Thomas Bruce - THOMAS BRUCE

Started by Private User on Saturday, April 29, 2023
Problem with this page?

Participants:

  • Private User
    Geni Pro
  • Private User
    Geni member
  • Private User
    Geni Pro
  • Geni member

Profiles Mentioned:

  • Geni member
  • Tomb of Sir George Bruce in Bruce of Carnock burial vault, Culross Abbey Church, Culross, Fife Culross Abbey Church was part of the Cistercian Abbey founded in 1217 by Malcolm, Earl of Fife. It was converted into a parish church in 1663, the rest of the abbey having lain derelict since the end of the 16th century. Sir George Bruce died in 1625. The kneeling statues are his children. The inscription reads: THIS IS SIR GEORGE BRUCE OF CARNOCK/ HIS LADY HIS THREE SONS AND FIVE DAUG/HTERS. THIS TOMB WAS PROVIDED BY GEORG/E BRUCE OF CARNOCK HIS ELDEST SON. The Bruces of Culross (later 'of Carnock'), who built Culross Palace, were the most important family in the area. They were responsible for developing the local coal industry before the end of the 16th century Source: RCAHMS contribution to SCRAN. Permalink http://canmore.org.uk/collection/366894 https://canmore.org.uk/collection/366894
Showing 1-30 of 38 posts

It has been claimed that it was Thomas Bruce, that son of James Bruce whose baptism was registered at Dysart in Fife on 1 August 1619, who married Agnes Gray at Innerwick in East Lothian on 6 June 1638. However, I have been unable to find any evidence which confirms that the child who was baptised at Dysart in 1619 was the same person as the man of the same name who was married at Innerwick in 1638.

Help in bridging this gap would be welcomed

Since evidence of relationship has not been brought forward I propose to disconnect this man from the family tree of James Bruce.

Alternative proposals would be welcomed.

It has been claimed!

Dear Philip,

It was you who posted this claim on MyHeritage:

MyHeritage:

https://www.myheritage.com/matchingresult-31e1afb79bdc9d095f7f384e9...

If the child who was baptised on 1 August 1619 survived, then he was only eighteen years of age when the marriage of Agnes Gray and Thomas Bruce was booked on 1 August 1638. In my opinion this makes your claim extremely unlikely. At this period it would have been unusual for men under twenty-one years of age to marry. However, if you have evidence which proves that the child named Thomas Bruce whose baptism was registered at Dysart in Fife on 1 August 1619 was actually the same person as the man of the same name whose marriage to Agnes Gray was booked at Innerwick in East Lothian on 1 August 1638, then I would be grateful if you would bring it forward. As things stand it looks as if you have been playing at guessing games.

Sincerely,

Neil

No worries have loaded the records to his profile.

Dear Philip,

I don't see any evidence which proves that the child named Thomas Bruce is the same person as the man who married Agnes Gray. They have the same name but that is not proof!

Sincerely,

Neil

Are you struggling to read the records?
Can someone help his man. The records are on Thomas profile, what guessing game?
Mate are you for real?

Philip,

Thomas Bruce and Agnes Gray were married at Innerwick in East Lothian on 5 June 1638. There is nothing in this record which could be regarded as proof that the groom was that son of James Bruce and Isobell Fleiming whose baptism was registered at Dysart in Fife on 1 August 1619. I have viewed a digital copy of this record. It reads as follows: "5. Junij. 1638. Married Thomas Bruce & Agnes gray."

If you have other evidence (not unjustified opinion) which supports the claim you are making then please bring it forward.

Sincerely,

Neil

Ok have loaded on Thomas 1619 profile

Dear Philip,

Can you please provide evidence which proves that the child named Thomas Bruce, whose baptism was registered at Dysart in Fife on 1 August 1619, was the same person as the man of the same name whose marriage to Agnes Gray was booked at Innerwick in East Lothian on 1 August 1638.

Sincerely,

Neil

Niel have loaded the records to his profile just give it a look, I'm not seeing a problem.

Philip,

I have looked at the notices you uploaded and I am prompted to ask you again. Do you actually have any evidence which proves that the child whose baptism was registered at Dysart in Fife on 1 August 1619 is the same person as the man (evidently under-age) who was booked to marry Agnes Gray at Innerwick in East Lothian on 1 August 1638. Their names are the same but that is not enough to make a positive match.

Do you have evidence. Yes or No?

Neil

Yes, can you give me the definition of a bastard?
You see I don't get what you are saying about William Bruce b. 1594 son of James Bruce b. 1570 and Euphame Anderson, he has a father!, he has a mother!. Would also like to inquire why on James Bruce b. 1570 you have Euphame Anderson as ex wife, where do you get this information from?

Regards Philip

Would also likevto know why you have attached George Bruce died 1612 to George Baronet Bruce of Carnock d.1625 can I get an answer from you. I hear your claim based on Balfour's claims writen 400 plus years after the date and copied from a highly contentious other document by James Armstrong, so it would be at best 3rd grad evidence. On top of that he mentions that George Bruce of Carnock d. 1625 wife is Margaret Primrose, yet you seem to ignore all of this and you have Euphane as the wife? Please help me understanding this issue.

Kind Regards Philip

On profiles in my tree you have put in the bio of same descendants this is bogus, false genealogy. If possible could you explain this sort of comment's in the bio, would like to know exactly what you are implying and would you be so kind as to give evidence for your claims.
On Thomas that you are so keen to detach! based on the fact they don't give the mothers name, this is not at all uncommon that the spouse doesn't get mentioned and in cases like this you need to look at the surrounding family, in his siblings record of James they do give Agnes Zair as his Mother and John as his father.
Would also ask if you are so determined to cut peoples trees to bring evidence forward, other than a Mothers name not being mentioned that proves that he is not the son of John. Look if every time there wasn't a spouse mentioned in a record half the peoples trees would have to be cut, to be fair you would have to look at location and surrounding family, especially when they are connected to each other according to batch number's connected to a family unit.

Kind regards

I would also like to inquire on what is the protocol surrounding an issus like this, that if a spouse is not mentioned in the birth record, would this make all birth records thatvdon't mention a second spouse redundant? Even if they are grouped together in a family according to batch number's.
On cutting peoples tree's I would like to know , lets use the example of what has just happened with George Bruce, yes there is no clear primary source for James Bruce b. 1570 being the son of George Bruce of Carnock b. 1551-1625, but there is plenty secondary sources saying that he is the son. Then my tree gets cut, I was trying to discuss the issue with you and you cut anyways sighting Balfour and that you believe that a George Bruce d. 1612 is now George Bruce d. 1625 even though Balfour and Armstrong give a different spouse Margaret Primrose than the George Bruce d. 1612 who's spouse is Euphane.
So now my tree gets cut as James Bruce is clearly not the son of this George Bruce and Euphane Primrose. Can you provide the evidence that you used to determine your actions in this matter and what are the protocals surrounding an issssue

Issue like this. And lastly are you saying that the two George Bruce's are the same person? and are the Margaret and Euphane Primrose the same person? Could you give me an explanation and a primary sourse as well, to clarify the actions you have taken, as well as an explanation why you have Euphane Primrose as spouse, when your tertiary sourse states Margaret?

Kind regard Philip

Can I remind you that this discussion has nothing whatsoever do with Sir George Bruce of Carnock and his wife Euffame Primrose.

Can I also remind you that it has nothing whatsoever to do with William Bruce, the bastard son of James Bruce in Dysart and Euffame Anderson. If you go to his profile overview you will find a digital copy of his baptismal record. Read it for yourself. It identifies him as an "unlawful sone" and says that he was "begotten in fornication." You will gather from this that his mother and father were not married. That makes him a bastard. Is that definition enough for you?

This discussion was started for Thomas Bruce, whose marriage to Agnes Gray was booked at Innerwick in East Lothian on 5 June 1638. You have claimed that he was the son of James Bruce and Isobell Gray (notwithstanding the fact that his mother's name is not mentioned in his baptismal record), but you have not provided proof that the child who was baptised at Dysart in 1619 was the same person as the man of the same name who was married at Innerwick in 1638. They have the same name but this not enough to make a positive identification.

Please also notice that the child baptised at Dysart n 1619 would have been under twenty-one years of age in Agnes Gray was booked to marry Thomas Bruce 1638. This suggests to me that you have taken a mis-step. In Scotland, children over sixteen years of age could legally marry but it would have been unusual for a man under twenty-one to do this.

Hi Niel, I don't come from Scotland where it looks like the bastard word is used loosely, where I come from you go around calling people bastard you simply would not make the day.
Our perception of a bastard is a degrading name given to a person who has no conscious for the way he lives his life. We associate the name as a person who has no father or was born with no idea who the father was. I've loaded his birth record to James profile and it says father James and mother Euphame Anderson, so according to this record he is not a bastard. Feel free to name him unlawful or illegitimate as you please and for the sake of our friendship I'll refrain from calling William a bastard!

Philip, "bastard" is a pretty standard genealogical and historical term. Here's some context from Merriam-Webster -- a U.S.-based dictionary, which I'm deliberately choosing to show that it's not used just by Scottish historians:

"This sense of bastard has not always been offensive. In fact, it was a relatively neutral term until as recently as the late 20th century, when it began to take on its offensive status. This shift coincided with a positive change in societal attitudes towards unmarried parents and a lessening of the social stigma of having children outside of marriage. The word bastard is still used relatively neutrally in historical references and historical fiction, but is usually considered offensive when used in present-day contexts to describe a child born to parents not married to each other."

As a side note: Neil's name is "Neil," not "Niel." Thanks!

Hi Ashley, Sorry struggle with dielexia, I mean Neil. Thanks for the explanation on the usage of the word Bastard, that doesn't change the fact that we live in the beginning of the 20 century and if Neil had to come to my door and call anyone of my family a bastard he is going for a bouncy ride on his backside down my drive way.

Kind regards Philip

Philip,

You keep mentioning "records" when you mean internet-pedigrees, or reports. I have tried to explain to you that the only "real" records that I have found for James Bruce in Dysart are baptismal records (three of them, for children of a man, or men named James Bruce, there may be more than one). These are very difficult to read (because of damage to the original records) but I have uploaded a digital copy of the baptismal record of William Bruce, which clearly identifies him as an "unlawful" child "begotten in fornication".

I invited you to read the text of this baptismal record for yourself, but because you unable to do so (or are unwilling to try) you have publicly claimed that I have uploaded a bogus document.

Can I remind you that his discussion has nothing to do with William Bruce (You could start a new discussion for him if you feel that it is important). I started it the hope that I would find evidence which proves that the child named Thomas Bruce, whose baptism was registered at Dysart in Fife on 1 August 1619, is the same person as the man of the same name whose marriage to Agnes Gray was booked at Innerwick in East Lothian on 1 August 1638.

I am disappointed to report to you that so far the sought after evidence has not been brought forward. Is it possible that you have the missing evidence?

Neil

Private User

Dear Ashley,

I very much appreciate the support that you have been giving me.

Thank you,

Neil

Dear Neil, is this the document you are requesting?

https://www.findmypast.co.uk/transcript?id=SCOT%2FOPR%2FBAP%2F2361183

First name(s) Thomas
Last name Bruce
Baptism year 1619
Baptism date 01 Aug 1619
Place Dysart
County Fife
Country Scotland
Father's first name(s) James
Father's last name Bruce
Archive reference OPR 426/2
Register year range 1609-1821
Item 1
Page 20
Record set Scotland, Parish Births & Baptisms 1564-1929
Category Birth, Marriage, Death & Parish Records
Subcategory Parish Baptisms
Collections from Great Britain, Scotland

Neil, you comment that this member was under age to marry, could you please let me know what the legal age was for marriage in the 1600's, i would love to know as im pretty sure that the standards we hold today are not that was required some 500 old years ago. it is also feasible that children could have been born when their mothers where 13 years and above. Our 'acceptable social standards' of today are no where that of those of that period. i would be happy to be proved wrong, but i would like this via primary source documents. finally the use of Illegitimate child would be more acceptable.

I do not subscribe to findmypast but the details you have posted refer to Thomas Bruce, son of James Bruce, the subject of this discussion, whose baptism was registered at Dysart in Fife on 1 August 1619. I started the discussion in an effort to find evidence which supported the claim being made, i.e. that the child baptised at Dysart in 1619 was the same person as the man who was married at Innerwick in 1638.

The legal age of consent in Scotland was sixteen years of age at this period (It still is). However, men under the age of twenty-one years were regarded as minor children, and could not lawfully enter into legal contracts. When it comes to marriage, it was usual for men to delay this until they were financially secure, and could afford to support a wife and children.

I don't propose to provide you with primary evidence of Scotland's marriage customs, but if you want to do your own research you will find numerous examples in the publish records of Edinburgh which support what I have said. Start with apprentice records, follow this up with burgess records, and finish with marriage records, and you will find that tradesmen did not usually marry until they had completed a seven year indentured apprenticeship (usually arranged by their father when their sons were about fourteen years of age, and completed when they reached the age of majority). Very often, in the case of incomers to Edinburgh, their subsequent marriage led to them being admitted as burgesses (A burgesses was required to swear an oath of fidelity before he was admitted and could not legally do so if he was a minor child). I hope that this help.

Edinburgh Apprentices 1666-1700:
https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso47scotuoft/page/n6/mode...

Edinburgh Burgesses 1406-1700:
https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso46scotuoft/page/n6/mode...

Edinburgh Marriages 1595-1700:
https://archive.org/details/scottishrecordso16scotuoft/page/n6/mode...

Good luck with your research,

Neil

Hi Niel no I was referring to Thomas Bruce b. 1668 where you have writen in his bio this is bogus genealogy. You have loaded a baptism record for a Thomas Bruce born 1668 (no date?) Which was generated on the 4 of this month. So where you are getting 20 February 1668 only you know. Can you tell me in what language this baptism was writen in? Are you sure you work for Geni?

Kind regards Philip

Neil does not work for Geni and has never claimed to.

He has remained focused on genealogy, but it seems these conversations keep taking a personal tone towards him, his motives, etc. For the third and final time, let's please stay within the Geni Code of Conduct and stick solely to discussing genealogy, not each other.

Hi Ashley can you please look on Thomas Bruce profile and see what Neil is writing on his bio, it says this is bogus genealogy and then he loads up a baptism record of a Thomas Bruce b. 1668 there are no dates, I can't read a word, have no idea what language, he claims this is the baptism record of Thomas Bruce baptism 20 February 1668 and his father is Jon Bruce in Waterthall. Excuse me if I'm agitated he is all over my tree making Accusations, cutting my line, threatening to do the same on most of the others, changing profiles as he pleases and I'm concerned that genealogy fraudcis at play here, I feel like I'm being attacked here! Please just look at this baptism record he has uploaded, thank you

Kind regards Philip

Philip,

Although it's off-topic in this thread, I'm going to answer you just to put the question to rest -- and then ask that you create a new thread from the 1668 Thomas Bruce's profile if you'd like to discuss him further.

I've looked at the document in question on the profile for Thomas Bruce, Flesher and Brewer in Coupar Angus and see nothing out of order. The dates are present and the entry for Thomas is under the heading for December 1668. The document's exact origins are provided at the top so you can verify its provenance.

In order to read the document, you need to be experienced with historic paleography. It sounds like you aren't, which is perfectly understandable. If you'd ever like to learn, here's a good starting place: https://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/palaeography/

Neil isn't doing anything untoward; he simply has research expertise in some areas that you don't. That's one of the great advantages of a collaborative tree like Geni -- you get to work with highly-skilled users who have strengths in areas you might not, and who can help you develop a tree that's as accurate as possible.

If you want a tree where no one else can ever make changes to it, I would recommend using a site like MyHeritage instead. The reality is, your ancestral lines on Geni will always be subject to change based on the discovery of new information, so if it's an unpleasant experience now, it always will be. That means you may want to consider whether this is the right platform for your work.

Don't take someone else trying to help correct your tree as a personal attack. Take it as an attempt to help honor your ancestors by getting their info correct.

And now, let's return to the 1619 Thomas Bruce.

Showing 1-30 of 38 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion