Philip said,
Averil, we have four mini-threads running here. I am posting replies to your
latest four and I expect you will post a reply to each of those. Could I ask,
please, that you post each as a reply to the one that it relates to, rather
than to your own previous message that you have just posted. That way anyone
clicking on the link next to In Response To: will be able to find easily
which reply goes with which message.

Averil replied,
Yes – will do

Philip said,
Now I understand the significance of the only son. You have raised a new
principle, or I have missed it before. It is so important, and of general
application, that I have put it onto a new thread in the hope of attracting
comment from a good number of different readers.

Averil replied,
Yes – I agree

Philip said,
Im not sure what happened in 1802 that John one needed to be alive for, or
there again dead, but I notice that Margaret Hutchen, one of the Mrs. Johns,
died that year.

Averil replied,
I was pointing out that –
John 1745 – son of John Looney and Margaret Kelvie – was still alive in 1802

and John 1750 – son of Robert Looney and Jane Kneen – was dead in 1783