Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-11 > 1257928862

From: "M.Sjostrom" <>
Subject: Halcro in Orkney
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2009 00:41:02 -0800 (PST)

would this, in reality, mean
that the date in 1640 was something like the date of reading the deceased's testament,
and not the date of signing it?

I am a bit surprised that there is no Hugo Halcro (nor even any son) among his mentioned children. If so, then apparently the underage-1648-boy named Hugo Halcro needs to be the heir of lairdship of the Ilk of Halcro in some other way.

This Hugo (d 1637) does not need to have a DAUGHTER named Barbara - in 1648, his daughters would anyway be young, probably still underage, and consequently not yet claiming.

The reconstruction goes that Barbara Halcro was name of this d1637 gentleman's sister (or even two sisters: a full sister and a half-sister), and his aunt.

Obviously, as the royal-blooded Barbara Stewart (she was granddaughter of a reigning king) was the mother of Hugo Halcro 'senior' (dc 1644/1645...), it is even understandable that such a name would have been given to said Hugo 'senior's daughter(s). No doubt Hugo 'senior' wanted to remind that he himself was great-grandson of a king, and first cousin once removed of the then monarch (James VI).

--- On Tue, 11/10/09, Petter Vennemoe <> wrote:

> The testament of Hugh Halcro younger dated 21 October 1640
> appears to state that he died "upon the tenth day of Januar
> in the year of God 1637", with lawfull bairnes mentioned as
> Jean, Esther and Sibilla Halcros, his relict as Margaret
> Stewart (but no daughter Barbara Halcro).

This thread: