New addition to the Bachuil group

PUBLIC Forum for general discussion on the DNA Project. The DNA project includes both Highland and lowland Livingston/es as well as MacLeas and other related names. Please do NOT post private information to this Forum.

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Sat Aug 08, 2020 3:50 am

Hi George,

There are several marker result differences with the Mr. Fraser Y DNA results and those of some of the Livingstons in the Bachuil Group but for the most part quite similar. I have not seen any really close Y DNA matches of Livingstons in the Bachuil Livingston group but the Y DNA marker by marker results I am thinking is quite similar. That SNP sequence of SNP's and subclades that was listed with that group of Scots with the Bachuil Livingstone does not make sense to me if Mr. Fraser is positive for SNP L764 and there is only 5 or six markers difference between Mr. Fraser and the Bachuil Livingstone.

Sorry that SNP sequence of Subclades of L1335 listed I earlier referred to with that group of Scottish men listed with the one Bachuil Livingstone said to be L1335>L1065 completely confused me and led me in the wrong direction. I think with the relatively close marker matches with exception of apparently several marker differences or something like that with some of Bachuil Livingtones and Mr. Ferguson makes me now think that the Bachuil Livingstone group could all be likely positive for a subclade S764 and perhaps even relatively close with Subclade results with Mr. Ferguson. In the mean time as I said will just have to wait until we hopefully have confirmation that a Bachuil Livingstone has done the SNP test and see if that results in somewhat similar result to that of Mr. Fraser. In the case of the Parker Livingstons whose results I am quite familiar with one of the closest "other" Argyllshire family matches is with a Ferguson. There are a number unrelated Ferguson families according to their y DNA testing but some of an old Argyllshire Ferguson family group that resided in Argyllshire is clearly matching with the Livingstones matching with the Parker Livingstone Group. Not a super close Y DNA match with the Bachuil Livingstones but my guess is that the SNP results as may be somewhat similar. I guess only time and testing will tell. Not much point I guess in speculating further on my part and I will just let the Livingstone SNP results speak for themselves when that happens.

regards,

Donald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby George Macdonald » Sat Aug 08, 2020 11:00 pm

FTDNA have updated Mr Fraser’s result as it appears that Pierce (82561) matches two of his private snps. This has resulted in the creation of an a new branch line under S764 with the following progression of snps:

R-L1335>L1065>Z16325>S744>S764>FT96511 ....... / Y59332

There are now eleven branch lines below S764 which commence with the following snps:

S756 – This is a relatively large branch line and is the line taken by McLea 164403 (Applecross); McLay 28652 (Dunfermline); MacDonald 145402 (Beauly); Makelijj/Mac-a-lay 181810 (soldier in Netherlands); all of whom feature in the Scots group.
FT96511 – This is the new line taken by Fraser (523693) of the Bachuill group, and also Pierce (82561)
Z17611 – This line includes a large number of the clan Macrae and individuals with the name Murchison
FGC23770 – A small line so far that includes the name Kelly
Y16252 – This line includes some MacLarens and Fergusons
A13318 - This line contains a fair number of Irish Griffins who are said to be of Scottish origin and a mixture of names such as Cowan, McIntyre, Walker, McKinley and Turner
BY19745 – A small line so far containing the names Reddoch and MacFarlane
BY205916 – A small line containing the surname Lindsay
FGC28985 – This line appears to include a sept of the clan MacFarlane
BY73740 – A small line that includes an Urquhart
BY3148 – This is a very large branch line and includes a large number of Argyllshire surnames including a large section of the Badenoch McPhersons, Crawfords and interestingly some Sweeneys
George Macdonald
 
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Feb 05, 2017 9:00 pm

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Sun Aug 09, 2020 2:36 pm

Hi George,

Looks like a good breakdown and summary of the identified S-764 groups to me.
Thanks for sharing that. I would agree that the Bachuil Livingstone's of the Bachuil Livingstone Y DNA group with apparent Y DNA results some of who are something like a genetic distance of 5 and 6 at 67 markers tested with the Ferguson Y DNA results probably are in the same S-764 group as Mr. Ferguson if they did the SNP test I am also thinking. They may also match some of the same subclades of S-764 and for sure an SNP test of Bachuil LIvingstones in the future will help to sort this all out one way or the other.

regards,

Donald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby mikkenie » Sat Sep 05, 2020 1:37 pm

Hi Donald and George,

I'm glad to see that there's a discussion going on the subject of Y-DNA. I saw my name mentioned a lot (in various spellings :-) ) in the posts above, so I had to react :-) . It is a very interesting read, thank you for that.

I want to point out that I am not claiming to be of Maclea descent. I actually don't know to what clan my family belongs or what Scottish surname my earliest know ancestor actually bore. I only know of the names that were written down by the pastor or vicar in the 1600s and 1700s. And there were many different spellings. Makelij is the oldest known spelling of my family name, and was only used in one case (a baptism) in 1698.
I began my search through genetic genealogy ten years ago. One of my closest Y-DNA matches back then was a MacLeay, with a genetic distance of 4 at 67 STR-markers. His name caught my eye because of the similarity to Makelij. He never tested for any SNP's. Now I have several GD=4 matches at the same 67 marker level, bearing a variety of surnames.

After a few single SNP tests I decided to do the BigY test. It put me in a group with McPhersons (one's ancestor is from Craignish) and Stewarts (probably Stewart of Appin?), following this chronological line of SNP's: L1335>L1065>Z16325>S744> S764>S699>S756>Z16328>BY23073. I think BY23073 is quite old, most likely (late) medieval. So I'm still waiting for men who will match my current private variants (which are more recent , of course).
My SNP-matches McPherson and Stewart are not my closest STR-matches, which is surprising. My closest STR-matches (GD 3/4 at 67 markers and GD 7 at 111 markers) that did the BigY test aren't even S756 (but they all are S764). So I concluded that matches on STR's are only an indication to what SNP group you might belong to.

I was really excited when someone from the Bachuil group did the SNP test. How sure is it that this Fraser man shares the same paternal ancestors as Bachuil? Is it based on STR's or on a paper trail? If it's uncertain than it would be great if someone else from the Bachuil group would test as well.

Again, thank you very much for the posts above! I hope this will encourage more Livingstone men to do the BigY test.

Kind regards, Remko Mikkenie
Last edited by mikkenie on Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
mikkenie
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:22 pm

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby mikkenie » Sat Sep 05, 2020 3:37 pm

Canadian Livingstone wrote:
Having gone through the 3 pages of the below L1335 list tonight it immediately became apparent that Mr. Mikinnie's descendant is much likely to have been of a Scottish McKennie or Mckinnie family some of which apparently if tested would be L1335-L1065-Z16325-S744-S764 and quite possibly L1335-L1065-Z16325-S744-S764-S756. Not sure why he concluded his ancestor was a Mclea-Livingstone and not more likely a McKennie or McKinnie except that there no L1335 Mckennie which is really close with him. There is however two McKennie's on page 1 of the L1335 with one on the bottom of page 1 on the L1335 list that shares SNP L1335-L1065-Z16325-S744-S764 with Mr. Mikkinnie though he is not a really close match compared to others on the L1335 list. But with at least one McKennie tested matching subclade S764 there could be other MCkennie's more closely related to Mr. Mikkinnie who have simply not done the SNP test of the familytreedna project who match the next subclade S765 and other connecting subclades of S765. That possibility I think does exist that a Scottish McKennie or McKinnie is out there who matches some subclades of S765 as Mr. Mikkinnie did they just have not done the familytreedna testing.

The L1335 information to me suggests there could be a person somewhere out there of Scottish ancestry like him with McKennie or McKinney ancestry. I really have been so busy in the past and did not earlier have time to delve more deeply into this Mikinnie ancestral mystery but looking carefully through this lengthy list of those SNP matches with L1335 and these detailed subclades as one progresses through to page 2 it becomes clear to me that there must of been more likely a McKennie/McKinnie in his Scottish ancestry. Could this McKennie been from North Western Scotland and been connected to the Mcleays and McKenzies I really don't know as I don't as yet know anything about the McKennies but clearly there were McKennies living in Scotland and looks like a couple of them did the familytreedna SNP test and are interestingly closer matching Mr. McKinnie than only one Bachuil-Lismore Maclea-Livingstone on the below SNP L1335 Chart. My best bet then is that Mr. Mikinnie's Scottish ancestor was a McKennie or Mckinnie and definitely not a Bachuil Maclea (Mconlea) Livingstone though it does look like on the basis of one Bachuil LIvingston SNP tested that the Bachuil Maclea Livingstone's should all likely be matching with one of the many SNP groups matching with the SNP L1335-L1065. It is only when looking through the SNP results below that I realized that Mr. Mikinnie's ancestor was quite like a Scot named McKenny not Mconlea or Mclea of Clan Mclea Livingstone of Western Argyllshire. While I realize there may only have been about two McKenny's tested for SNP's with familytreedna I am really leaning towards the notion from what I saw on that list that there must be some McKenny's out there of Scottish ancestry who if tested would be near perfect match DNA and SNP wise with Mr. Mikkennie.

I am just suggesting that Mr. Mikkennie's paternal scottish ancestor might have been of a Scottish McKennie, Mckinnie, McKenney family that have a long history in Scotland. Looks like there probably a number of families from Scotland with this name or names some related and some not to each other. Not saying I am certain of this just that I am just considering it as maybe a possibility just to be clear. The one thing that I think surprised me and certainly some of my colleagues with Clan Maclea Livingstone was the diversity of Livingston DNA marker results. From what I could tell no anticipated so many variations and apparently unrelated Livingston families. I imagine with many of the other old Scottish families when they do the Y Chromosome test similar diverse results occur and I have seen this for myself with Campbells, Fergusons and other old Scottish families. So I am thinking this could be the case with persons tested descended from old Scottish group of families connected with a Mckennie, McKinnie or McKinney. We know from the familytreedna L1335 SNP list that at least two McKennies or McKenny's that were tested proved to be positive for L1335 with one of them as I mentioned sharing some of the L1335 subclasses with Mr. Mikkennie at least up to the L1335 S764. So not a perfect SNP match I was hoping to see but sharing a number of the similar subclades of L1335 and I think leaving open the possibility to consider that there might be other Mckennie's out there who are also of this SNP L1335 general group if tested and some might turn out to a much closer L1335 subclade match with Mr. Mikkennie. But again until one it tested with familytreedna and proves to be a close match with all or most of the subclades of L1335 which Mr. Mikkennie has been matching with it all just speculation on my part I fully realize.

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/R1 ... e=yresults

The 1841 Scottish Census records a significant number of McKennie families throughout Scotland and interestingly in Ross and Cromarty where they resided at Lochbroom, Kintail, Urray and Stornoway for example. Also there are some who go by the name McKenny or McKenney residing at Fodderty and Stornoway in Ross and Cromarty who may be the same family group with slightly different spellings. There are McKennie's and McKinnie's in the early 1800's residing at Lochbroom, Kintail, Urray, Stornoway, Dingwall, Lochcarron, Ullapool, Applecross, Killearnan and Mckenney and McKenny at Lochalsh and Foderty in Ross and Cromarty.

In addition to Ross and Cromarty McKennie's also show up throughout Scotland by the 1840's in Aberdeenshire, Fifeshire, Renfrewshire, Inverness-shire. One of the earliest records of them I saw was of a McKennie of Aberdeenshire in the middle ages. I was not actually looking for a McKennie on the L1335 list and as I had not prior to yesterday gone through the L1335 matches but did not notice them when I first studied that list yesterday. The Livingston of Port Appin and Bachuil, Lismore Maclea-Livingstone ancestry was on page 1 with a close Buchanan match and that was the only one that I had some knowledge of the genealogy of this Appin Livingston family group of the person tested years ago. So the discovery of two Scottish McKennies had done the SNP test and were L1335 and of some of the similar subclades though not a close match of Mr. Mikennie but much more similar than the one Bachuil Livingston tested and listed on the L1335 list page 1 I think is suggests that there are likely other Scottish McKennie descendants with more subclades of L1335 matching with Mr. McKennie. A really close SNP McKennie match I suspect is not on the L1335 list simply because no really closely related Scottish McKennie descendants have been tested, but I think very compelling and interesting that are two McKennies that seem to share a good number of the subclades of L1335 peculiar to Mr. McKennie at least more so than the one Bachuil Maclea Livingstone that has is matching with the L1335 SNP and also included on the L1335 List. So lets not rule out that Mr. Mikkinnie might be a descendant of a L1335-L1065-Z16325-s744-s764 etc scottish McKennie or McKinnie family and that there are McKennies or McKinnie's out there who are a more closer L1335 subclade match to Mr. Mikkinnie than the two McKinney men who were tested by familytreedna, did the SNP test and were listed on page l on that L1335 list. Not having a close McKinnie or McKennie match does on that L1335 list does not mean that there that Mr. Mikkinnie was not descended from one of the old Scottish McKennie or Mckinnie families.

Numerous McKinnie's in the records as well. Lots of them in the late 1600's and into the 1700's in Lanarkshire in places such as Glasgow. A McKennie, McKinnie or McKinney that is was a close DNA match and connected to Mr. Mckinnie's ancestral group may simply have not done the familytreedna Y chromosome test as yet and the other two that I did notice on the L1335 list could have been simply too distant a marker match to show up as close match with Mr. McKinnie. That does not rule out the possibility that other more closely matched Scottish McKennie or McKinnie related kin have simply not done the familytreedna test and as a result a really close Scottish McKennie or McKinney match from his Scottish family group has not appeared in the familytreedna record as yet. This is a common problem with some of the Livingstons who had done the familytreedna that they don't have close Livingston matches and that closely related Livingstons have not as yet done the familytreednda. Those one McKinney is a quite similar subclades match though not a perfectly close match with Mr. McKennie however I think point to the possibility that there are other MCkennies or McKinnies out there of Scottish origins who are an even closer subclades of L1335 match with Mr. Mikkenie. I think should be a possibility that should be considered in the search or Mr. McKinnie's Scottish ancestor via familytreedna testing.

It is important to be aware that "Bachuil" Mclea Livingstones based on the SNP test of one Bachuil Livingston of that DNA match group are definitely L1335>L1065 but not anywhere close with similar subclade results of L1335 to Mr. Mikkinnie's L1335>l1065>Z16325>S744>S764-etc. SNP match group so I think a close match with the Bachuil Mclea Livingstone or any other McLea Livingstones of Western Argyllshire based on SNP test results so far can probably be ruled out. I think you will find it take a look at the L1335 Chart page 1 which includes one Livingstone from Bachuil Livingstone Y chromosome DNA match group next to a Buchanan grouped with many other Scots matching with L1335 and a similar group of L1335 subclades that our Bachuil Maclea Livingstone and other scots matching with his particular L1335 match groups are not positive for the L1335 subclades of S764 and S765.

That Livingston I mention was definitely earlier a close DNA marker match with several other Livingstons ancestrally connected to Bachuil Mclea Livingstones of Lismore, Argyllshire including the Clan Chief. I am sorry you were not aware that he had done the SNP test and was a match with a certain group of Scots matching with specific subclades of L1335 not matching closely with those of Mr. Mikkinnie. Sorry to say for that reason I see a close SNP match is evident with Mr. Mikkinnie and the Bachuil Mclea Livingstones and don't that suspect that subsequent SNP testing of other Livingstons of the Bachuil Maclea Livingstone Y DNA familytreedna match group will result in any significant different subclade of L1335 results than those indicated on the L1335 chart I mentioned.

Regarding Y DNA testing and comparing a Macleay with a Mr. Mikkenie, he has one Macleay match 258139 listed beside his result on a Y DNA match list that only apparently did a 37 marker test and with that there was six marker difference with the Macleay which would be a genetic match at 37 markers tested a genetic distance of 6. I would get a better sense of their genetic distance if the Mcleay had 67 markers tested but with a genetic distance of 6 with 37 markers tested I think that is strong indicator this particular Mcleay is not closely related to Mcleays. 37-0 or 37-1 are close matches indicating a likely shared ancestry in relatively recent times. A genetic distance of 6 with 37 markers test on the hand does not give us an encouraging sign that Mr. Mikkenie was closely related to this Mcleay or to Mcleays. It would be interesting to see the genetic distance results fo this Mcleay and Mr Mikkenie if the McLeay had done the 67 marker test I suspect it be even more a genetic distance. I am not getting the sense that Macleay 258139 is a particularly close match with Mr. Mikkenie. With the DNA results the Genetic distance is I think here is something to take into account if one is trying to make the case that Mr. McKKenie's ancestors were Mcleays.

I am finding SNP testing helpful with my own Mclea Livingstone research in defining and grouping Livingstons with each of their Y DNA match groups, but am still finding the Y DNA testing has been the most beneficial in sorting out descendants of the Argyllshire LIvingstones tested and also helping to match them with distant Livingston relatives as has happened from time to time. I make a note if known what parish in Argyllshire they came from and in the case of the Mull and neighbouring Movern Livingston descendants the Mull Livingstons seem be closer matched with other Livingstons of Mull origin and the Livingston of stated or documented Morvern Livingston ancestry seem to be closer matched with others of Morvern Livingston ancestry. So the good old Y DNA testing has been very helpful in the case of those Livingstons tested of known Argyllshire ancestry in the 18th and 19th century.
regards,

Donald


Hi Donald,

Wow, that's an extensive post:-). I never claimed that my ancestor must have been a Maclea. Others did. But it's very interesting to explore the possibility. And almost certainly I am not from the Bachuil line. The genetic distance is too large. But I do think the Bachuil group is L1335>L1065, so we share some really ancient ancestors as well as dozens or maybe even hundreds of other families do. It would be great to see to which subclades the Bachuil group actually belongs. And then maybe connecting them to Maclea's/Livingstones who already did the SNP testing.

McKennie or McKinnie sound promising. But there are no close matches to any of them (but there is one close match to MacLeay :-) And many, many, many other men, bearing a wide variety of surnames). My last name had undergone some serious changes during the 1600's and 1700's. During the first decades after my ancestor arrived in the Netherlands the name was spelled with 'é' at the end, pronounced as in the English words 'say', 'lay', 'hay' etc. The letters 'ie' at the end is from the second part of the 1700's, pronounced as 'ee' in 'sea', 'bee' etc. I'm doing genealogical research for 30 years now. So I know that it's quite pointless to make assumptions based on the most recent spelling and pronounciation of my last name. :-)

I just have to wait for someone to match my private variant SNP's. That could be a Maclea. Or it will be someone from an other family that bears a somewhat similar sounding surname.

Kind regards, Remko Mikkenie
mikkenie
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:22 pm

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Wed Sep 09, 2020 2:49 am

Hi Remko,
I don't think your ancestor a scottish soldier was a Maclea or Macleay but more likely from a McKennie or McKenney or MckInney family of Scottish origin. That would be my best hunch.
Funny thing I noticed your earlier posting on the forum, but oddly enough only recently going through a L1335 result page It dawned on me that your last name looks like the scottish name McKennie which is a well known family in Scotland. I think I noticed a McKennie and a McKenney on that L1335 page but none of them were exactly close to your results but they were matching with one of the L1335 groups sorted on that page. Anyways I got thinking maybe there is a Scottish McKinney or McKinnie family out there not tested who is related to your Scottish ancestor McKinnie?

Now I don't know for sure if or how you are related to a Scottish McKennie, but certainly it is possibility. That being said if a Macleay or Maclea is tested whom is a very close match with your DNA or SNP results in the future then I guess I will have to eat my words.

regards,

DOnald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby mikkenie » Wed Sep 09, 2020 11:24 pm

Hi Donald,

When I began my quest for the origin of my last name, I originally thought of MacKinney as well. The similarity in pronounciation is huge, it's pronounced almost the same. The main difference is that the emphasis on Mikkenie is on the first syllable and with MacKinney on the second syllable. If I didn't conduct a thorough genealogical research, I would think you are fully right.

So, here it is. I'll try to explain why I came up with a different hypothesis.

I was raised in the city of Maastricht in the Netherlands. When I was 17 years old, I decided to research my family's origins. Not knowing where my name came from. My name was quite well known in the Netherlands because of the biggest circus in Europe in the 40's and 50's that bore the name Circus Mikkenie. My granduncle was the director. Our family is really small (less than 10 people left in the Netherlands), and people kept asking me where this name came from (it certainly wasn't Dutch). And I didn't have the answer.

But my grandfather was born in Maastricht (a garrison city), where I lived back then. So I went to the local archive institute. It was quite easy to conduct research there, my ancestors stayed in Maastricht from 1709 till 1920. And Dutch records are great! They are mostly well preserved. Very much unlike the archives in Scotland or the United States or Canada. It's quite easy to trace your ancestors in the Netherlands to even the 1500's.

The results of my research are these:
- Daniel Makelij was the father of Willem Makelij, who was baptised protestant in 1698 in Bergen op Zoom (a garrison city). Willem was my ancestor.
- Daniel Meclie was the father of Daniel Meclie and Isabella Meclie, baptised protestant in 1705 in Grave (another garrison city). Daniel and Isabella are not typical Dutch names.
- Daniel Macké was the father of Philippus Macké, catholic baptised in 1709 in Maastricht after his father's death (another garrison city).

The name of the mother of all these childeren was Catharina Goossens. She was catholic. Her husband was protestant (everyone in the Dutch military was supposed to marry and baptise for the protestant church. So they did that, untill his death. After his death all marriages and baptisms in the family were catholic). The brothers Willem and Daniel stayed in Maastricht after their father died. Their younger brother Philip died there (buried under the name Mackiné in 1721). The brothers married in Maastricht and were witnesses at the baptisms of each other's children.

Father Daniel died in 1709. It is highly probable that he was a soldier in the regiment Van Soutelande. This regiment was present in the cities that the family visited during the dates the children were born. The regiment took part in the battle of Malplaquet in 1709 (War of Spanish Succession). A lot of Scottish soldiers died that day serving for the Dutch States General. After that battle nothing was heard of Daniel ever again. Mother stayed in Maastricht with her three sons, but remarried. Actually the kids were raised by a family whose father served in the same regiment that their father did.

In 1734 and 1741 it was stated that the brothers Willem and Daniel were born in respectively Bergen op Zoom and Grave. This was because of getting their citizenships for the city of Maastricht (earning such a citizenship earned them the right to cross the city gate without paying for it). The above mentioned baptisms in 1698 and 1705 are the only possible ones, and, more importantly, with the same mother mentioned.

When the two brothers Willem and Daniel had their own children, the 'n' appeared in our last name, several years after their father's death when they were still very young. In chronological order: Mackiné, Mecquiné, Mecquene, Micquené, Meckené, Meckinet, Mickené. All ending on a syllable ending on something similar like ay in the word 'say'. But this was after their father's death. The 'n' never appeared when their father was still alive.

These facts make me think that MacKinney is less likely to be the original name. But it leaves me puzzled what the actual name must have been. Hence my genetic research. I hope someday a genetic match will appear with a similar name and that shares an ancestor in the genealogical timeframe.

Kind regards, Remko Mac(kenie) :-)
mikkenie
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Wed Jun 21, 2017 12:22 pm

Re: New addition to the Bachuil group

Postby Canadian Livingstone » Thu Sep 10, 2020 4:07 am

Hi Remko,
It is really hard for me to say what name that is when I look at the various spelling in those old records. McKinnie or Mclea ? Not sure. Yes I think you had the right idea doing DNA testing to try to solve this family mystery of yours. You just have to wait patiently until a close genetic match with the name of McKennie or Maclea/Macleay is tested.

The Argyll and Bute Macleas and the Ross and Cromarty Macleays were Church of Scotland protestants in Scotland in the late 1600's. In the 1600's I think in terms of the ancestors of the Argyll Maclea Livingtones the spelling McDunlea, McDunsleeve and other variations like that with a d will still in use along with McOnlea. In the 1700'a Maconlea and Maclea were found in the Argyll records. By the mid 1700's in Argyll parish records you don't find Maclea of McOnlea and these Argyll families formerly Maclea or Mconlea started referring to themselves as Livingstone's or Livingstons in the Argyllshire Church records I have noticed.

regards,
Donald
Canadian Livingstone
 
Posts: 2656
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 9:00 pm

Previous

Return to DNA Project

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron