The Poor Had No Lawyers - Who Owns Scotland?

For almost fifteen years now I have been using Scottish land records for genealogical purposes, particularly so over the last decade. In almost every Scottish guide on family history resources, there is usually a basic description of record types such as sasines, which detail every land transaction in the country from the early 17th century, and retours (aka Services of Heirs), which prove the right of an apparent heir to inherit property once the deceased has left this mortal coil. A couple of years ago I produced my own genealogical guide entitled Discover Scottish Land Records, which tried to take a more depth look at how some of these processes worked, and to explain a bit more about the system of Scottish feudalism and the law that derived from it. The purpose, again, was for genealogical research.

Just now I am reading a remarkable book by Andy Wightman, entitled The Poor Had No Lawyers - Who Owns Scotland (And How They Got It). I have the new edition, published by Birlinn Ltd in 2013 (the original was produced in 2011), and the main reason I purchased it is the fact that land reform is fast becoming a political hot potato in Scotland. In a country of just over 5 million folk, half of the privately held land mass of Scotland is owned by just 432 people, a situation that has been virtually unchanged for centuries. In November 2004, Scottish feudalism was finally abolished, marking the end of a system that endured through most of Scotland since the 12th century. There is still a lot on the reform agenda to be addressed, and fast growing concensus appearing on what those changes should be on the one side by those who think the issue of land reform is unfinished business (which includes the Scottish Government), with an equally vociferous opposition from the landowners who still own vast estates across the country, and who want nothing but the status quo to endure. Whilst I took up the book to obtain more of a political education on the subject, in actual fact, this book is one that every Scottish based genealogist should also get stuck into.

Andy Wightman has long campaigned on the need for reform, but before laying out the political case for its need, he spends quite a bit of time looking at the historic background to the acquisition of land in the country. He kicks off with brilliant contempt for so-called Scottish independence heroes such as Robert the Bruce, calling him "a medieval warlord", who was "murderous, duplicitous, conniving and wholly devoid of any higher principles than his own advancement". From this point onwards, you know that he has no problem challenging the views of the establishment! But crucially, he then goes on to discuss how Scottish land was consolidated into the hands of a few landowners across the centuries in what he describes as a series of thefts.

There was the theft of common land by the Crown, which used feudalism to structure its management through royal prerogative (from 1503 James IV catalysed the process with an extensive programme to feu out Crown held lands). There was the theft of land from the Church before the Reformation, with many illegitimate offspring installed into corrupt bishoprics by the so called great and the good, from whom Church land passed into the hands of their 'noble' families. There was the support of the Lords of the Congregation at the Reformation of 1560 itself, not just for religious reasons, but to help finish off the job of securing the remaining Church lands - a process that actually caused problems for the new Kirk, as the assets it needed to finance its new programmes of education and discipline were squandered by the nation's nobles. There was then the subsequent successful effort of the nobility to formally legalise their possession of property seized from Church lands through the Registration Act and Proscription Act of 1617, with 'proscription' allowing ownership to be recognised for land that had been held for at least forty years. The book therefore explains the background to why devices such as the Registers of Sasines were actually created, and later why tailzies and other forms of documents that we use for family history research came into existence. Further land grabs are also recorded, such as those of the commonties and burgh commons.

There are great examples of how records developed across time also, including the development of Edinburgh New Town from 1766, and how feudal charters evolved as a consequence of its feuing plan. In older charters, burdens (conditions imposed by feudal superiors on vassals as to what they could do with land) were not detailed in the documents, but this caused problems with Edinburgh. Those who took the initial feus for the New Town agreed to design their buildings according to a plan, but the plans and conditions were not included in the charters - instead, the agreement was via contract law. When those original owners sold on their buildings, the new owners were not bound by the same contract, and as the charters did not list any obligations on what should be done with the properties in terms of their development, the new owners could do what they liked with their holdings. The addition of burdens in the charters from this point soon put paid to that. And so on.

The book obviously then goes into depth on the political consequences, and the author's beliefs on what still needs to be addressed, which you may or may not agree with. But if you like a little bit of politics, and at the same time have an interest  in the records of Scotland used for genealogical research, Andy Wightman's book ticks many boxes, and is thoroughly recommended! It is available from Amazon at www.amazon.co.uk/Poor-Had-No-Lawyers-Scotland/dp/178027114X/.

Chris

Imprisoned twice because of his wife...

I'm at work on my next Unlock the Past genealogy guide (www.unlockthepast.com.au), which is provisionally entitled Down and Out in Scotland, but I thought I'd share the following records that I found within the Weavers Incorporation of Perth records. They are from over three hundred years ago, and I am using them as an example to describe the courts of the trade incorporations that used to rule the trades in the burghs.

Patrick Smith was a Perth based handloom weaver who was married to a woman named Janet Mackie, and I have established that the couple had at least two daughters, Anna, born 13 DEC 1693, and Christian, born 3 APR 1696. History does not recall how madly in love with each other the couple may have been beyond this, but it certainly does recall how much trouble Patrick kept getting into with his trade's master court because of his wife.

Here goes - transcription from the original Scots for each entry, followed by an up to date translation:

Pth the 10 Octr 1705

Whilk Day the Generall meiting of the weavers of perth convened all in ane voice Unlaus and ffeynes Patrick Smith in five pounds and ordaines him to goe to prisone until payt because his wife abeused the prtt deicon yrunto he is liable conforme to act of the court

Perth the 10 October 1705 

On which day the general meeting of the weavers of Perth convened, who all in one voice penalise and fine Patrick Smith five pounds, and ordain him to go to prison until payment because his wife abused the present deacon, for which he is liable, as per an act of the court 

Perth 19 February 1709

The Deacon Compleanes to the master court upon Patrick Smyth weaver bycause Jannet Mackie his spouse Intruded herself in the Deacons company and without any ground of offence Did harrass and abuse him in a publick company In respect whereof the traid unlaues and fynes the said Patrick Smyth in ffive pounds Scots conforme to Ane former Act of the traid made anent Ane freemans wife intruding herself in the Deacons company and abusing him And In respect the said Patrick Compeared and owned & Laid it was butt out of splean of the deacon agt him and his wife and ordaines him to be secured in presone till payt of the same

Perth 19th February 1709 

The Deacon complains to the Master Court about Patrick Smyth weaver, because Jannet Mackie his spouse intruded herself in the Deacon's company and without any ground of offence did harrass and abuse him in a public company, in respect whereof the trade penalises and fines the said Patrick Smyth five pounds Scots, as per a former act of the trade made concerning a freeman's wife intruding herself in the Deacons company and abusing him, and in respect of which the said Patrick appeared as a witness and acknowledged it & suggested it was but out of splean of the deacon against him and his wife, and they ordered that he be secured in prison until payment of the same.


There are no further mentions of the couple, but oh to be a fly on the wall in the house of Patrick Smith and Janet Mackie in the early 1700s!

Chris

Oh what a parish, a terrible parish! The hanged minister of Kinkell.

At the weekend I bought a copy of everyone's favourite Scottish newspaper, the Sunday Herald, and was delighted to find a free CD included within, the MG Alba Scots Trad Music Awards Collection 2014. This contained 16 tracks from some of the best groups on the Scottish traditional music scene, but one really caught my attention, a track called The Queen of Argyll, by Silly Wizard. I'm sorry to say that I did not know who the band was, but it turns out they were a huge act on the traditional circuit a couple of decades back, and included well known accordionist Phil Cunningham, someone I regularly used to bump into during my TV days at the BBC canteen in Glasgow!

So impressed was I by the track that last night I downloaded the album it had been drawn from, a remastered album called Live Again (www.sillywizard.co.uk), which has just been re-released, and which features a concert from 1983 by the group in Cambridge Massachussetts, USA.  The Queen of Argyll was a great track, but another track on the album really caught my attention, a piece called The Parish of Dunkeld. It told the apparent story of a minister from Dunkeld who was said to have been hanged by his parishioners, who then partied on in the kirk building and got up to all sorts of grief. The following are the lyrics, written in Scots:

Oh, what a parish, a terrible parish;
Oh, what a parish is that o' Dunkeld.
They hangit their minister, droon'd their precentor,
Dang doun the steeple and fuddled the bell.

The steeple was doun but the kirk was still staunin',
They biggit a lum whaur the bell used to hang.
A stell-pat they gat and they brewed Hielan' whisky;
On Sundays they drank it and ranted and sang.

O, had you but seen how graceful it lookit,
To see the crammed pews sae socially joined.
MacDonald the piper stood up in the poopit,
He made the pipes skirl out the music divine.

Wi' whiskey and beer they'd curse and they'd swear;
They'd argue and fecht what ye daurna weel tell.
Bout Geordie and Charlie they bothered fu' rarely
Wi' whisky they're worse than the devil himsel'.

When the hairt-cheerin' spirit had mounted their garret,
Tae a ball on the green they a' did adjourn.
The maids wi' coats kilted, they skippit and liltit,
When tired they shook hands and then hame did return.

If the kirks a' owre Scotland held like social meetin's
Nae warnin' ye'd need from a far-tinklin' bell,
For true love and friends wad draw ye thegither
Far better than roarin' the horrors o' hell.

Not only is the song a great piece of music, it's a real cracker of a story - but was it true? I decided to have a wee look!

I first searched online to see if I could find anything on the song's origins and soon found a discussion thread at http://mudcat.org/thread.cfm?threadid=46429 concerning its provenance. From this it soon became apparent that the song was indeed supposed to be based on a true story, but that far from happening in Dunkeld in Perthshire, it actually happened in Kinkell, further south in the county, with the two parish names being confused in time in the song due to them sounding so similar. Originally a parish in its own right, from 1639 Kinkell was merged as part of the parish of Trinity Gask, where a couple of my ancestral lines resided, the Fenton and Leitch families in the late 1600s and early 1700s. The full story was soon uncovered in Chapter 19 of a work called The Annals of Auchterarder and Memorials of Strathearn, available in a transcribed version online at www.electricscotland.com/history/auchterarder/chapter19.htm. Further confirmation was also found in the Fasti Ecclesiae Scoticanae, which provides a series of short biographies on Church of Scotland ministers from the Reformation to the early 20th century, and which can be found on both the Internet Archive (www.archive.org) and Ancestry (www.ancestry.co.uk) in a digitised format.

In 1680, during the Kirk's episcopal period, the minister, Richard Duncan, was asked to repair the kirks at both Trinity Gask and Kinkell, both having fallen into a ruinous condition. However, he and his congregation did not see eye to eye, neither did he and his heritors, the landowners from whom the Bishop instructed him to seek funds from to carry out the repairs. So poor was the relationship that one of the heritors, the Laird of Machany, engineered a complaint to his synod that Duncan had re-baptised a child in an act of gross ignorance, as well as various other offences alleged to have happened against the congregation. The charges were so severe that by February 1681 Duncan was in fact deposed as the minister, although there was worse still to come. From the annals:

June 6, 1682.- One Mr Duncan, a minister in Perthshire is condemned to death by the Earl of Perth, as Stewart of Crieff, for murdering an infant begotten by him with his servant maid, it being found buried under his own hearth-stone. He was convicted on very slender presumptions, which, however, they might amount to degradation and banishment, yet it was hard to extend them to death.

Richard Duncan was duly hanged in early 1683 - tragically for him, a pardon that had been granted to him arrived just twenty minutes too late. The bell mentioned within the song was later sold to the parish of Cockpen in 1708, as recorded in the kirk session minutes of Trinity Gask, whilst the reference to the drowned precentor in fact refers to another incident where the sole precentor of the two kirks at Kinkell and Trinity Gask died whilst crossing the River Earn to get from one church to the other.

But as I mentioned, as well as being a great story, with it being true it is almost certain that my ancestor had this story on their lips at the time, and may even have been dancing in the kirk and drinking the whisky! It is a brilliant wee song - here is the version of it by Silly Wizard as found on YouTube at http://youtu.be/BkgC7wiG68M. Enjoy!

For the history of the Scottish church, and how to find relevant records for genealogical research, my book Discover Scottish Church Records is available from My History in Yorkshire, England, for £7 (www.my-history.co.uk/acatalog/Unlock-the-Past-Booklets.html), from Global Genealogy in Canada at Can$19.95 (http://globalgenealogy.com/countries/scotland/resources/2590281.htm) and from Gould Genealogy in Australia at Aus$20 inc GST (www.gould.com.au/Discover-Scottish-Church-Records-p/utp0281.htm). An ebook version is also available from Gen-eBooks at www.gen-ebooks.com.

The curse of Loughmourne

I've just been going through a pile of papers belonging to my late mother, and amongst them I found a poem about Loughmourne, an area comprised of many farms and a lough (loch) just a couple of miles north of my old home town Carrickfergus in County Antrim, Northern Ireland. 

There's no village at Loughmourne, but there is a lough, about 57 hectares in size and filled with brown trout. There's also a church in the area that bears the name, said to have been founded by exiled Scottish descendants of Covenanters in 1784 (see www.loughmourne.org/history.html). As for any village that may once have existed there... well that's where the poem comes in!

Where the lough now stands there was certainly once a village many centuries ago - the remains of several crannogs have been found there (see www.culturenorthernireland.org/article/1794/still-waters-run-deep-at-loughmourne) - but it's said that a visiting peddlar, from whom nobody would buy matches, cursed the village the following morning, sending the place to a watery doom.

It's almost Hallowe'en - enjoy!

LOUGHMOURNE

'Twas nightfall and the clock had struck
The solemn hour of rest;
There lay the infant still asleep
Upon its mother's breast;
The weary peasant free from toil
Upon his bed was laid;
The lover sought the silent hour
To talk love to his maid.

'Twas in a village that lay law
Within a valley green;
Encircled round by verdant hills,
This village looked serene.
'Twas on that night a wanderer passed
Through it with weary feet;
Within its walls he shelter sought,
No shelter could he meet.

The poor ones there no pity showed,
The wealthy scoffed with scorn,
But pride and vanity were doomed
To die before the morn.
'Ye know not what to do, proud men,'
The wanderer this did say;
'Omnipotence shall avenge the just
Before the break of day'.

'Ye heavens give power, O God give strength,
To the powers on earth below:
Let the village sink with a fearful shake
And o'er its waters flow.'
With one fearful road and one wild convulse
The hills and dales did shake;
One hour more and that village lay
A calm and peaceful lake.

Then view it now as its waters flow
To a thriving distant town,
And with reverence think on the scenes below,
For that spot is sacred ground.
And the legend says that the curse was this
'A toon the night and a Loch the morn'.
It has claimed that name to the present day,
It still is called Loughmourne.

Anon

If you are just starting out with your family history research, my book, Tracing Your Irish Family History on the Internet (2nd ed), should help you to locate many of the key resources to help you get under way - not least of which some of the resources digitised and made available online by bodies such as PRONI, the National Archives of Ireland, the National Archives at Kew, and more. 

The book is available from publisher Pen and Sword in paperback, Kindle and ebook editions. To order a copy visit https://www.pen-and-sword.co.uk/Tracing-Your-Irish-Family-History-on-the-Internet-Paperback/p/16483.

Scotland says No. For now...

This last two months has seen me do something that I have never done before - get involved with politics. Independence for Scotland is something that I have long believed in, and a few months ago I first popped into the Yes Largs shop to offer my help. However, it was not until the European elections and the recent rise of the right wing political party UKIP in England that I really decided that enough was enough. From that point on I became much more involved in the campaign, and in the last two months I have pounded the streets of Largs on many occasions to leaflet, post newspapers, and to work on Yes stalls for the idea that we should be able to govern ourselves as a sovereign nation.

Largs and its surrounding villages are very Conservative in nature, and we have a very elderly population here, not great factors for a movement in our area that wanted to push the potential that independence could bring. The No campaign targeted the +65 demographic so successfully with fear stories on their pensions that when the vote took place, some 73% of this age group voted No, by far the biggest group, with those aged 54-65, approaching pensionable age, being the next largest group at 57%. No doubt on top of this the old feelings of British identity were much stronger, something which contrasted sharply with 16-17 year olds, the devolution generation, for whom 71% voted Yes. With the exception of the student age range (18-24), which showed 52% in favour of No, the pattern was that the younger the age group, the more pro-Yes they were (Source: Lord Ashcroft Polls: http://lordashcroftpolls.com/2014/09/scotland-voted/).

On the referendum night the final vote came in, showing Yes at 45% and No at 55%. So on this occasion, we lost - but we certainly put the fear of God into Westminster. Despite this defeat, I am very proud that our work, along with the work of other groups in North Ayrshire, saw us deliver a 49% result for our area, despite the odds. The eventual resurgence in the No campaign has been attributed by many to a last minute pledge given by the three main Westminster parties just a couple of days before the day of the vote, which vowed that Scotland would receive more powers if a No result was given. A timetable was given by the former Prime Minister Gordon Brown that he said would begin yesterday to deliver on this. Not only has that promise already been broken (yesterday came and went without the first promise fulfilled on that timetable), the three Westminster parties themselves are now disagreeing about the way forward, with the Labour Party in London even trying to kick it into the long grass at the end of next year, after the next UK general election. They never learn. So, for the Yes campaign, my feeling is that the referendum result has simply bought the union a little more time, and is merely the end of this current act. Another referendum will come, perhaps as soon as within the next 5-10 years, when the circumstances and demographic of the population have again changed, and most importantly, amidst the political circumstances in what I suspect will be a failure of Westminster to deliver on its promises - though time will tell.

On a personal note, I have thoroughly enjoyed participating in the greatest democratic exercise this country has ever seen, so much so that I have now joined a political party for the first time. On the referendum day itself I worked at three poll stations as a polling agent for the Yes side, with much good humour on the day exchanged between myself and my opposite numbers on the Better Together (No campaign) side, and I also had the privilege to attend the subsequent count in Ardrossan for North Ayrshire. I've gained a lot of experience of the political process, and hope to contribute further in the years ahead. As of next week, I become a full-time family historian again - not that I stopped as one throughout, mind! I have kept a diary throughout the campaign for my kids, and have kept copies of some of the key documents and literature from both sides to show them in years to come.

In addition to the great folk of the Yes Largs shop with whom I worked, perhaps the biggest highlight of the last few weeks was last Wednesday, when I unexpectedly got a chance to meet our First Minister Alex Salmond in Largs, and grabbed a chance to get a selfie with him. Sadly he has now announced that he will be standing down soon, but the selfie shows a real joie-de-vivre that to me just summarises the optimism that we all had.

The Yes campaign will be back - after a short intermission - but Scotland will never be the same again. We tasted sovereignty for a few hours, and developed a liking for it. So stay tuned...!

First Minister Alex Salmond hits the streets of Largs

With actor Peter Mullan (Sunshine on Leith/Braveheart/Trainspotting)

Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon visits the Yes Largs shop

With fellow campaigners in the Yes Largs shop

Yes will return....!

The Scottish Independence Referendum

I've just received my Poll Card in the post for the Scottish Independence Referendum. As someone who has spent a decade living in England, over a decade in Northern Ireland (where I was born), and half of my life in Scotland (both as a child and as an adult since 1997), I have long been convinced that a Yes vote is the right vote for Scotland - the United Kingdom has for a long time not been an equal union, not just between its countries, but within its countries. Since the rise of UKIP in the recent European elections, which really put the fear of God into me, I have been actively helping out with my local Yes group to canvass and to leaflet. But I have to admit, that even with all this personal conviction instilled within me, when I picked up the poll card from the post, a huge shiver went down my spine. This is genuine history in the making. 

The future of this country is in my hands, and the hands of everyone resident in Scotland who is entitled to vote - whether they are Scots born, a wayward paddy like me, English, Welsh, French, Polish, other European, South African, black, white, Jewish, Protestant, Catholic, Muslim, gay, straight, able bodied, disabled, or from any other nation, culture, colour or creed who is resident here. This is not a referendum written as a sequel to Braveheart (no matter how much an ignorant Londoncentric media chooses to view it), this is not about the past, it is first and foremost about democracy. As a genealogist I work every day in the past, I respect so much about our shared history with the other nations of the UK in the past, but I do not live in the past. I live in the present with an eye always to the future, and most specifically, my kids' future.

As a democratic nation - and Scotland IS a nation - we have a responsibility towards each other, but as a parent my first responsibility is to my kids. Our kids need a better deal than that being offered now within the United Kingdom, within which Scotland is and will continue to be the second violin in Westminster's eyes. It is not alone in that regard - Northern Ireland is treated as badly, as are parts of England and Wales, even within parts of London - but we have a chance here in Scotland to stand up and do something about it. I know that many No voters feel the complete opposite of that for their own kids, and I truly respect that - I just happen to think they are wrong. If we vote Yes we won't change Scotland overnight. But despite many ups and downs in the future, we will change Scotland for the better - because we have to. We can certainly do no worse than what is being offered by Westminster in the present.

No matter which side of the fence people are on, the greatest thing about this whole process is that it has been democratic. I feel very privileged to live here, to participate in the debate, and above all, to be able to vote. Thank you Scotland. 

In the Yes Largs shop

Meeting actor Peter Mullan (Sunshine on Leith)

With the team on Largs' Main Street

The last heir - ultimus haeres records and retours

I had an interesting case to look at last week, where a client contacted me to try to trace the relationship between a John Menzies and James Alexander Playfair MacLaren, with Menzies having been appointed as MacLaren's heir some two years after his death in 1910. The client had already obtained some solicitor's records and some sasines (land transfer records) outlining to a degree what had happened to the deceased's estate, but without the relevant genealogical information. There were mentions of family trees having been drawn up to prove the claim - could I essentially find the other side of the conversation, and work out the relationships by locating the mentioned tree charts?

The deceased was a gentleman called James Alexander Playfair MacLaren, who had passed away in November 1910. He died without any immediate lawful issue, and no claimants were immediately forthcoming as prospective heirs. In Scotland, if no claimants step forward in such circumstances, after a suitable period the estate goes to the Crown as Ultimus Haeres, which is Latin for the 'last heir' (see www.qltr.gov.uk/content/ultimus-haeres). The papers that my client held seemed to indicate that this was what had happened to James' estate, and so the first step was to first confirm that it had indeed fallen to the Crown. To do this I ordered up the Ultimus Haeres lists for the year in question, and confirmed it to be the case (they are catalogued under E869).

Next up, I then called up the Treasury Report in which the case would have been mentioned. In some cases genealogical evidence can be found included alongside these reports, and it was hoped that the family tree chart might have been included here - sadly this avenue turned out to be something of a damp squib in this case, however, simply noting that James' unclaimed estate had fallen to the Crown on 14 FEB 1911, with his lands due to be sold off in 9 lots. After any debts incurred by the deceased were paid off, the rest was to go to the office of the King's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer in Edinburgh, or KALTR (today it would be to the Queen's and Lord Treasurer's Remembrancer).

My next avenue now was to consult what are known as the Procedure Books, catalogued under E851. These provide a summary of developments concerning the administration of the Ultimus Haeres process, but also any subsequent claims made on the Crown by prospective heirs late to respond to the initial advertisements made by the KALTR for claimants to step forward. In this case I was now fortunate to get a 5 page summary of written conversations held between the agents of John Menzies and the KALTR's office. This slowly began to reveal some genealogical information. For starters, it noted that James MacLaren was the eldest lawful son of the late James MacLaren, draper of Coupar Angus, who was brother german of John MacLaren of Beechhill, a solicitor ('brother german' means a full brother), and that James junior had died at Auchterarder on 3 NOV 1910. In September 1911 the first mention of the name Menzies appeared, with a Jessie Menzies claiming to be the descendant of the deceased's grandfather's sister, though no names were provided. An exchange of letters requiring proof followed, and in February 1912 a solicitor was noted as claiming that John Menzies was MacLaren's rightful heir.

The thing is... the KALTR office was deeply unconvinced. There was a question mark over whether the relevant documents to support the claim had been found as proof, with particular concerns over a marriage document that seemed to imply that MacLaren's grandfather was aged 13 and a half when he married.

This was useful stuff, but what I really needed was the written conversation from the KALTR, not a summary, and as such, I next called up the letter books for the period from 1910 to 1913, which are catalogued under E854. The first thing to note about these books was the appalling quality of the letters, which had been kept as carbon paper copies. A few were so faded they were close to being illegible, but I photographed them all and was able to enhance some of them when I got home. These not only revealed the genealogical problem causing the KALTR office grief, but also the workaround that led to Menzies being confirmed as heir.

It transpired that the issue causing problems was the fact that Alexander McLaren (Laren or McLaurin), the grandfather, was said to have been baptised in February 1787, but that he had an older brother born in December 1785. This meant that the earliest that Alexander could have been born was September 1786 (assuming his mum fell pregnant again within a couple of weeks, which was optimistic!). This therefore put a question mark over whether Alexander was truly 14 when he married Elizabeth Cochrane in October 1800 - the age of 14 being the minimum legal age for marriage at that point for males. The minimum age for girls to marry back then was 12, but this was far from the KALTR's concern - the bride in this case was supposed to have been aged 24! John Menzies was said to be the grandson of Alexander's sister Jean MacLaren, and again there were problems confirming that she was related to Alexander. In short, the KALTR was having none of it, and was of the mind to reject the application of John and Janet Menzies to make a claim on the MacLaren estate that had fallen to the Crown, noting the relationship to be "unsatisfactorily established" in July 1912.

And that's when it got really interesting! Clearly frustrated with the KALTR's objections to the claim, the solicitor on behalf of John Menzies went down a separate tack - to have John formally recognised as an heir via the Services of Heirs procedure, and to have Janet Menzies appointed as an executrix dative for the moveable estate. Janet was first recognised as such in January 1913, and a month later John's application to be served heir went before the court. The Services of Heirs process was the Scottish jury based process by which anyone making a claim on heritable estate had to be first recognised as the lawful heir. There were two types of 'service' that could be applied, the easiest simply being a 'general service', the process pursued by Menzies' agents, where a jury simply looked at the evidence put before them and said yes or no as to whether the claimant was who he or she said they were (the other was a 'special service' where any land in question was also brought into the proceedings). Against the KALTR's objections, the Sheriff Court in Perth took a look at the family trees and other evidence placed before it and contented itself that John Menzies had the right to be recognised as MacLaren's heir-at-law. A last check in the indexes to the Services of Heirs from 1913 confirmed that John Menzies was duly served as heir as "second cousin" to James Alexander Playfair MacLaren. It seems that this move by Menzies' solicitor to have him recognised by a court as a lawful heir was enough to force the KALTR to release the assets held by the Crown which had been surrendered to it as Ultimus Haeres, to John Menzies, despite its overwhelming objections.

Although there were many references to family trees and genealogical documents being bandied about between the relevant parties, no tree was found in the papers that have survived from the case - but the detail in the records at least provided the information that allowed Menzies to satisfy his claim as understood and believed by a court of law. Unfortunately the Sheriff Court papers from the period have not survived, nor the solicitors' papers, and so this cannot be pursued further. The question remains as to who was right. Did the KALTR office have a legitimate problem with the evidence it was asked to consider - or did the Jury listening to the services case get it wrong?!

An interesting case!

For more on Scottish land records and inheritance, my book Discover Scottish Land Records is available from Unlock the Past at www.gould.com.au/Discover-Scottish-Land-Records-p/utp0283.htm - both print and ebook versions are available.

(With thanks to my client for permission to share the story)