Re: [Peterhead] Re: Marion subject Auchleuchries
- Marion wrote:
> Nor do I quite see the Auchleuchries bit, isn't it a different place?_______________________________________________________
I would guess that the land of Auchleuchries was the overriding estate that covered all the area, judging by the 1702 comment : "... the lands and manor of Auchleuchries ...". This sounds a fairly up-market description.
The early arrangement of renting lands was a multi-layered hierarchy. The land "belonged" to the King. He graciously allowed his favoured nobles to have certain areas - usually County-wide. They lived off the rent they got from major landowners. These then rented out smaller parcels to sub-tenant farmers and all these people had crofters who brought raw land into cultivation and paid their rent by produce or labour for the next level up. Below this was the Ag Lab hoard who were usually contracted for 6-monthly periods [= feeing, hence the "Feeing Fairs"], sometimes with accommodation provided. Some Census returns are full of references to "Outhouses" attached to farms. these were the workers and, occasionally, their families.
All a somewhat feudal system but it worked in Aberdeenshire because the Earls were, in general, very considerate for their tenants and workers - after all, their income depended on the system working!! It continued for well over a century after the Industrial Revolution made investment in factories a paying concern - and still functions middling well in some areas today. Not that a farmer would ever admit it!
PS Sorry I don't have the incredible sources that Catherine can call on to give chapter & verse.
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 10:18 PM
Subject: [Peterhead] Re: Marion subject Auchleuchries
Many thanks! Looks like something happened in between David & John.
I don't understand the shades of meaning of these sasine terms (heir
of conquest, etc) but no doubt will in time. I have a reference to
John being "of Leask" prior to his being "of Auquharnie" & he had a
brother George. the solution looks so close but just can't get there!
Nor do I quite see the Auchleuchries bit, isn't it a differnt place.
No wonder we are all confused when a reference to one place suddenly
becomes, or seems to become, a reference to another.
--- In Peterhead@yahoogroups.com, "Cci" <cci@...> wrote:
> Hi Marion,
> I found this.
> Good luck,
> Either the creditors of Alexander Forbes of Ludquharn or the
purchaser of Ludquharn, Sir John Guthrie, would appear to have paid
in 1715 double Cess for the lands which had belonged in 1696 to Dr.
Hay, heritor, Edinburgh. They were part of the Erroll property till
sold early in the 18th century. John Hay, burgess of Aberdeen, had
been served heir on 05 October 1653, as 'heir of conquest (as an
elder) to George Hay of Aucharnie, his immediate younger brother, in
Earlseat and Aquharnie, with the penicles thereof".
> Burial, Edinburgh
> Hay, Sir David, Doctor, his son, Mr. David, Fowlis tomb, 17 Feb
> Hay, Doctor, his lady, Dame Agnes Fleming, 17 Nov 1693
> Marriage Edingburgh
> Hay, Mr David, doctor of medicine, Agnes Fleming 19th July 1655
> Burial Edinburgh
> Hay, Mr David, doctor of medicine, herss, warant
> Fowlis tomb, 09 Jan 1699
> Marriage Edinburgh
> Kerr, Andrew, eldest lawful son of Sir William Kerr of Greenhead,
knight, baronet, Mrs Helen Hay daughter of Sir David Hay, doctor of
medicine, 22 May 1698 m 11 June 1698
> Burial Edinburgh
> Hay, Sir David, Doctor of medicine, his daughter Christian
> Fowlis tomb 20 May 1697
> George Hay, son of Thomas Hay of Sandend and Agnes Gavin, was
inheritor in 1696, with Isobel Leask, his spouce. The widow still
had her liferent in 1715, but Alexander Gordon was the owner (the
brother in law of Patrick Gordon of Auchleuchries and purchaser of
that estate in 1722.
> In 1696 it was John Gordon of Auchleuchries, Elizabeth Grant, his
lady, and Patrick Gordon, his son, Elizabeth was the daughter of
William Grant of Crichie, and had sasine on the lands and manor of
Auchleuchries in 1702, with Gilbert, John, Patrick, Margaret, Ann
and Mary, her children.
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]