Re: Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue.

["Rory Sinclair" <rory.sinclair@rogers.com>]

Dear John:
The source is Sir John's mother Lady Janet Sinclair whose family Bible gives
the following as quoted in Mitchison who had the book to read from:

George Sinclair of Ulbster was married to Lady Janet Sutherland at Dunrobin
24th October 1740
John their eldest son was born 23 Aug 1743
   dyed the 23 Oct following
Katherine wasborn ye 19th sept 1744
   &dyed the 11 Sept 1748 of the Small Pox
Hinrietta [sic] wasborn the 30 nov 1745
   dyed 24 Sep 1748 of the Small Pox
Helen was born the 8th of June 1747, 19June new styel
Mary was born the 14th of Aug 1748, 25th Aug new styel
William was born  at Lady Strathnaver's lodging in the Abbey
    Dyed at Edinburgh 17 Nov 1764
another Katherine was born at Thurso East 24 July 1751
    & dyed23 Feb 1754
A Male Child was still-born 10May 1754
Another John was born 10 May 1754 {this is our Sir John]
Janet was born the 4th Sept. 1755
James was born 22 April 1757.

Sir John was married twice, the first is as Burkes has it (to Sarah
Maitland) but it was not she who bore the children, it was his second wife
Lady Diana MacDonald
and as for Sir John's children by Lady Diana MacDonald (of Sleat), they are:
Archibald, Alexander, Catherine, Elisabeth Diana, George (2nd Bart, and
successor to Sir John),
Godfrey,  Hannah, James, Janet, Rev.John, Julia, Margaret, and William.
These are not in birth order but alpahbetical from the index to Mitchison's
book previously cited.

I never want to argue with Burke's but this information is from primary
documents and from a scholar with impeccable credentials.  There are
portraits today in Thurso Castle of Lady Diana Sinclair.... There must be
more in Burkes that you have missed  .... or they missed it.
So what do we do now?

Rory



----- Original Message -----
From: "John S. Quarterman" <jsq@quarterman.org>
To: <sinclair@quarterman.org>
Sent: Friday, September 06, 2002 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: Sir John Sinclair's History of the Revenue.


> Rory,
>
> >The first thing I would do/add/correct is the use of the moniker "Jamie"
> >I have read a fair amount of material on the man and he was never
referred

[ Excess quotations omitted. ]

[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@quarterman.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://sinclair.quarterman.org/list.html