeaves alot to be true.
 Why was the wedding of William Innes and Elizabeth McDonald not shown in their list??

Because it looks as if they think that he married Penuel Grant, not Elizabeth McDonald.

In their list I found in the wedding section of this list the wedding of William Innes and Elizabeth McDonald who I now show as William ( Senior ) Innes and Elizabeth McDonald

Yes, that marriage is in the OPR. In 1770, not 1740.

[Forfarian]

Lets start on your list.
Item 21.1 William ( younger ) Innes is now William ( Junior ) Innes in Kearn after Sluggan
               a) married Margaret Grant 1807
               b) married Janet Cameron 1814

I have still to see independent EVIDENCE that this was the same William Innes. I am quite happy to believe it, but I have not seen anything to prove it.

Christine by George Innes , Shoemaker in Aberlour. This is true

Is it? What EVIDENCE is there?

In the Aberdeen list Christine appears to be listed among the children of William Innes (younger); I think she is more likely to be a sister of William (younger) for the reasons I stated above. Who is this George and when and where does he fit in, and if he fathered a Christine, when, and who was the mother?

[Dufftown]

Would it be better for me to send directly in RTF format to your private email or just post the RTF here

William in Montreal

[Forfarian]

Post it here. The more eyes and brains who look at it, the better.

[Neale1961]

In their list I found in the wedding section of this list the wedding of William Innes and Elizabeth McDonald who I now show as William ( Senior ) Innes and Elizabeth McDonald

Yes, that marriage is in the OPR. In 1770, not 1740.

Deja vu? https://www.rootschat.com/forum/index.php?topic=840026.0

[Dufftown]

High. This is in RTF format.

This Alexander was not a soldier therefore the Witness Alexander Innes Soldier must be the brother to William ( Junior ) Innes.

William in Montreal

[Forfarian]

Alexander was not a soldier therefore the Witness Alexander Innes Soldier must be the brother to William ( Junior ) Innes.

Why must he be a brother? The record does not say that he was. I agree that it is very likely, but there is NO PROOF. He could have been a cousin, or a more distant relative, or even unrelated.

It's good to have hypotheses and theories to work on, but if you can't actually prove that William (younger) and Alexander (soldier) were brothers your whole tree will be based on an assumption that may not be correct.

BTW the original record says Alexander lawful son, not loving son, of William Innes.

[Rosinish]

Dufftown,

You are very lucky to have the knowledge, expertise & thoroughness of Forfarian helping you!

I agree fully on us having theories & assumptions in our trees as I'm sure we all do but without proof it will remain as such & I don't see any benefit in professing things are true where there's no evidence to back it up.

It is not for the 1st time I've mentioned to people, just because you find info. in a 'published' book or by some 'known' person, doesn't make it true.
I've seen many errors in published data by doing my own research but I've also been challenged on info. I corrected & gave to someone (to help them) who was using data from a 'published' book & was more or less told a few times I was wrong although not in so many words.
That person kept reminding me if you like (in a tone)..."the info. I have is..."
I then produced the docs to prove it, much to my annoyance as the person themself hadn't spent £7.50 on SP for the info. before questioning my knowledge of facts.
The tone changed after that I can assure you 

Annie