Averil, you are quite right. I did send you those charts from Constance Radcliffe. I should have looked through my old messages before embarking on this. It would have saved me a lot of work yesterday, but at least anyone else wanting to follow this will have the benefit of the content of CKR’s trees. I don’t think we got to grips with those Johns, though, so they remain an uncertainty, to me at least.

Looking back to your posting of 1/8/2011, 1:28 a.m., this needs to be changed in the light of your last four postings. In the section that starts JOHN 1647 – 1699, we are still happy that 1687 John Lowny married Margaret Kelvie, but we no longer think that c1666 William Looney married Joney Quillease. For now we don’t know who or whether 1666 William married. Without a name for the father in law of Joney Quillease, we can’t relate him to Looneys other than his own descendants, and we have lost the connection between the Bwoaillee Losht and Yack families. Is all that right?

Knowing that we both have the CKR trees in front of us, that makes discussion easier. As I see it, to move from CKR’s position to yours we have to go to Bwoaillee Losht (2) (thanks for the excellent map extract) and detach Margaret Hutchin and her children and the Dreemskerry property from John the son of Robert L and Jane Kneen, and attach them instead to John the son of Margaret Kelvie on Looney Yack (1). The ousted Isabel Camaish and her descendants on Looney Yack (2) join John (1770) the son of Daniel, on Looney Yack (1). Back on BL (2), John the only son of Robert L and Jane Kneen, having been deprived of his wife and many children, does not long survive. Is that it, in a nutshell? If so, can you show that that is the true interpretation of the data?