This site
http://www.perthshireheritage.co.uk/pitcur.html
appears to be somewhat definitive on the descent of Pitcur.
In particular there are some sweeping changes to what Leo has on his site, so
much so that it was at first hard for me to swallow. But the more I read
this site, the more it seems like they have some solid research.
On one issue, Sir George Haliburton of Pitcur, they say he was underage at
the time of his father's death at Pinkiecleuch (Sep 1547). They state that his
father was married twice, but it's not clear which mother they are asserting
was George's. If it was Elizabeth Graham that would severely limit her range
of possible birthyears.
In particular this Elizabeth Graham is supposed to be the daughter of Sir
Robert Graham of Fintry, Provost of Dundee in 1465 who had married Janet Lovell.
Sir Robert Graham is the son of that much married, and woman Mariota Stewart
daughter of King Robert III of Scotland by Annabel Drummond.
It is known that Mariota married William Graham, 1st Lord Graham on or about
13 Nov 1413 and then he died between Aug 1423 and Nov 1424 which gives a
birthrange for Robert of 1414/25
However for Elizabeth Graham to be the mother of George Halyburton, underage
when his father died Sep 1547, and requiring Elizabeth to be no more thatn 48
at his birth, gives us a birthrange for her at an extreme limit from her
father of 1478/85, indicating he would have been somewhere between 53 and 71 when
he fathered her.
Not impossible, but suspicious.
The site goes on to say that George Haliburton was "retoured heir in the
lands of Drumblayt, in the Sheriffdom of Aberdeen, on 29 March, 1550, and in the
lands of Pitcur on 21 March, 1551"
Does "retoured heir" mean he came of age ?
Comments appreciated
Will Johnson
Haliburton of Pitcur
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
John Higgins
Re: Haliburton of Pitcur
I can't vouch for the accuracy of the Pitcur line, but it's hard to see how
this site can be judged to be "definitive" or based on "solid research" when
absolutely no sources are provided. I note that another page of this
website says that "we have agreed to omit source references...in order to
strengthen the rights of the researchers involved". Laudable perhaps (if
you happen to be one of their researchers), but not very helpful....No
respectable genealogist would publish a book without providing sources -
publishing on a website should be no different.
And the site is in substantial disagreement with CP and SP [as corrected in
its vol. 9] on one key link: Sir Walter Haliburton, so-called 1st Lord
Haliburton. Both CP and SP agree that there is no evidence that Sir Walter
was the 1st Lord - they assign his son Sir John as the 1st Lord (called
Dirletoun, or Halyburton of Dirletoun, by CP). Also the site combines Sir
Walter with his father, another Walter, and gives as his wife the second
wife of his father - who was neither his wife nor his mother. A lot of
errors for one generation...and that's just a start. CP suggests that at
least some of these errors appeared in "former Peerages", presumably the
Burke's editions of the 19th century. I'll bet that the website version is
based on some old Burke's....
As to the Pitcur descent, the small peice that Leo has on his site is taken
from Paget's ancestry of Prince Charles, which has proven to be less than
reliable over time for many families. I suspect that this site is probably
more accurate than Paget for this line. However, for yet another [equally
unsourced] version, see "Genealogical History of the Halliburton Family", by
William Kenneth Rutherford and Anny Clay (Zimmerman) Rutherford, privately
printed 1983 and available at the FHL.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: Haliburton of Pitcur
this site can be judged to be "definitive" or based on "solid research" when
absolutely no sources are provided. I note that another page of this
website says that "we have agreed to omit source references...in order to
strengthen the rights of the researchers involved". Laudable perhaps (if
you happen to be one of their researchers), but not very helpful....No
respectable genealogist would publish a book without providing sources -
publishing on a website should be no different.
And the site is in substantial disagreement with CP and SP [as corrected in
its vol. 9] on one key link: Sir Walter Haliburton, so-called 1st Lord
Haliburton. Both CP and SP agree that there is no evidence that Sir Walter
was the 1st Lord - they assign his son Sir John as the 1st Lord (called
Dirletoun, or Halyburton of Dirletoun, by CP). Also the site combines Sir
Walter with his father, another Walter, and gives as his wife the second
wife of his father - who was neither his wife nor his mother. A lot of
errors for one generation...and that's just a start. CP suggests that at
least some of these errors appeared in "former Peerages", presumably the
Burke's editions of the 19th century. I'll bet that the website version is
based on some old Burke's....
As to the Pitcur descent, the small peice that Leo has on his site is taken
from Paget's ancestry of Prince Charles, which has proven to be less than
reliable over time for many families. I suspect that this site is probably
more accurate than Paget for this line. However, for yet another [equally
unsourced] version, see "Genealogical History of the Halliburton Family", by
William Kenneth Rutherford and Anny Clay (Zimmerman) Rutherford, privately
printed 1983 and available at the FHL.
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJhonson@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MEDIEVAL-L@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 27, 2006 3:40 PM
Subject: Haliburton of Pitcur
This site
http://www.perthshireheritage.co.uk/pitcur.html
appears to be somewhat definitive on the descent of Pitcur.
In particular there are some sweeping changes to what Leo has on his site,
so
much so that it was at first hard for me to swallow. But the more I read
this site, the more it seems like they have some solid research.
On one issue, Sir George Haliburton of Pitcur, they say he was underage at
the time of his father's death at Pinkiecleuch (Sep 1547). They state
that his
father was married twice, but it's not clear which mother they are
asserting
was George's. If it was Elizabeth Graham that would severely limit her
range
of possible birthyears.
In particular this Elizabeth Graham is supposed to be the daughter of Sir
Robert Graham of Fintry, Provost of Dundee in 1465 who had married Janet
Lovell.
Sir Robert Graham is the son of that much married, and woman Mariota
Stewart
daughter of King Robert III of Scotland by Annabel Drummond.
It is known that Mariota married William Graham, 1st Lord Graham on or
about
13 Nov 1413 and then he died between Aug 1423 and Nov 1424 which gives a
birthrange for Robert of 1414/25
However for Elizabeth Graham to be the mother of George Halyburton,
underage
when his father died Sep 1547, and requiring Elizabeth to be no more thatn
48
at his birth, gives us a birthrange for her at an extreme limit from her
father of 1478/85, indicating he would have been somewhere between 53 and
71 when
he fathered her.
Not impossible, but suspicious.
The site goes on to say that George Haliburton was "retoured heir in the
lands of Drumblayt, in the Sheriffdom of Aberdeen, on 29 March, 1550, and
in the
lands of Pitcur on 21 March, 1551"
Does "retoured heir" mean he came of age ?
Comments appreciated
Will Johnson