Runciman Lineage 1b - The Early Generations
- Profile
- Images
Location: [unknown]
Surname/tag: Runciman
This Profile records the current research of the earliest known generations of the William Runciman of Crail Lineage. It forms part of the ongoing project to display comprehensive information on the Lineage from as many sources as possible in an open and public platform.
After having read the history here if you would like to visit the places mentioned where the ancestors lived a Runciman Cradle Tour has been designed to help you.
How WikiTree works
To read how you can add to our Project on WikiTree please visit How to Collaborate.
Knocking Down the Crail Brickwall
The discovery & reading of the Widows & Orphans Fund Records of the 1765 fishing accident, archived at the National Records of Scotland in Registrar House at Edinburgh, provided all the clues needed to eliminate enormous blank areas of knowledge in the Crail family line. In the 5 years following that 2012 reading a huge amount of previously undiscovered information was learned about William Runciman, his family and his parents. In this relatively short period he was transformed from being the tantalising family 'brickwall', whose birth data was even an unknown (best guess was 'circa 1720'), to probably the most deeply researched man in the 'Crail' lineage in an era when nothing about everyday people was written down. The events surrounding William's drowning in the tragedy of 1765 are now well documented and a separate profile Crail Fishing Disaster exists to present the comprehensive research on the Disaster and on the follow-up Commemoration in its 250th Anniversary year, 2015. It is not the purpose of this category to restate the same events & research associated with the Disaster. The focus here is on the Crail Lineage ancestors.
Our Latest Patriarch
Our lineage owes its descriptor 'William of Crail' to the then known research on our ancestors, which for many years reached only as far back as William, known to be a mariner in Crail, where he'd drowned in 1765. No baptism records of William or links to earlier generations had been found at that time. Although there were several candidates as to which of the William baptisms in the Old Parish Records might be 'our' William, there could be no definite conclusion, particularly given none of them occurred in Crail, or indeed in Fife. It was only in 2012, following the examination of the Widows & Orphan Fund records archived in Edinburgh, that William's family links were discovered to be in what is now East Lothian. His parents and siblings had continued to live there during the time William was making his living as a mariner in Crail, which he did for the best part of 20 years until his premature death. So William is alone among his fellow progenitors in that his line descriptor signifies his place of death rather than the more usual place of birth or marriage, as is the case with all the other Runciman lineages. Of course, with the discovery of his parents and grandparents his 'progenitor's crown' has been passed back a couple of generations.
At this stage of our present research, now if we were starting out to attach descriptor tags to the Runciman lineages, our lineage would be 'William Runciman b circa 1673 & Jean (White)'. This is our line's furthest back ancestry with proven researched names & such a descriptor follows the same style originally applied to differentiate the Runciman lines. We could also speculate at Haddington & 1673 as a tentative birthplace and date based on the only likely William candidate found in the right timeframe and area. William & Jean are William of Crail's grandparents; their names are known with certainty because Richard's baptism record includes their names and we're satisfied with Richard's provenance as William of Crail's father. If or when we can trace back far enough, all four of our DNA-related lines of 1a to 1d (or 'branches' to be more accurate) will then belong to one revised common lineage (just ‘Lineage 1’) with an updated descriptor named after a shared ancestor/patriarch going back perhaps only just another couple of generations. Tantalisingly close! Admittedly the shared ancestor may turn out to be slightly more generations further back. It is this unknown which makes it so important that today's living Runcimans get involved in DNA testing and join our Runciman DNA Project.
The Generations Before William (born c.1673) & DNA Research
In time it is hoped this section will examine some of the research results for Runciman families living in the 1600s. Currently these are shrouded in uncertainty as our trail back through the written records thins out considerably and becomes less informative in their recording. Using results from Scotland's People online records and familysearch.org records we could speculate on possible parents of the ‘grandfather William’ born circa 1670s. Without the provenance we require they are not included in this section as researched ancestors but reference is made to them as conjecture in the later section discussing William Runciman b circa 1673. Also discussed in that section as it evolves are possible candidates who could be potential relatives across other DNA-lineages.
Uncovering an earlier generation and establishing links to the other branches remain the two most challenging hurdles our Runciman family researchers have. Currently identified are 3 branches with proven DNA matches to our Crail branch. In summary, the 4 related branches are:
1a: George & Jennet (FINLAW) RUNCIMAN of Berwickshire The family of Earlston and Wantonwalls
1b: William & Janet (WHITE) RUNCIMAN in East Lothian, (North Berwick at the time of marriage but birth location is uncertain). The line is better known as William of Crail (a grandson).
1c: Robert & Janet (SINCLAIR) RUNCIMAN of Dunbar Includes Thomas of Innerwick
1d: Alexander & Janet (HENDRIE) RUNCIMAN of Dunbar, Several conundrums to be resolved!
Further details are at Lorna's DNA Summary on WikiTree and Runciman DNA Project.
In time we hope to find the paper trail leading us to the common ancestor to bring us together as one family. It may be that it’s a two-step trail; in truth, mathematically it could be as many as 3 steps to finally bring all 4 lines together. Realistically, it's possible that a paper trail joining all the lines has not survived, or indeed in some cases it may never have existed in the first place. We are at the mercy of individual church records & other archived material as yet to be discovered.
In addition, arguably there are also two ‘’DNA-untested’’ lines which provide potentially promising paper links to our Crail Lineage 1b. We won't know whether they have any place as a 1e and 1f lineage classification until someone offers to test. The closest of those lines is George Runciman & Agnes Vallance (b c1690, Haddington), whose line emigrated to Indianapolis. George could be of the same generation as 'our' William. Unfortunately it is believed this lineage may have ‘daughtered out’ without a male Runciman to test. Another possible Lineage match, John Runciman & Jean Watt, is a bit more of a leap – perhaps more a matter of it cannot be discounted as a match to the Crail line. John and his line have not yet had a WT profile created, so no WT link to him here although I have created a tree for his line and I have made contact with two living descendants. John's baptism has not been identified but all the couple's family were born in Haddington. It’s estimated John was born in 1734 so he's possibly two generations down from Crail's William & Jean White. He did name a son George, tentatively pointing to other matching lines, although not to Crail. The fact that our Crail line is devoid of Georges is not treated as a negative. It's quite possible the George name came down from a sibling in-law ancestor after divergence or, more factually, the two Crail generations in that era are very low on male births and ran out of opportunities to name a ‘George’. (William born 1673 had no known brothers and his son Richard had only one brother, who was named William.) This emphasises just how dependent we are on RunciMEN volunteering to test to make further breakthroughs. But these two hypothetical observations should be placed to one side unless DNA evidence gives us encouragement to dig further. Our present concentration must lie where we do have 'cousins' with proven shared DNA - on Lineages 1a, 1c and 1d.
Early Family Baptisms
In pre-census Scotland (pre-1841) in many instances baptismal records are the only available source to identify an individual’s birth and the parents but additionally they often reveal an interesting trail of locations, family relationships & friendships. Fortunately early church records, although habitually sparse in many regards - for example, frequently there's no mention of parents on a marriage record - are excellent for naming witnesses on baptismal records. In the Church of Scotland there are no Godparents. In each family section which follows on this Profile of our ‘early generations’ (William R/Jean White, Richard R/Jannet Gourlay & William of Crail) the witness names recorded on their baptismal records are collated for clues to previous generations or for hints to family lines with matching DNA (the other Lineage 1’s). Some possibilities and co-incidences are noted, although no major discovery jumps out. Can you see clues? [Entering the baptismal names in this Profile is not finished. Currently only Richard & Jannet’s choice of witnesses for their children has been included.]
William Runciman b about 1673-?
The name of Richard's father is not as clearly evident as we would have wanted, but it is wrong to regard it as questionable. There is a small 'glitch' surrounding his name - according to the 1701 church record of Richard's baptism his parents are 'John Runciman & Jean White', with no sign of such a marriage. This entry is regarded as erroneous as the following summary reveals:
An Old Parish Record dated 5 May 1700 was unearthed in which the marriage of William & Jean is entered, incorrectly indexed by Scotland's People under the name of 'Bunciman', an indexing error which had prevented previous researchers from its discovery. According to the Registrar's index a Jean White had married William Bunciman, which accounts for the fact we could never find a marriage for William Runciman! So Richard is baptised some 11 months after his parents' marriage, on 13 April 1701. William & Jean had been a couple since 1700 and unfortunately it seems the flowery writing of the church session clerk confused the indexer, followed in 1701 with the ‘John’ error as father.
| Image:Scotland and Beyond-7.jpg |
| The mis-indexed William Runciman marriage with the 'Flowery R' which fouled up the indexing at Scottish Registration Office, indexing it with the 'B's as 'Bunciman'. |
Additional circumstantial indicators exist, though with the discovery of the marriage in 1700 they are not really necessary: there is no evidence in parish records of Jean White ever having married anyone other than William. Secondly, son Richard went on to name his first son William, (being 'William of Crail') in line with the tradition of naming the first born boy after the paternal grandfather.
So, satisfied that Richard's father is a William, is it possible to identify which William this can be? The tempting possibility is that the William, born in 1673 in the parish of Haddington, East Lothian, is the earliest Runciman we can say with tentative confidence is 'ours'. Records of this era rarely offer conclusive proof to identities and that is so here. However this particular William is the only recorded candidate in the right location at the right time. But (as Lorna Henderson once taught me as I was learning good habits from her) 'absence of evidence is not evidence of absence'. So, we can select the likely candidate but must leave him with a question-mark. Refer to the notes to this effect on William's Profile
However if we claim 'our' William is the William born 1673 in Haddington, by default we also inherit his parents as the parents' names are recorded on his baptism – William Runciman & Isobel Learment. They also had a daughter, born in 1670. Her name is Margaret. These are the only two children found for the family. Given typical family sizes in those days it’s very possible Isobel Learment has died as a young woman (or indeed William as a young man). It will be worth remembering this possibility if an unexpected William or Isobel turns up elsewhere in another marriage. Also worth a mention is that William & Jean (White) Runciman name their first-born daughter Isobel, (matching the name of Haddington William's mother) but as we don’t know Jean White’s parents we can’t draw any conclusions about a ‘reverse’ naming pattern in play; the Naming Pattern was known to sometimes follow a variation of the sequence (eg reversed sequence of father & mother's lines) without actually breaking the convention of honouring family members. Also it’s just as possible Jean White's mother was co-incidentally an Isabel, which would also provide the correct sequence for naming Richard's sister as Isobel, leaving us with no thin connecting evidence to having identified our correct William as the Haddington man.
Because we cannot with certainty claim this particular William as being our Richard's father I have so far opted not to attach William's parents’ names to our public trees or make any statement on WT or elsewhere which promotes a cascade of unproven parentage throughout the internet. I would ask we all follow this discretion until more is known.
It's possible too that this William could reveal the link to at least one of the other DNA-related lines. One of the present challenges is to break through that particular brick wall. Disappointingly only one other lineage has been taken back as far and there is no evidence of William being born into their family line at that time - this is understandable of course as we're looking at the same series of records.
Although we cannot say with certainty just who this William is, we do know that Richard's parents were definitely a William & Jean White. This enables us to research that couple's records to see if Richard had siblings. Indeed he did. There are 6 of a family in total, including first-born Richard.
The family group comprises: [these will be links to each child's profile on WT - in progress. 'PA' = Profile Awaited]
Jean (White), Richard's mother
their children -
Isobel PA
Jannet PA
William Runciman & Jean White Family Baptisms
Of the 3 ‘early generations’ the baptism records of William & Jean’s children possibly come closest to providing clues to wider family information.
The witnesses who attended the family’s 6 baptisms were –
Richard 1701 - Witnesses : Richard Richeson & Thomas Oliver
Isobel 1703 – Witnesses : Richard Richeson & William Rynseman
Clara 1706 – Witnesses : Richard Richeson & James Watson
Jannet 1709 – Witnesses : Richard Richeson & James Watson
William 1712 – Witnesses : Richard Richeson & James Watson
Anna 1715 - Witnesses : Richard Richeson & James Watson
- Observations
So, what are the clues? Tantalising, as the observations cannot be absolutely proven. We see William & Jean appear loyal in their selection of relations or friends. Richard Richeson is present at each one. These baptisms all took place at North Berwick Parish Church. It's known from the surviving diary of a Johne Lauder, minister at Tyninghame Church from about 1610 until his death in 1662 that Richeson is a name with an association in Tyninghame even back to Lauder's day. This is where the next generation of Runcimans attended church (ie Richard & Jennet). A look for Runciman/Richeson marriages fails to establish whether Richeson was a relative -an uncle or cousin, perhaps with a Runciman or White mother - of the couple.
Since Richeson is such a family fixture, one wonders if Richard Rynsiman was named after this Richard? There's no evidence of an earlier Richard Rynsiman in a previous generation, although there is a 1698 baptism of another Richard Runciman. Preliminary investigation fails to find a link to the two Runcimans, but perhaps in time such a link will become apparent.
The 2nd witness at Richard's baptism, Thomas Oliver, has no Runciman connection found but he is a man whose name frequently appears in the parish records. So obviously he is a highly respected local man, probably a church elder, perhaps even the church officer or session clerk, given his regularity on the pages.
Isobel's second witness is a William Rynsiman, presumably not the father. However could this be evidence of a paternal grandfather, the William married to Isobel Learment? If so, to add further support, albeit flimsy, it's interesting this William's only witness attendance is this one, at the baptism of the child who shares his wife's name.
The remaining witness, James Watson, appears in the last 4 of the childrens' baptisms but no connection to the Watson family has been made from preliminary efforts.
Richard Runciman b1701-after 1768
This Richard was our mystery 'Richard in North Berwick' for so long, ultimately solved in 2012 from the original records & Minutes of the Charity set up in the wake of the Crail Fishing Disaster in 1765. The discovery that Richard was William of Crail's father has been a major breakthrough. Richard himself was one of 6 siblings and had 9 children, so our knowledge of our Runciman relatives exploded. The discovery of so many previously unknown sibling and cousin lines for William of Crail represents, along with significant DNA progress, the biggest advance since our 2004 SAB publication.
The discovery resets our research from a focus on a single line of descendants from William of Crail to the much wider focus of multi-lines of descendants from his father Richard. It also creates the fascinating prospect of perhaps further sibling lines descending from the grandfather, William, although at this stage of research this points to only one, a sister Margaret.
Where Richard & Jennet & family lived
What can be learned of Richard & his family? Richard & Jennet had 9 children in total over 17 years so these offer potentially interesting leads. During this period the family remained in the same place, which is referred to in each of the church entries of the family baptisms. After several false starts and misunderstandings deciphering what was written, it was determined the family lived & worked at a place identified variably as 'Whaupknow' or ‘Whapknow’ , pronounced ‘whop’ or 'whap' in Scots dialect, depending in the speaker. In 1746 on Rennie’s baptism the name seems to be written as Whapnow whereas in the 1730s on her sibling records it appears as Whaupknow. It seems to be an interchangeable spelling, according to a Dictionary of Old Scots Words.
‘Whapknow’ is the name shown on Roy’s Military Map of Scotland c1750 as a group of about 4 buildings standing together but in isolation between the two farms of Scougall (pronounced ‘Skoal’) and Aldhame and lying to the east of Muttonhole. All these locations are recorded in family baptism records as residences of witnesses. Whapknow is also very close to Castleton Farm where the Runciman orphans lived with grandfather Richard following the drowning tragedy of William of Crail. It’s noticeable on all the 9 baptism records Richard is not described as a farmer or tenant whereas the witnesses at Scougall and Aldhame are. This indicates he was an employee (farm labourer); Whapknow was a small cluster of farm labourers’ cottages occupied by Aldhame labourers. No witnesses were provided from Whapknow, so there’s no evidence of the other inhabitants, either as farmer or agricultural labourer.
|
| First evidence of a Whaupknow location? |
In 2020 much has been learned of Whaupknow and a WikiTree profile of the research is being prepared. A link to it will be provided on its completion.
Whitekirk OR Tyninghame? - which is it?
Another consideration is 'just which church did Richard & Jannet attend and consequently where were William of Crail and his siblings baptised?' As already mentioned, Old Parish Records of their baptisms have been found & viewed, indexed by Scotland's People in the parish of Whitekirk & Tynninghame. The only extant church in this parish lies in a beautiful setting at Whitekirk, so, one would think, problem solved. For a period of 4 years from 2012 to 2016 Whitekirk was believed to be the baptismal church of Richard's & Jennet's children. But ‘known’ facts from research sometimes have a habit of not standing the test of time and that's been the case here! An examination of historical articles points to a different conclusion. It turns out that in Richard & Jannet’s day, Whitekirk and Tyninghame were two separate parishes with two separate churches - so, which one had been the Runciman family church?
For research, initial reference was made to both the Old Statistical Account published in the 1790s and the New Statistical Account published some 50 years later. Nothing quite so comprehensive had been undertaken Scotland-wide before these two projects. The Accounts set out to establish & record the geography, demography and economics of every populated area right down to small village size. They throw an interesting retrospective insight into what had happened in the Whitekirk & Tynninghame area affecting the parish churches.
Both Accounts reveal there had been a church at Tynninghame from very early times up until 1761. It’s also possible to detect a pattern in the filing references used in the Registrar’s Index of Baptisms in which can be seen a differentiation between the referencing of Whitekirk and Tynninghame records which supports Tynninghame as the location for our family baptisms. This is further supported following the research indicating that Whapknow falls into the Tyningham parish (despite being closer in distance to Whitekirk church).
| Image:Scotland and Beyond-9.jpg |
| Ruins of the church at Tynninghame |
The new village was created gradually to the west of the original village from about 1708 onwards to accommodate new workers into the area. In 1761 Tyninghame church became part of the expanded private grounds of Tyninghame House, and immediately fell into disuse. The congregation at Tyninghame thereafter combined with Whitekirk in a joint parish now familiarly-named Whitekirk & Tyninghame. Fortunately the Tyninghame original church records have survived and in 1893 Rev P Hately Waddell, minister at the time of the parish & who had made a study of the old records, wrote a book entitled 'An Old Kirk Chronicle: Being a History of Auldhame, Tyninghame, and Whitekirk in East Lothian. From session Records, 1615-1850' In it he tells in greater detail the fate of Tyninghame Church:
|
| Fate of the church at Tyninghame |
The parish records are now archived under 'Whitekirk & Tyninghame' covering the period of the family baptisms from William in 1729 to Renay in 1746. So, in which of the two available churches were the Runcimans worshipping?
Evidence that Tyninghame Church was indeed the location turned out to be confirmed by an unfortunate incident. The Statistical Accounts have been kind to us with one further vital piece of information. By an extraordinary coincidence – at least there is no sight of any other suggestion – an event happened in 1760 which cleared the muddy waters for present day research. There was a parish school at Whitekirk, where the church records of the parish were kept. Both Statistical Accounts (1790s & 1840s) disclose that, around the same time as the Tyninghame villagers lost their church to the grounds of the private house, the schoolmaster's house up the road at Whitekirk burned down. Included in the losses from that fire were the 'feffion books' - that is, the kirk session books belonging to Whitekirk Church. As this destructive event preceded the merger by a year the new enlarged parish's only pre-fire session records can only be those for the old Tyninghame church. Consequently the archived records for the parish of Whitekirk & Tyninghame presently held by The Registrar of Scotland, which superficially to modern eyes appear to be the records from the only church now standing within the parish, are in fact, for those records dated pre-1761, the records from the old Tyninghame church. As Richard’s family baptisms occurred in the period between 1729 and 1746 we can deduce that the Runcimans must have worshipped and were baptised at Tynninghame, for had it been at Whitekirk their baptismal records would have been lost in the 1760 fire.
| Image:Scotland and Beyond-10.jpg |
| Extract from the Old Statistical Account [1] |
| Image:Scotland and Beyond-11.jpg |
| Extract from the New Statistical Account [2] |
}}
Richard Runciman & Jennet Gourley Family Baptisms
Alas, at time of writing, there are few obviously related witnesses - certainly no Runcimans. It seems Richard & Jennet asked friends rather than immediate Runciman or Gourley family. But the hope is that some of those we think of now as their friends in fact turn out to be inlaws of an earlier (eg father William's) or sibling generation. Several interesting observations can be made.
Richard & Jennet's Family
William 1729 - Witnesses : James Williamson of Scougall & James Barrie of Muttenholl (Muttonhole)
Hugh 1730 -
Witnesses : Hugh Bronnfield in Aldhame & James Begbie in Scougall.
Jennet 1732 -
Witnesss : Alexander Smyth (no location) & James Dicksone of Mattenhall (Muttonhole)
Richard 1734 -
Witnesses : Hugh Bronnfield in Aldhame & James Begbie in Scougall
Jean 1736 -
Witnesses : Hugh Bronnfield farmer in Aldhame & James Dickson in Mattanhall (Mutton Hole) & James Begbie, farmer in Scougal
Marion 1738 -
Witnesses : James Begbie in Scougal & James Williamson (no location given)
James 1740 -
Witnesses : George Rennie, farmer in Aldhame & James Begbie farmer in Scougall
Helen 1744- Witnesses : George Rennie, farmer in Aldhame & James Begbie farmer in Scougall
Renay 1746- Witnesses : James Begbie in Scougal & George Kilpatrick (no location given).
- Observations
At first sight the most striking feature (and disappointment!) is that there were no Runcimans or Gourleys at any of the baptisms. Admittedly Richard's siblings consisted of 4 sisters and only 1 brother and males are invariably given this role. It is believed Richard’s brother William survived to adulthood and evidence indicates he joined the army in 1733. (In later years there is a William in North Berwick described as a Chelsea Pensioner who appears to fit this William). This could account for his non-appearance. Furthermore no uncles have been found for Richard - only an Aunt, Mary, sister to Richard’s father William. Possibly this accounts for the absence of obvious Runcimans as a baptismal witness. However later research revealed that a Margaret Runciman married a James Dickson(e) in 1718 at Whitekirk & Tyninghame. That a JD turns up as a witness at a Crail christening defies belief that this Margaret is 'one of ours'. We have not been able to identify her though. Despite trying, we have been unsuccessful in identifying Jennet Gourley's family.
The first interesting link to be made is the appearance of George Rennie as a witness in 1740 and 1744 at the baptisms of James and Helen. It must be more than coincidence that Richard & Jennet named their next daughter 'Renay' (the spelling in the baptismal church register). In her later life spelling become standardised and the 'Renay' of 1746 was replaced with the more conventional Rennie (eg her death registration). The Rennie family were high achieving & went onto considerable success and fame on a national scale.
In 1742 George Rennie of Auldhame bought a local farm called Phantassie for his son, James. In addition this farm adjoined another which went on gain national significance - Houston Mill and the inventive Andrew Meikle. This was the seat of the agricultural revolution and Richard was around in its earliest moments although he may not have lived to see its complete fruition. James Rennie's son, also George, developed Phantassie into one of the finest farms in the county. A son of James - John, b 1761 - was a famed & respected engineer at a national (UK) level.
Further history of 'our' Rennie family, one of whom was witness to Runciman baptisms is given here: The Rennies , and an absorbing & more comprehensive article on Rennie & Meikle and on some social aspects of the lives lived in Richard's time in the area is worth a look : Rennie, Meikle & Life in 1700s East Lothian
Hugh Brownfield's surname is spelt variously in the records of the parishes of Whitekirk & North Berwick where the family are based for a number of generations (Bronnfield, Brounfield etc). It would appear that our Hugh is named after Hugh Brownfield. A look at Hugh B's baptism record reveals that one of the witnesses was a James Begbie. However there's no hard evidence to indicate if this is friendship or relative.
There is another witness requiring obvious further attention. It will be interesting to learn more of James Begbie. James is a witness to 7 of Richard & Jennet's 9 children. So either he's a very dear friend indeed or a relation (though presumably, still regarded as 'very dear'!). On another DNA-related Runciman lineage there is a Runciman/Begbie marriage in the same area and coinciding at a similar time - so is there a connection with this Begbie family to our Richard's choice of witness?
The Runciman/Begbie couple are Robert Runciman (currently identified as descending down lineage 1d) & Katharine Begbie who married in Pencaitland. At the time Robert was living in Prestonkirk which is the next village to Tyninghame. There are a number of interesting features. For instance a James Begbie (weaver) is godparent to some of Robert's children. At first sight this does not appear to be the same James Begbie, witness to Richard's children, who is described as a farmer. But they could be related.
Then intriguingly, in 1722, a son of Robert & Katharine is named Richard. [Note: investigate for Richards on Katharine's side - otherwise, why is Richard so named - could there be a Richard in common to our Crail line and to Lineage 1d?]
An added layer of possible mystery is that an assumption is required that Robert is identified correctly. He is assumed to be the Robert who was firstly married to Janet Sinclair. After 3 children, the last in March 1720, this couple are not recorded as parents again and a Robert in the identical location married Katharine some 6 months later, going on to have 3 children too.
Moving on from a possible Begbie connection it’s noticeable that Richard and his family's social circle lived in an influential & successful agricultural area. The godparents were all connected to surrounding farms, either being the farmer himself or sometimes an agricultural labourer residing, presumably, in one of the farm cottages.
The farms mentioned - Aldhame & Scoughall (pronounced 'skoal' according to today's farmer at nearby Castleton) remain standing today and all are in robust health. Whapknow has further interesting near-neighbours in Phantassie Farm and Houston Mill, both agricultural locations of considerable fame and merit. (more later on all these locations). Castleton Farm, not far along the road on the way to North Berwick, has a dramatic part to play in our Crail family history, being the last-known address of Richard. This is where William's orphaned children are known to be residing with 'grandfather Richard' in 1766 [check year].
William Runciman 1729-1765
For many years William was our family's brick wall. We don't know at what point in previous generations his story somehow failed to carry on to the following generation. It seems inconceivable that his grandchildren were unaware of William's sad story. William's son John lived to a grand old age and would be perfectly positioned to pass on the tale. Although, being so young when William drowned, John would have no personal knowledge but he had older sisters and aunts and uncles (ie William's brothers & sisters) that he would not be short of contributions to pass on to his children - and John had 10 children.
So some time between William's 10 grandchildren of the early 1800s and the generation of the early 1900s the story failed to make it through by word of mouth. Of the generations I personally know best, those descended from grandson Alexander, b1803, through great-grandson James b 1839, I am reasonably certain that the story wasn't passed down in any detail by James. It's too much of a co-incidence that none of James children appear to have passed on the story in any other than its most brief and inaccurate form ('we're originally from Crail/Fife'). The various descendants of brothers & sisters of James don't appear to be any better informed than any other. It would be interesting to hear from those descendant lines what they learned from their parents, if anything.
The story of the Crail Fishing Disaster is told here
[Check?:The latest research gained is not yet fully reflected in William's Personal Profile and will be completed simultaneously with other planned Profile edits and additions.]
William Runciman Family Baptisms
The folks invited by William & the mother to be witnesses at the children's baptisms were :
Jannet 1749 Baillie Wishart Henry Gleghorn
Catherine 1751 Henry Gleghorn William Davidson
Catherine 1753 Baillie Jamieson John Michel
Margaret 1755 Baillie Jamieson William Jamieson
Elizabeth 1757 William Jamieson John Jamieson
John 1762 William Jamieson John Mitchel
Mary 1764 Baillie Jamieson Convener Laurie
- Observations::
Evidence can be seen that William and his wives consistently invited some assumed family members to be witnesses, such as 'Baillie Wishart' & 'Baillie Jamieson', much more so than the previous two generations had. On the face of it there are no Runciman connections to the other witnesses although its possible the family names which are not previously known to us may have an 'in-law' association with the Runciman family.
Baillie Wishart is not wife Katharine's father as John Wishart (Katharine's father) is recorded in the 1730s as being the last Wishart to have died and been buried on the Isle of May. So Baillie Wishart who did the honours as a witness at the baptism of their first child is possibly an uncle or brother of Katharine's. Crail's Monumental Inscriptions records tell us that the Baillie's christian name was Andrew and in 1765 he married a Katharine Webster of Kilrennie. He died in 1790 aged 87, described as Baillie & church elder. (Source [3]). He was therefore in his 60s when he married Katharine, making him more likely to be an uncle rather than brother. There is no evidence found of a previous wife or child baptisms for Baillie Jamieson, suggesting this is his first marriage. It's interesting to note that Baillie Jamieson was a witness at Catherine's baptism in 1753. Initially this comes as a surprise as baby Catherine's mother is William's first wife, Katharine Wishart. So William of Crail (or Katharine W) & Baillie Jamieson were close during the first marriage and before William married Elizabeth Jamieson.
Henry Gleghorn's association is unknown, despite some research. Henry Gleghorn is still around for the second baptism in 1751 but no other appearance is made. He was joined by someone else unknown to us, William Davidson. The final unknown surname appears in the 3rd baptism, John Mitchel. With no evidence of a family connection the most obvious explanation is that these witnesses are mates of William's on the fishing boats. There are no records found relative to that time which can tell us if this is the case. The later records of 1765 - 1768 relating to the drownings can tell us that none of these persons were mariners alongside William on that fateful morning. So for the moment at least their relationship remains undiscovered.
In the case of John Mitchel we do see a generation or two later that a Mitchel was witness at a Runciman baptism (in North Berwick? - check?). However this surname has a reasonable distribution so no conclusion is drawn from its later appearance.
Finally in 1764 the baptisms finish in sad fashion only weeks before William's death. Having contested paternity before the Church Session (ie the meeting of the church elders), after lengthy debate and presentations drawn out over more than one meeting, William was adjudged to be the father of young Mary, born to Patricia Stephen/Steven. This enabled Mary to be christened with the Runciman name. In such cases it is normal for elders and/or Baillies to look after the care of the youngster. Its good to see that William's good friend who had stood as witness at earlier family baptisms felt able to put himself forward for Mary. Little did they know that only a few short weeks later Mary's father William of Crail would be taken and their role would be a bit more real.
So, William's family life tells us that all the known descendants on the Runciman 'Crail 1b' lineage descend from William's 2nd wife, Elizabeth Jamieson. However there are two blank research spaces where its possible there is 'half-family' to be found.
First born daughter Janet is known to have survived at least to the age of 16, when William was drowned. She received no support from the Orphans Fund, being regarded as of an age and capable to look after herself. Nothing more is known of Janet beyond 1765. Its quite possible she married and had children although no definitive record has been found.
Mary Runciman, William's daughter with Patricia Stephen, is known to have survived to at least the age of 75, recorded in the 1841 census. In 1799 she bore a son to Andrew Black a tradesman from Anstruther (ironically with paternity disputed, but Mary won the day). Her son was baptised Andrew Black. No definitive trail has been established for Andrew Jr.
Both of the foregoing children of William's may have descendant lines of half-family.
Please contact me with any information you'd like to add to this part of our family story or to contribute to any of the descendant's Personal Profiles.
- Login to edit this profile and add images.
- Private Messages: Send a private message to the Profile Manager. (Best when privacy is an issue.)
- Public Comments: Login to post. (Best for messages specifically directed to those editing this profile. Limit 20 per day.)