GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2009-11 > 1258151648


From:
Subject: Re: Halcro in Orkney
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:34:08 -0500
References: <mailman.328.1257822136.11746.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com><jauif51h98cuk1k6rjji6hdac0gnalnqhf@4ax.com><kajqf5the1ggr5c7n5oq645m6cu2f80lei@4ax.com>
In-Reply-To: <kajqf5the1ggr5c7n5oq645m6cu2f80lei@4ax.com>


If you're referring to that Barbara Halcro who made some kind of petition in 1648, she states that she is the sister of the deceased Hugh Halcro. So that limits who she could be.
Right?





-----Original Message-----
From:
To:
Sent: Fri, Nov 13, 2009 4:34 am
Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Halcro in Orkney










On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 16:11:33 +0000, <> wrote:

>On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:59:43 -0800 (PST), "M.Sjostrom" <>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>--- On Mon, 11/9/09, <> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> I don't believe that Hugh Sr died *in*
>>> 1648. I believe someone has assumed that, because of
>>> this document was Barbara appears that year in some claim.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> As to who this Barbara is exactly, we should remember that
>>> in 1648, there were two dead Hugh's not one. Hugh
>>> Sr left a will dated 1644, and had a son Hugh Halcro of
>>> Akeris who predeceased him, dying in 1637 and himself having
>>> a son also Hugh who was his grandfather's heir and a
>>> minor in 1648 when this Barbara appears calling herself the
>>> sister of the deceased Hugh. But which Hugh? The
>>> one who left a will dated 1644? Or the one who died in 1637
>>> his son.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> She could be the aunt of the baby Hugh, or the
>>> great-aunt. Either is possible.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Will
>>>
>>
>>
>>that is precisely the alternative nr 1 I mentioned in this this post already
yesterday:
>>http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2009-11/1257718824
>>that there existed two different Barbara Halcroes, aunt and niece to one
another
>>http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2009-11/1257701868
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Barbara in 1648 was almost certainly the great-aunt of under-age
>Hugh.His aunt Barbara had a marriage contract with Robert Stewart
>younger of Brough in 1638.Her husband would have been mentioned
>in 1648 if it had been aunt Barbara.
>A further complication has arisen.In sheriff court records dated 1615
>there is a ref to Janet Halcro or Sinclair and in 1624 there is a ref
>to Janet Halcro,wife of William Sinclair of Toab.The 1615 entry might
>refer to the Janet Halcro(daughter of Magnus Halcrow of Brough),who
>was married to William Sinclair of Ethay as a second husband.Her first
>husband was Rany Elphingston.Her husband,William, was dead by
>16/11/1624I shall look at the sheriff court records later in the week
I have now looked at the two documents which mention a William
Sinclair as the husband of a Janet Halcro..The 1615 document refers
to William Sinclair of Eday and the 1624 document also almost
certainly does.However,I have asked for a ruling on this as it effects
the indexing of the document.
We are therefore left with Barbara Halcro.She does not have to be a
Barbara Halcro of the Halcro of Halcro family.Clouston in REO lists
Halcro families who had families although all their names were not
recorded.eg
Halcros of Stove
Descendants of a James Halcro and Janet Cragy
Robert Halcro of Cava
Patrick Halcro of Wyre

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of
the message







This thread: