Re: Royal Ancestors for Americans? - False

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 20:43:06 +0000 (UTC), WJhonson@xxxxxxx wrote:

>In the roots, or at the roots is this "John son of Earl Crawford born 1600
>died 1676 Scotland"
There was a Sir John Lindsay KB, who was son of the man (Henry
Charteris, formerly Lindsay) who became 13th Earl of Crawford in 1620
on the death of his nephew. However Sir John was probably born just
after 1586 and dvp (i.e. before 1623) leaving only daughters.

Sir John Lindsay of Ballinscho KB, was son of the 10th Earl of
Crawford, but he was b before 1564 and d 1609 leaving 3 sons who dsp
(the Spynie branch becoming heirs male on the death of 16th Earl
rather than any descendant of Ballinscho).

Looking at the line of Lindsay of the Byres, who became Earls of
Crawford afther the 16th Earl's novodamus, John 8th Lord Lindsay of
the Byres had only daughters, being succeeded by his brother. That
brother Robert, 9th Lord had a son John (1596-1678) who became 1st
Earl of Lindsay and succeeded as 17th Earl of Crawford. His sons were
William, 2nd/18th Earl and Patrick, who married the heiress of
Crawford of Kilbirnie and whose descendants took the surname
Lindsay-Crawford and who later succeeded as 5th/21st and 6th/22nd
Earls on the death of the latter of which in 1808 the Earldom of
Crawford and Earldom of Lindsay separated out again.

Therefore no John son of an Earl of Crawford meets the criteria of
b1600 and d1676 leaving a son David.

The nearest is the 1st/17th Earl and since there was a peerage case to
decide who was the heir of the 6th Earl of Lindsay (the title passing
to a line descended from the second son of the 4th Lord Lindsay of the
Byres) I would have thought that any potentially more senior line
would have been investigated.

James Dempster (remove nospam to reply by email)

You know you've had a good night
when you wake up
and someone's outlining you in chalk.