Hugh McClellan - Sources

The short answer is no, I have not.

As you probably know, there are at least four straight generations where fathers named Hugh McClellan passed the name on to their sons. I've found no valid sources for yet another. That supposed other Hugh McClellan shows as being born in 1650 in Argyll, Scotland. To add to the silliness, I've seen no valid sources for an Elizabeth Sinclair who was supposedly married to the non-sourced Hugh..

Sadly, I've come upon Geni Master Profiles that have no sources attached directly or to the parent to whom they're attached. On the bright side for Geni.com, the number of non-sourced data entries are far fewer than gets from FamilySearch.

Thanks for replying. I’ve been looking for sources for months.

Sometimes I wonder if people get stuck in searching for records to link back in time, then they think, "There's a knight or noble who was born with the same surname. I'll try to jump ahead to them and see if I can may connections in generations that would connect to X ancestor." If this is the rationale of some people, I think it's an awfully misguided approach. Are they trying to do legitimate genealogy work, or are they over-fascinated with potential connections to knights, nobles, and royalty?

Personally, when I have found connections to these types of deceased persons, processing things going back multiple generations becomes a wearing journey. I find no joy in being linked to several knights, nobles, and royals who lived debauched lives at the expense of others. The only lasting value I've found in pursuing those lines is that I've learned much of history that I'd otherwise never have known.

But then I think of these words, "So the last shall be first, and the first last: for many be called, but few chosen." (Matt. 20:16). From this, I've decided upon this credo:
Those who put themselves first and thought themselves to be above the value of others shall not receive my primary attention. Seeking for "lost sheep" -- those probably not related to one-time high society deceased persons -- requires immense patience and effort. Sometimes, it requires travel to faraway places to find records that have never been photographed for digitizing.

That’s what I’ve been thinking….exactly!

I’m a proven direct descendent of some English kings, Plantagenet kings, early Scottish kings, Irish etc…It totally ruined watching documentaries about them. I tried re-watching a few after learning about who my ancestors were and it was hard. Even British Castles with Dan Jones was hard. Instead of just thinking those were brutal times I was thinking there’s my ancient g grandfather the king killing another g great grandfather. For one really horrible instance it was a g grandmother and her son. It ruined reading books about them too.

I’m interested in this line because I wanted to research the ancestors of my Scottish 2 great grandparents. Turned out her family arrived in America in the 1600’s. This is my chance to find those Scottish ancestors. So I am feeling a little desperate to go back further in time. I’ve always identified as Scottish. I don’t want pretend ancestors. I want sources so I can feel as certain as possible.

Let me correct myself a bit. A Hugh McLellan was with Issobel Walker, and they had a son named Hugh, which that shows in a 1680 christening record—in Glasgow. https://www.familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:VQHL-R65

However, I'm not sold on the exact marriage being between them. Here are 3 Sticking Points:

1. Someone on FamilySearch once entered 1650 as the birth year for the elder Hugh, and placed that event in “Argyll, Scotland”—but there’s no source to validate that entry.

2. Searching indexed records to date, there is no digitized birth record for a Hugh McLellan or McClellan anywhere near the region of Argyll that shows relationships that make sense.

3. Argyll ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argyll ) was not a quick trip from to Glasgow in the 17th-entury. Argyll & Brute is about 100 miles away from Glasgow.

Andrea, all I can say that may give us both some hope to make a breakthrough is this:

Let's hope there are still more photographed images from Scotland that have not been posted for Indexing. I haven't seen any batches to Index or "digitized" from Scotland for several months to a year or more. Let's hope that doesn't mean there are no more.

I recently learned from a genealogy webinar that if the current numbers of indexing holds up, the entirety of filmed records in the granite vaults of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will have been indexed within five years.

I've found when indexing many thousands of names that there are some parish records that were misfiled on films belonging primarily to another parish. This means there are parish records no one's been able to find for decades. When photographers took pictures of parish records long ago, many counties and parishes had changed names or were absorbed. The historical continuity for filing many films was, therefore, broken.

I have seen that birth record. There are so many Hughs and only one birth record and some history of the one who went to Maine…I think.

I didn’t know about the LDS records being being indexed within five years. That’s exciting. I hope there are more Scottish and N. Ireland records as well.

I would like to keep in touch. Please feel free to DM me anytime. I will certainly know if I find anything. I’m joining clan McClellan this week, but it doesn’t sound like they have any info on this Hugh either.