Are Timothy Skinner and family Loyalists?

Question

Timothy Skinner was expunged from the list of Loyalists because he did not immediately leave the US for Canada, but then his daughter managed to petition successfully for him to receive the land grants. Are he and his family considered Loyalists? Do they qualify for the sticker and the UEL designation after his name?

Answer 1

I see that EULAC lists him as "expunged" from their list.

I'm not sure how EULAC decides these things, but as far as I'm concerned, if he was fined and imprisoned for being a Loyalist and made it to Canada by 1783, then yes, he is a Loyalist and should have UEL after his name and the sticker.

Comments

UELAC is only one organization that was founded to document loyalist history. Their definition of a loyalist is a bit arbitrary and defined by there own rules a couple of hundred years after the event.. If he was jailed for his political views, left the USA in a short time frame during or after the American revolution because he supported the English Crown, he was a loyalist. You will, however, find that, the primary motivation for many was not political but was the 700 acre free land grants offered by King George.

Answer 2

If he was expunged at UELAC then he shouldn't be considered a Loyalist until he is reinstated. That requires finding all the documentation that shows that he was a Loyalist. Getting the land grants doesn't always qualify since some of those went through when they shouldn't have or may have for other reasons. The profile doesn't have a reference to any of the qualifying documents. You may need to work on having him certified with the UELAC to clear up his standing as a Loyalist. Being expunged usually means that something was found to disqualify him.

A second point about the designation/honorific. It would only apply to him and not to his family unless there is specific documentation that they were individually involved with something that would make them a Loyalist.

Comments

One thought. Was the family Quaker? Quakers were not usually given Loyalist status.

Thank you for the star, Danielle.

---

I respectfully disagree Doug.

EULAC has very strict rules for membership and requires all kinds of documentation. But if someone spent 14 months in prison in the US for being a Loyalist sympathizer and arrived in Canada in 1783, how can we at WikiTree not recognize them as a Loyalist? I don't think that EULAC should have veto power in this way, especially when they don't communicate their reasoning in any way.

---

The expunged indication does list a reason why he was expunged. Any thorough researcher would then check out the reason and see if it was a valid reason. it may well not be or it may hold up. A source citation is given. This profile is also largely unsourced.

---

Reasons are very rarely given by UELAC for why a person was expunged. I looked at half a dozen at random tonight and found no others where any reason was given - only a date.

In this case a reason was given. In 1805 the government claiming that he did not "join the Royal Standard or reside in British lands previous to the Treaty of Separation in 1783"

http://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c102/346?r=0&s=6

I have not researched all the claims on this particular profile and don't have the time to do so. And I agree that more research is need on his life before settling in Canada. And yes, if he were a Quaker, that would exclude him as well.

But if he was not a religious objector and the claims made are substantially true, then he may have lost his status on a technicality of being a few weeks late arriving in Canada. Convenient for colonial administrators splitting hairs.

If that were the case, I would say to add him, whatever UELAC might say.

---

I would agree with that but the profile provides no supporting sources. What were the dates for the events? A citation for his improsonment? Why was he late in moving, if that was the cause for denial? All part of painting the full picture. The book referenced may have citations to that information but the actual sources should be examined and provided. I'm traveling and don't have access to the book and not a lot of time to do any digging.

---

Ancestry has him listed as head of a family of seven in Early Ontario Settlers, Niagara Provisioning Lists in 1784. And their UK, American Loyalist Claims collection has his sworn statements, supported by Nathan Pettit, a former New Jersey neighbour who was a Loyalist, Justice of the Peace and colonial legislator. I'll add all that to the profile as time permits.