>It was George IV (1643-1676) who was in debt to Glenorchy NOT George VI
>(1881-1889) by which time Glenorchy had quit Caithness (1719).
>
>George VI must also have been in debt because on his death the Estate of
>Mey (now owned by the Queen Mother but handled by the Mey Trust which is
>run by Malcolm Sinclair, the current Earl of Caithness and John Sinclair,
>the 3rd Viscount Thurso) was 'estranged' from the dignity of Earl.
>
>Pete Cummings must have (understandably) confused George II (1529-1582)
>with George IV (1643-1676) just as I had (inadvertently) confused George VI
>with George IV just as our friend Johnnye had done.
Or the question is which number of Earl applies to which person.
Pete's data as I transcribed it has:
William Sinclair (c1415-1482), Earl of Caithness (built Rosslyn Chapel)
William Sinclair (1455-1513), Earl of Caithness (d. Battle of Flodden)
John Sinclair (c1490-1529), Earl of Caithness (d. Battle of Somersdale)
George Sinclair (1533[?]-1582), Earl of Caithness
So by Pete's rendition, your George II is his George IV,
and your George IV is his George VI.
Did Pete list a few extra Earls?
Wasn't Laurel working on a complete list of Sinclair Earls?
What does her list say?
>Lesson? Don't pretend to be right all the time but the dates of George
>IV's dispositions to Campbell of Glenorchy (10th June,1661 and 18th October,
>1672) should settle which of the Georges was in debt to Campbell of Glenorchy.
We're talking about the same man. But we've got different numbers for him.
>You ask which battle resulted in George IV's debts?
>
>When I was going to school, my father told us: "If you are ever asked what
>happened in such and such year just say 'there was trouble in Ireland'" and
>you are bound to be given one point.
>
>Well, there was always trouble in Scotland but the trouble which got
>many Scots in debt during the period of George IV was the Solemn
>League and Covenant of 1643 between England and Scotland to defend
>and establish Presbyterianism. After the Stuart restoration George
>IV became a decided royalist and "manifested great zeal in suppressing
>conventicles" i.e. unauthorised assemblies for worship by Catholics
>and Episcopalians which, in itself, was a contradiction because the
>Stuarts had been the mainstay of the Catholic faith in Scotland.
Interesting.
>The Stuarts (more accurately the Stewarts) were a disaster for Scotland
>and were largely responsible for the downfall of the Sinclairs who clung
>to the Catholic faith long after the strong wind of Protestantism was
>sweeping through Northern Europe. When we did change, we embraced the
>new religion with all the fervour of the 'born again Christian'. My own
>knees still ache at the hours they spent kneeling on a stone-flagged
>floor in my grandfather's house in Caithness. Not a spoonful of
>porridge was eaten until grace had been said.
>
>One had to suffer to be saved. The absurdity of it all defies
>belief. Will we never learn?
>
>If this seems to be a digression from George IV, it is not. It is the
>Sinclair adherence to lost causes which has resulted in our downfall.
>It is almost as if we had a death wish. If we couldn't find an enemy
>we fought amongst ourselves - and still do.
La romance de la cause purdue....
>Niven Sinclair
John S. Quarterman <jsq@mids.org>
[ This is the Sinclair family discussion list, sinclair@mids.org
[ To get off or on the list, see http://www.mids.org/sinclair/list.html