Starting Sept. 5, 2014, Genealogy.com will be making a big change. GenForum message boards, Family Tree Maker homepages, and the most popular articles will be preserved in a read-only format, while several other features will no longer be available, including member subscriptions and the Shop.
 
Learn more


Chat | Daily Search | My GenForum | Community Standards | Terms of Service
Jump to Forum
Home: Surnames: Ochiltree Family Genealogy Forum

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

Re: American Ochiltrees 1650s-1800s
Posted by: Andrew Simpson Date: May 26, 2001 at 01:22:21
In Reply to: Re: American Ochiltrees 1650s-1800s by Rita Gervais of 940

Hi Rita,
Thanks very much for the information. The Ochiltrees certainly were a very acitve family on your side of the pond! Quite a remarkable bunch.
One thing though I would like to comment on is that "History of the House of Ochiltree." I know that Dan and others on this site have grave doubts about it, as do I. Part of the trouble is this name change thing. In all the records Dan has looked up to try and find this and in all the records I have looked up there is no primary source evidence to substantiate it. Certainly in my own line (the Scottish branch) there can be no name change as I can take my Ochiltrees with proof back to ca. 1625 with an Archibald Ochiltree, weaver, who was probably born in Edinburgh. (He married, we think, an Esther Scot in 1652 and his son, John, my ancestor, was born circa 1657.) The point is that the name change is supposed to have taken place in the 1740s, from what I understand. As for the American Ochiltrees, I have no evidence one way or another, but Dan and Gary have both amassed substantial evidence to show that the line of Stewarts that the Ochiltrees are supposed to be connected to largely died out in the male line (it's this debate - did the name change - that a lot of the below postings discuss.) Also, as has been pointed out to me, the Stewart who was supposed to change his name first - Alexander - was supposed to have been the son of a Lord of Jura - is that right? And yet he was supposed to be a footman. To me it doesn't add up. Sons of Lords, especially Lords as powerful as the Lord of Jura, don't drop that low in the social hierarchy in one generation.
As you'll see the somewhat heated debate is still going on! But of course if you have any information on the supposed name change it would be of great interest to all on this site. If you're interested my alternative theory to the royal connection as regards the origins of the Ochiltrees is on this site under "The Ochiltree Theory 1340s-2001."
Anyway, whichever way the question over the Ochiltree/Stewart thing goes, the information you'vegiven me will help greatly. I just want to gather as much as I can. The response so far from everyone to my plea for information has been great.
Thanks,
Andrew


Followups:

Post FollowupReturn to Message ListingsPrint Message

http://genforum.genealogy.com/ochiltree/messages/336.html
Search this forum:

Search all of GenForum:

Proximity matching
Add this forum to My GenForum Agreement of Use
Link to GenForum
Add Forum
Home |  Help |  About Us |  Site Index |  Jobs |  PRIVACY |  Affiliate
© 2007 The Generations Network