Early Scottish Families

17/11/2020

Thought it was about time I popped in again and let people know I am still about and in lock-down updating my research notes.

I'm still not posting but will answer any messages.

The area I research is 1600s and early-mid 1700s in several mid Renfrewshire parishes e.g. Abbey, Kilbarchan, Lochwinnoch, Kilmacolm, Houston & Kilallan, Neilston

11/10/2019

Just a quick Hi, to say I'm still around on messenger for those who want to chat

29/05/2017

I'm sorry to say this ......
Because of FB Policies I have decided not to post or read other posts on FB any more
for the time being I only log in to read messages until I find an alternative to FB and FB-like sites

If anyone has an interest in Central Renfrewshire pre @1750 send me a message

07/03/2017

https://qz.com/914372/we-used-to-have-six-more-letters-in-the-english-alphabet/

There was once a letter for the throaty sound you find in "Bach" and the Scottish "loch."

01/03/2017

Any Brodies connected to Montreal.
Brodie is one of those names that has lots of variations ranging through Brodie... Bryde .... Braedine to name a few of the more common. It wasn't until 1700s (in my area) that they started to be thought of as different names, before that it is better to treat them all as the same name with variations of spelling. For my research I found the most common version of the name was Braedine.
The variations for Gemmill are easier to follow, 1m, 1l, 2e, a+e, and mixtures.

So anyone want to reclaim UK ancestry before Brexit

1814 July 25
John Brodie of the City of Montreal, as heir to Mary Gemmill, relict of Hugh Brodie, late of Langcroft, his mother, Seised, Jul 11 1814, - in 2 Houses with the vacant ground at the back thereof in Kirkton of Kilbarchan, par Kilbarchan: - in security of £100 in Bond & Disp by, late Weaver, now Merchant, Kilbarchan, to the said Mary Gemmill, Jul 1 1805

08/02/2017

Its times like this I wish I knew someone who could do statistics on historical populations.
It has to remain a wish because even if I had someone to do the statistics there is so little accurate or complete data on early populations. Everything I've seen for my area is based on extracts from a few records such as counting the Tax payers on a 1695 Poll Tax and saying there were 40 families in the village or 40 weavers in the parish. This is ok as far as it goes but extremely misleading because it is based on Tax payers and takes no account of the poor - so how accurate are descriptions of early populations.
I have just completed the first part of some ground breaking research. I've taken Poll Tax records for 1693-95 for the parish of Kilbarchan - now to start adding the poor to the records and build up the complete population for the 1690s as best as can be done.
Already it highlights the problems of just counting people on lists.
The in 1693 there were @185 families in 1695 155 are on a list of those who were asked to prove they had paid (45 of them were marked not paid) at the same time the 1695 Poll Tax billed @315 families in the parish. This could be used to imply a 10% increase of housing within a year - I don't think so.
This is going to take years to sort out - wish me luck

15/01/2017

FB keeps reminding me I haven't posted for a few weeks.
True before the Xmas fun I was caught up in the Watt Maps from 1730s.
The set of maps cover much of the Kilbarchan and surrounding area including the area now called Johnstone Castle.
There is much debate about this 'castle' and how old it actually was.

I have always maintained that what is thought of as the 'castle' goes back to @1800 when it was fashionable to call new homes of the rich by grand sounding names such as Hall, Castle etc.
The story of the area is quite mixed up and confused by misinterpretations of other documents and the area next to the 'castle' being called Castle Hill.

The Watt Maps of the area appear to confirm that the 'castle' wasn't completed until @1800 Two Maps from @1730 show a farm with three buildings, the Estate plan of @1780 shows a large long building to the west of these buildings; the next map shows one large long building, the three other buildings gone.
Archaeologists digging in the location say they found foundations dating back to 14-1500s claiming this as justification of as early Tower House (castle). However a map from 1590 shows the Estate Tower House about half a mile to the west. No Estate had two Tower Houses.
It would appear that the 'castle' was built on a new site and expanded/extended over the old farm buildings which is why there was evidence of old foundations in the 'castle' This is supported by a verbal account of one of the builders written down @1830.

So that is what I've been up to - once again questioning what is considered the accepted local history.
(This is only a brief description of the 'castle' that never was, there is more supporting evidence. There is now the remains of a large building called Johnstone Castle, however it only dates back @200 years not 5-600 years. Also, it should be noted that this is NOT Johnstoun Castle which did exist in Kilbarchan 600 years ago; I have often seen these described as the same place. The modern Johnstone did take its name from the old Johnstoun in 1733 - this is another part of the story)

What next?
I work on my research by looking at different sources in turn, a change is as good as a rest; I've done some parish registers, some maps and some wills and testaments over the last year. Now I think its time to turn my attention to the Renfrewshire 1694-5 Poll Tax and 1691 Hearth Tax.

These too are often misunderstood documents superficially looked at. One of the sources of confusion comes from a well respected and normally very accurate historian called Mackenzie who made a statement about the harvesters not paying the Poll if they were from a different parish to where they worked. The Act of Parliament does not say this.
From a pilot study I did a couple of years ago this project is going to turn out to be very interesting from a social history point of view and no doubt, given my reputation, enlightening for the traditional historians

Meantime I'll pick out a few more families who emigrated.
Always open to suggestions.

12/10/2016

Still in 1840 - a nice little group probably all related.

But one is missing John Ronald Campbell, living in Madeira or somewhere abroad - wonder if they found him

….. William Campbell, writer, Johnstone, with consent of Lauchlan Campbell, presently residing in Glasgow, Lieut. in the Ayrshire Militia, Janet Campbell residing residing in Johnstone, Ann Campbell, presently residing there, relict of Donald Campbell, Ballimartin, Islay, and James Campbell, writer, Johnstone, for himself, and as takin burden on him for John Ronald Campbell, presently residing at Madeira or elsewhere abroat, his brother, Jan 15.18 1840; and Margaret Campbell (spouse of John Holm, writer, Johnstone.) ………

15/09/2016

Looks like summer is over so time to get my research notes out again.

This one is dated July 29, 1840
It also mentions transactions in 1808.

Marion Muir, spouse of Andrew Muir, Feuar, Storie Street of Paisley, and Robert Patison, sometime Weaver, Paisley, now at Holmesburg near Philadelphia, North America as heirs portioners to John Stevenson, sometime residing in Croft of Paisley, their uncle .........

27/06/2016

As usual for Summer I'm not online as much enjoying fresh air after 'dusty' air of winter achieves or more like static/glare from VDU now.

raining today so here is a post to keep me out of it and dry - Family Ritchie in Canada.

Dated December 21, 1840
Refers to a property in Kilbarchan sold July 31, 1838

"...on Disp. by the Trustees of John Ritchie, at one time portioner of Wardend, thereafter residing in Johnstone, with consent of the Commissioner for Adam Ritchie, formerly residing at Woodend, now Farmer in the Horn District, Upper Canada, his son, to ......"

24/04/2016

I’ve taken this from another post so that we can look at it separately.

Deanna Barber Major asked about these Barbours, could they be from Forehouse?

http://anextractofreflection.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/the-linen-trade-in-lisburn-1913.html

My research area is pre 1750 so I’m a little outside it for this. There was a possibility John was from the Forehouse so it made me curious.

From this article:
Mr John Barbour, a native of Paisley;
Frequently visited Ireland;
Linen thread merchant;
Founded Irish business 1784;
Died 1823, in Ireland;
Succeeded by 2 sons, William and James.

My first thought was to look at the 1783 Tait list for Paisley.
It had the following entries:
John Barbour, Maxwelton, Thread Manufacturer;
John Barbour, junior, Merchant
[Maxwelton, is a well known weaving and cloth manufacturing area in south west Paisley & the Forehouse Barbours had connections in Paisley]

The most obvious assumption was that this was father & son and John junior was the founder of the factory in Ireland.
This turned out to be wrong.

Looking through the Land Transactions John Barbour, junior, Merchant, turned out to be the son of William Barbour, Merchant, in Forehouse; John was junior to William [Forehouse] not junior to John [Maxwelton]
Next step was to find out more about the two John Barbours in Maxwelton; these seemed to be the only two possibilities ………

06/04/2016

This Cochran family isn't in my area of research but I though I would include it because of its local connection. It does show that even with poor transport and communications business could be carried out over long distance - even from within a Lunatic Asylum

April 21, 1841
Robert Cochran, Merchant, New York, as heir to Robert Cochran, Vinter, Castle Douglas, his father, Seized, Apr 20, 1841, - in 2/3 parts of a fore Shop, Kitchen and back Room, with a Leather Cellar and Brewhouse used as a Cellar with the Offices or Cellars, and the westmost half of the Garden thereto belonging, (under exception), being part of a Tenement near the CROSS of PAISLEY; - in security of £800, in Bond and Disposition by John White, son of Andrew White, Shoemaker, Paisley, to the said Robert Cochran sen. Jul 11, 1810 ……

There are other abridgements which add to the information.
John Whyte was an Ironmonger in Paisley who was now in Garagar Lunatic Assylum in Glasgow. He was heir to his cousin John Whyte (above) in Prestwick (son of Andrew Whyte, Shoemaker, Paisley)

05/03/2016

There are several names which can be used by both men and women, in the past there were a few more than now.

Have you ever come across a name you've never come across before and have no idea if its a boy or girl ?

I came across one today in the 1715 Neilston (Renfrewshire) Baptism records. Tried looking up the 'what does your name mean' and 'choose a baby name' - Not Found on any of the sites

Elinder

Elinder Murry baptized 27 March 1715

Anyone come across the name Elinder - or even this person

Until I find out different I'm assuming its female perhaps a variation of Elinor

27/02/2016

Who would like to explain this

In the 1841 Census taken on 6th June 1841
George & William (twins) are listed as being 5 months old

In the Parish Records on 26th December 1841
George & William (twins) are listed as being born

Both are Official Records but obviously one is wrong
Which & Why ? (easy question)
Explain how this could happen (not a typo; harder question)

(honest there is an explanation)

22/02/2016

This time its unknown where the person went, he was last known in Spain.

Recorded 10 November 1848

John Muir, Engineer in Spain or elsewhere abroad, as heir to Mathew Muir jun. residing in Greenock, his father, and Janet Muir, spouse of William Steele, Mason, Glasgow, and Thomas Muir residing there, as heirs of provision to Robert Muir residing in Greenock, and Malcolm Muir residing in Glasgow, their brothers, Seised, for their respective interests, -

28/01/2016

Not really an emigration, I've added it because I know how difficulty it can be using Irish records.

Recorded 10 Nov 1848

William Pinkerton, sometime of Belfast, Ireland, thereafter residing at Ham near Richmond, Surrey, as heir to Andrew Pinkerton, sometime residing in Belfast, his father, Seised,- of the 7s 6d land of Mossend of Risk west of the Road from Lochwinnoch to Beith ..............

09/01/2016

Today's family is Carr in New Zealand

Recorded 14 May 1850
Jean Stirret, Searlow Street, Port Glasgow, gets Letter of Attorney, by William Carr of Auckland, New Zealand, Blacksmith, and Jane Jamieson, late of Kilbirnie, his spouse Dec19, 1849

23/12/2015

Anyone looking for the family Aiken (Aitken etc) in America. The may well be connected to the family Orr who left Scotland @1770 from the property called Waterstoun.

Recorded Feb 18, 1820

James Aiken residing in North America, grandson and heir of Mary Henderson, spouse of James Aiken in Sandholes of Waterstoun, gets Ren. Nov 3, 1819, - of the eastmost half of the lands called Mains of Waterstoun, extending to a 36s land, par. Kilbarchan; - and of £200 in Disp. by the late Robert Aiken in Lochermill Mar 24, 1801

03/12/2015

i'm still wading my way through land documents (seisins/seasines various spellings) and slowly building up a picture of families of interest like the Barbours.

Indexes to these are very limited like Testament Indexes and usually only name the principal person and date of registration. They actually contain a wealth of information but it takes time to find it. Some of the information is on those who went abroad.

For example:
March 5 1822: John McCulloch, flesher, Greenock, Seised, Feb. 20. 1822, - in the 40s. land of Little Craigbate, and the 13s. 4d. land of Kerse Meadow, and Teinds, par. Kilmacolm; - on Disp. by the Trustees on the Seq. Estate of Alexander Graham & Co., Glasgow, and Graham, McNicol and Co., Newfoundland, with consent of the Commissioners on said Estate, Jan. 22. 1822

So how do people abroad like Graham and McNicol in Newfoundland find this information when it is Indexed under John McCulloch.
With difficulty is the answer.

What I'm going to do over thw winter months is play a 'lottery'
I'm going to post some of the entries at random for people who left Scotland and see if any of their descendants recognize them

28/10/2015

Thought I would drop in and let people know how the hunt for the Forehouses is going, and give a research tip.

Looking at a map will show where the modern Forehouse is which by all accounts was built @1780 on or near Little Forehouse. Older maps show a Forehouse which on closer inspection would appear to be the Meikle Forehouse now gone.

What I’m trying to do is establish where to old boundaries were in the early 1700s. This is a common problem when trying to picture the world ancestors lived in. I have reconstructed a map of part of the area based on plans of 1730 it was very different from today, roads, boundaries as well as waterways and farms have moved, some further than others. For many people the location of where their ancestors lived is just a name.

So for me the objective is much larger than just locating the Forehouses. I doubt I will see it but I can see someone in the future taking research like mine, combining it with other, and creating a computerised virtual world of 1700s – a long way off at the moment.
For now the problem is locating the boundaries which is not as simple as it might seem. Starting from mid 1800s maps, the first accurate ones, is not easy because early land descriptions describe places relevant to what existed at the time such as bounded by the house of John Smith, to the head of a ditch (now gone) land measure was in Scots acres not English measures on the maps, it could be a ½ or 1/3 of a larger named area, described in £-s-d or merks or even as New Extent or Old Extent, and quite often the land/house is just described as ‘belonging to’. One of the most annoying habits was people did not record land transfers or inheritances.
Often people did not record a transfer until there was a need to, such as 30 years later when they sold it. A more extreme example is one that describes a transfer of part of Pannel; bought in 1712 the purchase was not recorder until 1799 @90 year gap.

Ok ….. so why go to the trouble of working out where a property was and who owned it when your ancestor was only a tenant in a long lost farmhouse. In simple terms it completes and compliments the information you have on a name from a parish register and in some cases it fills in gaps in records such as referring to a property as ‘the lands possessed by your ancestor’ (possessed = tenant).
I recently found a Bond recorded in the land record 1785 which named 6 great grandchildren of one of my g…g grandfathers from @1700; I have no idea (yet) of the link to them because so far it’s the only record I have of them, they were not recorded in existing church records.

So why am I interested in Pannel when my interest here is Forehouse which is on or straddles the Boreland-Weetland boundary. The answer is something to bear in mind when searching early records. All farms belonged to an Estate originally and when they were sold they could change Estate name; in records people could be referred to as being from the farm or the Estate. Many people assume if they are described differently then they are different people, its not always the case and needs to be checked out.

One example is a parish record of births @1700. The first birth is recorded as in Weetlands, the second is recorded as in Pannel. Weetlands was an ‘independent’ property and Pannel was both an Estate name and name of main farm on the Estate. So on the face of it it appears that the family moved house.
Checking the land records paints a different picture. Weetlands was bought at that time and became part of the Pannel Estate, the second birth record refers to the Estate name which Weetlands was now part of. The family did not move house – the farm was given a new address so to speak.

Many early records need to be read in context to be fully understood.

01/10/2015

My holidays are all over now and with the dark nights looming it will soon be time to turn my attention to my research again trying to interpret the data 've been slowly gathering since last winter.

My hunt for Forehouse in Kilbarchan still continues. In general terms its becoming clearer. There was Little and Meikle (big) Forehouse; Barbour had the Little Forehouse to the north of Meikle Forehouse

Next task is to plot them on a map, not as easy as it sounds, most records just name the property and occasionally give a size or general boundary. The land register is on the surface very confusing it describes every house as being on the high street - there is no High Street in Kilbarchan

Unpicking the records takes time - lots of it. There are clues that can pinpoint buildings. For example the records refer to a road from the Barn Green to Brandscroft and a road from Barn Green to the Steeple. The only place the Brandscroft and Steeple streets meet is at Kilbarchan Cross.
So the present Barn Green and Barn Green road are misleading as to where the original Barn Green was - or is implied to be from the land records
This is a point worth keeping in mind when you look for old places on modern maps - modern places can be named after another place not necessarily being the original place to have the name.

Johnstoun changing names is a perfect example of this which I'll save for the next rainy day

11/07/2015

Its said that on average you share your Birthday with 8 million other people.

So for those born on this date ..... Who's house are we having the party in ?

18/06/2015

I’m now on holiday and other than occasionally popping in I won’t be back until .

I know that reading about a family you don’t know can be boring with long dry and even confusing descriptions, there is a lot to be said for writing out little extracts of trees and doodling with them.
Hopefully the Barbour family has shown that even for well-known families there is still information to be found. And of the dangers of assuming too much from too little information, even when something seems obvious it still needs a confirmation otherwise it is just speculation. Speculation based on speculation should be avoided at all costs; it has ruined countless family trees. At most I would add one speculation and make it clear to others that you have no confirmation for that person.
There is nothing wrong with saying ‘this is as far as I can go at the moment’ and noting a possible next generation and/or searching among people of interest in hope that something turns up. Somethings turn up by chance while researching other areas, for the Barbours this is the point reached.

I have not forgotten that I was going to look at Forehouse itself because it apparently belonged to another family. It is taking a bit longer to gather the information on this than expected. Also while I am on holiday I will be visiting an archive which contains relative information. I should have this post ready by September when I return. [There is a simple reason]

Hope you found the walk through of the Barbours interesting and/or useful.
Any suggestions what I could look at when I get back in September?

17/06/2015

Now for the second Forhouse Barbour family.

We know John Barbour bought Forehouse @1680 from his nephew, transferred it to his son 1696 who transferred it to his son John Barbour in 1726.
The first John was married to Unknown with surname Barbour or Aitken; the second John was married to Jean Speirs then Margaret Young; and the third John married Janet Fulton.
The second John had two sons called John, one in each marriage; he also had a brother Humphrey.

It is really only the first two Johns we need to look at; we may never know which spouse was the mother of the third John and content ourselves just with a male line.

The first John was contemporary with John who died in 1655, or perhaps a little younger and in 1680 he was called ‘uncle John’ making his spouse Unknown Barbour (sister of deceased John) or Unknown Aitken (sister in law to deceased John).
I mentioned earlier that Kilbarchan was a relatively new and small town so I would expect either John or his father to be from elsewhere.

I note there was a Steven Barbour in Kirktoun @1650. The only Steven I can think of is Steven from Rashiefield; there is absolutely NO reason why I should assume it is the same person. The point is if Steven had come to Kilbarchan could John be his brother, he had several siblings, one named John.
There was a Humphrey Barbour, maltman, in the town @1620 who appears to still be there @1650. If I had to speculate who John’s father was this would have been my first choice, however, a new merchant John Barbour has entered the play and like John Barbour & Jean Lynn I can’t decide where he fits into the picture without more information. The suggestion of another Barbour family clouds the issue.

In 1667 Margaret Wilson died, she was the spouse of John Barbour merchant in Kilbarchan Kirktoun. I can find no more information on this couple; it is not impossible that they were the parents of ‘uncle John’. (Or even John who died in 1655)
Also between 1673-82 there was a merchant John Barbour in Kirktoun with an Agnes Cordiner who had several children including a Humphrey in 1682. Its not impossible that this ‘uncle John’ with a second (or third, if same John married to Margaret Wilson) wife and John being born @1670 when the parish records are missing. He may be a cousin to the first Forehouse Barbour family, who knows at present.

In short I have no idea if or where John Barbour & Margaret Wilson, and John Barbour & Agnes Cordoner fit into the picture, their presence prevents speculation about the Forehouse Barbours.

I don’t think John & Agnes Cordoner are part of the immediate family because of the age of the “young grandson” John Barbour in 1696. The Poll Tax and parish records leave us to believe there was only John and his brother Humphrey in Kirktoun at this time along with their father and “young grandson” if this was Humphrey who was born in 1682 he would be rather young to have a young son in 1696. The records instead suggest Humphrey was married to Mary How. The records suggest John & Mary How had a son John born in 1693 but the parish records say it was Humphrey & Elizabeth How – was this an error by the clerk, or was it an illegitimate son !? or different Humphrey (there is an unidentified Humphrey in 1683 who married a Margaret Cochran) Either way I think this child was the ‘young grandson’. When Humphrey died @1750 his spouse was Agnes Hair and he had no living descendants, his nephew John (&JF) was his heir.

So why was the child left with his grandfather – and why was John not listed in the Poll Tax. I think the presence of a grandchild excludes them being too young to pay tax i.e. under 16 yrs. He could have been classed as poor therefore tax exempt; Humphrey was a carrier, transporting goods from one place to another, presumably before his marriage John was also a carrier, it was a natural step for many merchants, and he was taxed elsewhere on his travels. It was also common for carriers and merchants to marry slightly older than average presumably because they did not settle down until they had some savings.

All of this brings us back to the starting point, John and Humphrey were probably born in the 1670s and we don’t have the parish records; and their mother was either Barbour or Aitkin.
John was given Forehouse on his first marriage to Jean Speirs (from Wardhouse Speirs); his second marriage was to Margaret Young; we don’t know which was the mother of John who married Janet Fulton 1726.

Although the male line framework remains fixed there are no significant events dates/names that can be added at present. I am confident that over time the details will emerge, unfortunately to go looking for them would require considerable effort.
There comes a time to draw a line and wait to see if anything new turns up, this is where to draw the line for now.

What surprises me most is that for such a prominent family mentioned in most local history books nobody has actually researched their early origins. This framework was very easy to put together.

17/06/2015

Lets try and put the Forehouse Barbours to bed [my holidays start tomorrow]

Previously I posted the fixed framework that everything must hang on. In addition to one level of speculation I also note people of interest [POI] who may be connected in some way but with too little information to speculate one way or the other.

Starting with the original Forehouse family.
What we know is that John Barbour & Grizel Aitkin had 3 sons & 1 daughter; he died @1655 and his son John bought Forehouse and bits of Weitlands & Borlands when he came of age @1670 and later he sold the property to his uncle John Barbour [I will come back to these two later]

John B d@1655 was probably b @1620 and was tenant of the lands his son later bought; he had a brother Humphrey. There was a Thomas Barbour tenant of these lands in the early 1600s; possibly grandfather to John, since this is more than 1 generation I would mark Thomas as [POI]. Thomas also had connections with the Lawmarnock Barbours and is perhaps where the families joined. John may also have had connections with Paisley; and Thomas may have had Paisley connections too. With so few records the Paisley connection may just be coincidence, it’s an area for future research.

‘uncle John Barbour’ must have been connected by marriage which means he either married an unnamed sister of John or was married to a sister of his wife Grizel Aitken. I have not found any couples with Barbour-Barbour or Barbour-Aitken that fit this.

Before moving to ‘uncle John’ a little background. Kilbarchan as a village/town did not exist before @1600. There are historical reasons why at this time wealthy people were moving out of the large towns like Paisley (&Glasgow) to places like Kilbarchan hence my interest in a possible Paisley connection. By about 1670-80 there would be @30 families in the town so when the record says something like merchant Barbour in Kirktoun it will almost certainly be one family and the question is more likely to be is it father, brother or son within the family. Unfortunately, for research, wealthy people could own more than one property and they could give their name as either where they are living or where they own.

This would be a good point to resolve who John Barbour & Jean Lynn were; they lived in Forehouse @1680-1695. In 1695 John was described as younger and it was John elder in Forehouse who transferred the properties to his son John in 1696. John & Jean had a son John in 1692 – could this be the young grandson mentioned in 1696?

Younger and elder can’t always be taken to mean father and son, it can also be used to separate two people with the same name and could be used with uncle and nephew with same names.
So was John Barbour (&JL) the son of John (&GA) who remained tenant after he sold the property to his uncle; or was he a son of the uncle who took up residence when his father John (&?B/A) bought the property.

I doubt it will be formally documented but two things suggest to me that this John was the son of John Barbour & Grizel Aitken.
John & Jean were in Forehouse before ‘uncle John’ purchased the property.
And although John & Jean were billed for Tax in 1694 & 1695 there is no record of them paying it. Those who paid & did not pay in 1694 are recorded John & Jean are not mentioned in the lists suggesting they had died between the making the list of Tax payers and the verification of payment in 1695 (or moved to another area). This would have made him @50 years old which means he would have been @80 if it was him who transferred the properties in 1726 (not impossible, the family was known for living long, just unlikely).

It was this John Barbour and Jean Lynn as younger in Forehouse that was the original reason why I felt uncomfortable about the Barbour ancestry; I couldn’t match him up and fit him in. I think this is now resolved and I’m reasonably confident that he was part of the original Forehouse family who remained tenant after selling the property, a common practice.

This would be a good place to take a break – I will post the other ‘uncle John’ family later today.