Wedderburn book; a history of the Wedderburns in ... - waughfamily.ca

no THE WEDDERBUKN BOOK.
Part I r.
Chap. Ill
with consent of Nfargjiret W.'.ldorUuni.'lua wife (D.C. 70), but seems to have died
before I'J Any;. 1G6^, wlieii siisiuc is given to Ikibara Kyd on lier marriage with
his sou, Mr. Tliom.is Halyljurtou, "grandson of tlio hite Thomas Halyburton,
"provost of Dumlee," subject to the lifc-rjnt of his motlier. ^[argarct Wedderburn
(D.l'.B. 5U6). Margaret's Imsband was certiiinly dead before 28 March 1670,
wlien there is a decree v. iicr, :is his relict, and Thomas, as his eldest son and heir
(D.B.R. 478). She was Uviug 5 Oct 16 72, the date of the will of her son Thomas
(D.C. 77), from which it a[)pears tliat she had issue, at least, two sons and a
daughter, viz :—Thomas, (designed "Mr."), who m. Barbara Kyd; Alexander; and
Agnes, who ni Thomas Davidxon.
4. Marjory Wedderburn.' She married Rnhcrt Camegy of Leucliland, and is first
named 7 June !tj2.3, when she and her liusband discharge her father of part of her
tocher of 8,0ii0 mcrks (S.W. 217) Soon after, 8 .luly, they got a royal charter
of the shadow half of Leuchland in the parish of Brecliin ((i.S.K. Synopsis of References :— S.W. 217, 2i0, 232 ; Bl.P. 43 ; G.S R. 96, and vol. leSl-.";!. \ 94-3 ; F.S. .'i, lOaJ.
' See the Hi^turii nf Carneyies by .Sir William Fraser, who quotes the original inventory for the date of her
death, but \n iu eiror in de.scril'iug ilarjory as " apnarentlv of the Wedderhurns of Blackness." The
daughters of Leuchland and Parlczcat are named a.s nieces of Sir John Wedderburu of Gosford in
the agreement as to his propertv (Bl.P. 43) mentioned ante, p. 136.
» 294; D.P.B. 404; D.B.K. 454; G.S R. vol. 1634-51, f 1959 ;
Syuop.-ia
F.S.
of Keferences :—S.W. 221,
19 ; Br.T. 9 ; P B.X. 16.
ante, p. 137, n. f', where it is * See pointed ont that Douglas and J. W. in his MS. have wrongly
Elspeth a daughter of Ale.iandcr, second of Kingennie, who was, iu fact, her brother.
made
It is curious
that Kingennie's eldest aud younge.st daughter should have received names so similar as to be almost
identical, l>ut the evidence in regard to them is clear. In early days the giving of the same name to
different children of the same parents was not uncommon.