The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 3: Scottish Origins

Recap

As I mentioned when I began this series, I believe I have found a new and well-supported genealogical connection between the Colhoun of Crosh family in Ireland and an ancestral family branch in Scotland.  In the last two posts, I have tried to lay the groundwork for this new proposal.  In this post, I will describe it in detail.

In the first post of this “Colhoun of Crosh” series, I tried to establish:

• That the James Colhoun listed (as “James Cacone”) near Alexander McCausland on the 1631 muster roll from the Newtownstewart area of Co. Tyrone is the Scottish-born founder of the Colhoun of Crosh family in Ireland; more specifically, that he was the father of the William Colhoun of Newtownstewart who married Alexander McCausland’s daughter Catherine.
• That James was the brother of John Colhoun of Letterkenny, who appears on several 17^th century records including as an overseer of the will of Alexander McCausland from 1674.
• That John Colhoun of Letterkenny was the probable father of Peter/Patrick Colhoun, who moved back and forth between Aughnish and Letterkenny in Co. Donegal and Newtownstewart in Co. Tyrone, both areas with ties to the Mountjoy family.

In the second post of the series, I tried to establish:

• That the Alexander McCausland mentioned above was the son of Patrick McCausland and his wife Agnes Colquhoun, of Caldenoch in Dunbartonshire, Scotland.
• That Patrick’s will of 1616 mentions other Colquhouns in addition to his wife, Agnes.
• That for centuries, the McCausland family of Caldenoch had been closely associated with, had been feudal tenants of, and had married into, the Colquhoun of Luss family.

Hopefully I was able to convince you of at least some of those ideas.  I will now try to put the pieces together to show how all this can be used to establish a continuous male lineage of the Colhoun of Crosh family. 

Agnes and Robert Colquhoun

The pedigree of the McCausland family that I included with the last post showed three intermarriages with Calhouns.  The first marriage I mentioned was between Catherine McCausland and William Colhoun (from the “Colhoun of Crosh” family) in Ireland.  A second, probably occurring about 1538, was between one of the early 16^th-century barons of Caldenoch and Marjory Colquhoun, who I argued was a daughter of the Colquhoun of Luss; as this was probably a second marriage for both parties, there is a good chance that Marjory was not an ancestor by blood of the later McCauslands.  The third, perhaps occurring in the late 1580s, was between Patrick McCausland and Agnes Colquhoun.  As Patrick and Agnes were the parents of Alexander McCausland, determining Agnes’s identity is critically important.

Some secondary sources state that Agnes was the daughter of Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, 14^th/16^th of Luss, who was assassinated in 1592, but this is not true.  Sir Humphrey died leaving three daughters:  Jean, Margaret, and Annas (see Fraser vol. 1, pp. 163-166 and 168, and references therein).  Some may mistake Agnes for Annas, but Annas married Colin Campbell of Carrick in 1610, and the other two daughters are also accounted for (ibid).  Agnes was indeed the daughter of a Humphrey Colquhoun, but not that Humphrey.  James Dennistoun’s research dated June 1828 (PRONI D669/52) states that Agnes was the daughter of Humphrey Colquhoun of Tullichintaull.  I don’t know what sources Dennistoun used or how he came to this conclusion, but I believe he was 100% spot-on.

Recall that Patrick McCausland’s will of 1616 mentions two other Colquhouns in addition to his wife, Agnes: Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss, to whom money was owed, and Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, who was named as an executor of the will (although he declined the position).  The appearance of the Colquhoun of Luss is perhaps not surprising since he was Patrick McCausland’s feudal superior, hence the money owed.  Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, on the other hand, was almost certainly a very close relative given that his surname was the same as Patrick’s wife and that he was named an executor of the will.  I propose that Robert was Agnes’s brother, and I will show evidence to support this.

Excerpt from the legacy portion of Patrick McCausland’s estate records. First line reads, “At Caldonoche the second day of August 1616.” Boxed in red are the following names: (1) executor “Ro’t Colquhoune of Balornok”, (2) spouse “Agnes Colquhoune”, and (3) sons “Ro’t & Alex’r McCausland”.

The Colquhouns of Ballernick

In volume 2 of his work, Fraser devotes chapters or sections to numerous cadet branches of the Colquhoun family.  I provided a pedigree showing the relationships of these family branches to each other in one previous post, and I highlighted members of these families who might have living male-line descendants in another.  Since then, I have noticed that not every land-owning branch of the Colquhoun family received such treatment from Fraser.  Those branches that did not may not have had as much land, or been as wealthy, or held onto the land for enough generations to warrant a dedicated chapter.  One such branch of the family is the Colquhouns of Ballernick.  Although Fraser did not devote a chapter to this branch, he provided enough scattered references to them from which to build a pedigree.  I will try to do just that here, collecting and rearranging Fraser’s references into roughly chronological order. 

Ballernick (also spelled Balernock, or in Gaelic, Balarnaig) actually comprises two properties, Ballernick-beg (“little Ballernick”) and Ballernick-mor or Meikle Ballernick (“great Ballernick”).  Both are located in Dunbartonshire, just east of Faslane on the slopes of Gare Loch.  Originally part of the parish of Luss, in the mid-17^th century they were transferred to the parish of Row (Fraser vol. 2, p. 102).  Although the family is often referred to simply as Colquhoun of Ballernick, the property from which they got the title was specifically Ballernick-mor.

Topographic map of the isthmus sometimes called the Isle of Ben-Leven. Colquhoun strongholds of Luss and Camstradden are highlighted in boxes, and several other place names relevant to this post have been added. Most of these are not marked on modern maps, as they are archaic names or refer to settlements now gone or in ruins. Source: Google Maps.

Sir John Colquhoun, 11^th/13^th of Luss and the lands of Ballernick-mor and Tullichintaull.  The association of Colquhouns with the lands of Ballernick-mor begins with Sir John Colquhoun, 11^th/13^th of Luss (d. 1536).  Sir John first married Elizabeth Stewart, by whom he had four sons (including Humphrey, ancestor of the later lairds of Luss, and Walter, ancestor of the Colquhouns of Kilmardinny) and four daughters (including Marjory, wife of Sir Duncan Campbell and also, as I propose, of Patrick McCausland of Caldonach).  He second married Margaret Cunningham, by whom he had two sons and two daughters.  As if that weren’t enough, he also had four illegitimate children, a daughter and three sons.  (See Fraser vol. 1, pp. 84-102.)  During his lifetime, he provided financially for his sixteen children by distributing at different times a number of lands to them.  Fraser reproduces two charters of particular importance here:

• Sir John’s charter to Patrick Colquhoun, one of his “natural” (illegitimate) sons, of the lands of Tullichintaull and Gortane:  “Charter by John Culquhoun of Luss, Knight, to Patrick Culquhoun, his son, of the lands of Twllichintawell and Gortane.  29^th August 1522” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 334).
• Sir John’s charter to Thomas Colquhoun, his eldest son by his second wife, Margaret Cunningham, of lands including Ballernick-mor:  “Charter by John Culquhoun of Luss, Knight, to Thomas Culquhoun, his son, of the lands of Fynart, Portcaple, and Forlinbrek, and lands of Ballernik Moir.  22d August 1532” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 335).

Besides Patrick, Sir John’s other illegitimate sons were Adam Colquhoun of Blairvaddoch and David Colquhoun of Stronratan.  I have already mentioned Adam as having sold to his probable half-sister Marjory and her husband, Patrick McCausland of Caldonach, the annual rent of the lands of Letterwald-mor, in 1543.  That same year, Adam purchased the lands of Faslane and Ballernick-mor from the Earl of Lennox, suggesting that Thomas had by that time died without heirs, with Ballernick-mor reverting to the earldom (Fraser vol. 1, p. 100).  Adam died by 1558, apparently unmarried, leaving his brother David of Stronratan sole heir to the lands of Blairvaddoch, Letterwald-mor, and Ballernick-mor (Fraser vol. 1, p. 101).  David himself died in 1559, with these lands again reverting to the earldom.  In 1564, the reversions were purchased from the earl by David’s nephew and lord superior, Sir John Colquhoun, 13^th/15^th of Luss (Fraser vol. 1, p. 121).

Patrick Colquhoun of Ardinconnal and Tullichintaull, son of Sir John above.  It seems therefore that Thomas, Adam, and David all died without male heirs.  Of the brothers mentioned above, it is only Patrick Colquhoun, recipient of Tullichintaull and Gortane in 1522, whose line continued.  Patrick, often styled “of Ardinconnal”, married Isabel McAulay of Ardincaple sometime before 1528 and died sometime between 1565-1577 (Fraser vol. 1, p. 98).

Tullichintaull (also Tullich-in-Taul) was a settlement at the west end of Glen Douglas, just north of the lands of Gortan.  (See Alistair McIntyre and Tam Ward.  “The History and Survey of Several Settlement Sites in Argyll.”  North Clyde Archaeological Society, p. 5.)

Humphrey Colquhoun of Tullichintaull, son of Patrick above.  A document dated 17 January 1559 at Rossdhu names “Patrick Colquhoun of Ardinconnal, and Humphrey Colquhoun, son and apparent heir to the said Patrick” in regards to the redemption of Ardinconnal (Fraser vol. 1, p. 99).  There is also a citation:  “Protocol of Instrument of Sasine in Notarial Transumpt (Original), dated 23d April 1577, obtained from the Sheriff of Dumbarton by Humphrey Colquhoun of Tullichintaull, son and heir of the deceased Patrick Colquhoun of Tullichintaull, at Rossdhu” (Fraser vol. 1, p. 97, footnote 2).  Note that a different source states that this sasine was from 1569, not 1577 (McIntyre and Ward, “Argyll”, p. 6.)

Humphrey married Agnes Kelso, based on the following record pertaining to his son Robert:  “On 8^th October 1589, Sir Humphrey Colquhoun [14^th/16^th of Luss] was infefted in the lands of Ardinconnal, Finnart, Portincaple, Forlingbrek [Fairholmbreck], Tullichintaull, and others.  Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick acted as his attorney on the occasion; and among the witnesses was Gilchrist Macaulay, servant of Agnes Kelso in Ballernick-mor, mother of the said Robert Colquhoun” (Fraser vol. 1, p. 150).  Humphrey died by 1587 according to the record below.

Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, son of Humphrey above.  The Cartulary of Colquhoun includes the following record dated 1587:  “Precept of clare constat by Sir Vmphry Colquhoun of Luss in favour of Robert Colquhoun of Ballernickmoir, as heir of the deceased Vmphry Colquhoun of Tullichintaull, his father, in the lands of Gortan” (McIntyre and Ward, “Argyll”, p. 6).  In 1587, Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick was likely a young man in his 20s, as he seems to have died sometime around 1640.

In 1616, Robert was named an executor of the will of Patrick McCausland of Caldonach, and it is now evident why:  he was indeed the brother of Patrick’s wife, Agnes.  The records above state that Robert was the son of Humphrey Colquhoun of Tullichintaull, and the research of James Dennistoun (PRONI D669/52B and C) states that Agnes was also the daughter of this same Humphrey.

As mentioned in a previous post, the will of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss from 1617 mentions a bequest of 1000 merks to Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick (Fraser vol. 1, p. 231).  While there is evidence of a close relationship between the Luss and Ballernick families, it is unclear exactly why this was given.  It could have been in gratitude for support at the Battle of Glen Fruin in 1603, or it could have been compensation for the loss of land by Robert’s family.  Following that battle, and probably in the period 1603-1610, there seems to have been an exchange of lands between the Colquhoun and MacFarlane clans intended to help quell the blood feud between them.  Among the lands that transferred from Colquhoun to MacFarlane ownership were Tullichintaull and Gortan, representing a loss to the Colquhoun of Ballernick family.  (See McIntyre and Ward, “Argyll”, p. 6).

In 1631, Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick purchased the lands of Bannachra from Alexander, brother of Sir John Colquhoun, 16^th/18^th of Luss (Fraser vol. 2, p. 64).  The lands of Ballernick and Bannachra were mentioned as being in Robert’s possession in 1639 when the parish of Row was formed (Fraser vol. 2, p. 102).  Robert likely died that year or in 1640, when his son Humphrey became infefted in this same property.

In addition to Humphrey, Robert had a daughter named Christian or Christina.  The first wife of Robert Colquhoun, 10^th of Camstradden was Mary Macaulay, eldest daughter of Alexander Macaulay in Ballernick-mor (Fraser vol. 2, p. 201).  Their son and Robert’s successor, Alexander Colquhoun, 11^th of Camstradden, married secondly Christian, daughter of “Robert Colquhoun in [sic] Ballernick” (see Fraser vol. 2, pp. 208-209).  This may have been a second marriage for Christian as well, assuming she is the same person as the “Christina” in the following reference:  “This latter Quentin Lindsay [in possession of Bonhill 1641] was married to Christina, eldest daughter of Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, and had an only daughter, Anne, upon whom he settled the estate in 1660, on condition of her marrying some gentleman bearing the name and arms of Lindsay” (Joseph Irving.  The Book of Dumbartonshire, vol. II.  Edinburgh: W. and A. K. Johnston, 1879, p. 174.)

Fraser mentions Robert one other time, in the context of the 1647 marriage of Walter Stewart and Jean, daughter of Sir John Colquhoun, 16^th/18^th of Luss.  The minister performing the ceremony was admonished by church authorities for doing so without the consent of the bride’s father.  As Sir John died in 1647, this may have been because he was either ill or deceased at the time of the wedding.  The minister stated that in fact “he had received her father’s consent, through Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick” (Fraser vol. 1, p. 251).  This reference is cryptic in that I believe Robert died between 1639-1640, as I stated above.  Possible explanations include:  Robert did not actually die by 1640 but survived until at least 1647; this is a mistaken reference to Humphrey Colquhoun of Ballernick; or, Robert had a son of the same name not mentioned elsewhere by Fraser, and this record refers to the son.

Humphrey Colquhoun of Ballernick, son of Robert above.  As mentioned, Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick purchased the lands of Bannachra in 1631.  “His son Humphrey and his wife, Margaret Sempill, were infefted therein in 1640” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 64).  In 1656, “Humphray Colquhoun of Balernik” was among numerous Colquhouns subject to a letter of complaint by the provost and bailies of Dunbartonshire (Fraser vol. 1, p. 264).  In 1659, Humphrey is mentioned as heritor of the lands and castle of Bannachra when it was transferred from parish Row to Luss (Fraser vol. 2, pp. 62-63).  Interestingly, Fraser indexed Humphrey as “Colquhoun, Humphrey, fourth of Ballernick” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 398).  He does not similarly refer to him as “fourth” in the text, nor any other members of the family with ordinal numbers, so this may have been the remnant of a reference system that Fraser considered but abandoned by the time of publication.

Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, son of Humphrey above.  Fraser states, “Humphrey’s eldest son, Robert, married in 1664, for his second wife, Jean, eldest daughter of Mr. John Darleith, in Dumbarton.  His first wife was Margaret Sydserf” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 64).  “After the decease of her husband, Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, Jean Darleith having married, secondly, Robert Colquhoun, son of Alexander Colquhoun of Camstradden, sold, with the consent of her second husband, by disposition dated 10^th April 1675, to Aulay Macaulay, her liferent and conjunct-fee in the lands of Easter and Wester Bannachra” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 66).  Robert’s estate records are dated 27 April 1675.  Records cited below show that Robert had a brother named Archibald Colquhoun.

Robert Colquhoun of Bannachra, son of Robert above .  Robert, “only lawful son of Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick” (Fraser vol. 1, p. 307), was a minor in 1675 when his father died, and he was not immediately served heir to his father’s estate (Fraser vol. 2, p. 65).  Shortly after the elder Robert’s death, Sir John Colquhoun, 17^th/19^th of Luss, received from the Duchess of Lennox the property of Bannachra “by reason of ward and non-entry of the said lands through the decease of Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick.  This gift thereof was of all years bygone since the death of the said Robert, and in time coming, until the entry of the next lawful heir thereto, being of lawful age, with the relief of the said ward when the same should happen, with the marriage of Robert Colquhoun of Bannachra, son and apparent heir of the said deceased Robert, and failing of him by death unmarried, with the marriage of any other heir or heirs, male or female, that should happen to succeed” (Fraser vol. 1, p. 276; this issue is also discussed in vol. 2, p. 65).

During Robert’s minority, bonds were issued on his family’s lands, which eventually fell into the hands of James Smollett of Stainflett and Bonhill (ca. 1648-1731).  To recover the money in the bonds, James took legal action, raising letters of general and special charge “against Robert Colquhoun, son of the deceased Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, dated 6^th December 1687, charging him to enter himself heir to his father.”  Courts ruled in Smollett’s favor, agreeing in 1690 that the total owed to him on the two bonds, for the lands of Ballernick and the lands and mill of Bannachra, totaled £5231.  (See Fraser vol. 2, pp. 65-66.)

The court decree “further decerned [Smollett] to be infefted in the said lands, etc., by Frances Duchess of Lennox, or any other the immediate and lawful superior thereof.  Soon after obtaining this decreet, James Smollett sold the lands of Ballernick and Bannachra to Sir Humphrey Colquhoun of Luss, who obtained from him a disposition of them, dated 12^th May 1691.  This purchase of the lands was afterwards confirmed in the favor of Sir Humphrey Colquhoun of Luss, by the said Robert Colquhoun, younger, with consent of Archibald Colquhoun, brother-german to the said deceased Robert Colquhoun, his father, by disposition, dated 4^th November 1692” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 66).

In 1698, Sir Humphrey Colquhoun paid Robert 2300 merks as the remainder of the price for the lands of Ballernick-mor and Bannachra.  The bond was later redeemed by Sir James Colquhoun, 23^rd/25^th of Luss, 8^th Baronet.  (See Fraser vol. 1, pp. 307 and 362.)  I have not determined what happened to Robert after the loss of his family’s lands, or whether he married or had children.

Connection to the Colhouns of Crosh

Having now worked out a pedigree of the Colquhoun of Ballernick family, we can begin to see where the Colhoun of Crosh family fits in.  In the accompanying tree, I have placed the founders of the Crosh family in Ireland, probable brothers James Colhoun of Newtownstewart and John Colhoun of Letterkenny, as sons of Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick.  There do not appear to be surviving estate records for Robert, so there is no documentary proof of these relationships at present.  However, in my opinion the circumstantial evidence is quite strong.

Pedigree of the Colquhouns of Ballernick and their relationship to the Colquhouns of Luss and Colhouns of Crosh in Ireland. Ancestors of the Colhouns of Crosh are in boldface, and those who went to or were born in Ireland are shaded in green. Not shown is Christian, daughter of Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick (d. 1640). Birth dates are to be taken as very approximate in most cases. Dates for the Colquhouns of Luss at left are the dates each served as laird of Luss. Dotted lines indicate proposed relationships that do not yet have documentary support.

The placement of James and John Colhoun in this tree does not contradict what we know about the Ballernick family, since none of the few records pertaining to Humphrey Colquhoun of Ballernick (who seems to have lived, very approximately, during the period 1595-1670) states that he was Robert of Ballernick’s only son.  As inheritor of the estate, he was clearly the eldest son, but he could well have had younger brothers, as I show here.  The Crosh family’s financial and social position in Ireland suggested to me that it originated with a branch of the Scottish gentry, and this tree is consistent with that hypothesis.

In addition, note that Humphrey Colquhoun’s wife was Margaret Sempill, whom he probably married in the 1620s.  John Colhoun of Letterkenny became the “servant” (likely the estate agent) of Sir William Sempill in Ireland.  I do not yet know what the relationship was between Margaret and Sir William, but a family connection certainly explains how John could have attained the position that he did.  

Finally, and most importantly, this tree structure is strongly supported by the oral tradition within the Colhoun of Crosh family.  Recall Croslegh’s summary of this tradition (on p. x of his book):

The Irish branch [i.e., the Colhoun of Crosh family] had always retained the tradition, but it had lost all documentary record of its descent from the old Chiefs of Colquhoun.  It knew that its first ancestor in Ireland, Robert Colquhoun, had come from Luss, as a child, under the charge of his uncle MacCausland.

By the Crosh family’s “first ancestor in Ireland, Robert Colquhoun”, Croslegh was referring to the man of that name made denizen of Ireland in 1630 and grantee of the Luss family’s estate of Corkagh.  Croslegh identified this Robert, incorrectly, as a grandson of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss.  In an earlier post, I argued instead that he was probably Robert Colquhoun later 10^th of Camstradden, as stated by Burke’s and other sources.  While this is still possible, I now feel that an equally strong if not stronger candidate is Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, evidently another close associate of the Luss family.  I suggested that in the early years of the 1600s, the Colquhoun of Ballernick family suffered loss of property including Tullichintaull as a result of a land exchange with the MacFarlanes engineered by the Luss family.  One can imagine that the Colquhoun of Ballernick family’s brief ownership of Corkagh in 1630 was part of a complex land transaction intended to belatedly compensate them, just as the bequest from Alexander’s 1617 will might have been.  It is possible that Corkagh’s reversion to Luss ownership coincided with the Ballernicks’ acquisition of the lands of Bannachra from the laird of Luss’s brother Alexander in 1631, only a year later.

This is all speculation on my part, and I will return to Robert’s identity in the future if further evidence is found supporting either thesis.  In the meantime, this has been a long winded way of saying that the proposed tree agrees with the oral tradition in that an early ancestor of the Irish Crosh family was named Robert, even if Robert did not live “in Ireland”.  Instead, it seems to have been Robert’s son James who was the first to migrate to Ireland, and at the time he did so, Ballernick-mor belonged to the parish of Luss.  Thus, the oral tradition’s statement that this first ancestor had come “from Luss” is also accurate, even if he did not belong to the senior-most branch of the family, the Colquhouns “of Luss”.

Most importantly, the proposed tree shows Alexander McCausland as the first cousin of James and John Colhoun, explaining why Alexander and James settled near each other in Ireland and why Alexander chose John, who lived some distance away in Letterkenny, as an overseer of his will in 1674.  The 1642 muster roll of Sir William Stewart’s regiment that includes Alexander McCausland also includes several Calhouns, but not James.  I now believe that James probably died during the Rebellion of 1641, leaving his son William as a fatherless child who was taken in by (therefore “under the charge of”) Alexander McCausland.  This tree shows Alexander to have been William’s first cousin once removed, which is about as close to an uncle/nephew relationship as you can get without Alexander having been an actual uncle, as the oral tradition states.  In short, this proposed tree structure supports just about every element of the oral tradition maintained by the Colhoun of Crosh family.

There remain plenty of unanswered questions and plenty of research to be done, but I think we’re getting somewhere!

*****

Today marks the first anniversary of my first post to this blog. Special thanks yet again to Paul Calhoun for critical reading of this post and helpful edits, and for his valuable input into almost all previous posts over the past year. This blog has been much the stronger for his help. Please check out his own blog about the Calhoun family, calhoun.info.

*****

© 2024 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

For a list of posts, visit The Genealogy of the Calhoun Family homepage.

The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 2: The McCausland Connection

Alexander McCausland’s Ancestral Family

In the last article, I discussed James Colhoun of Newtownstewart, the Scottish native who I suggest to have been the founder of the Colhoun of Crosh family in Ireland.  I also discussed his family’s close relationship with Alexander McCausland:  James and Alexander were neighbors in 1631, and James’s son William later married Alexander’s daughter Catherine.  I then speculated that James and Alexander might have served together in the army during the civil wars of the 1640s, that James died during that period, and that Alexander afterwards became William’s guardian.  What I did not say is that Alexander McCausland was also the crucial piece of the puzzle that enabled me to connect the Irish Colhoun of Crosh family with their Scottish roots.  Because of that important link, I will devote this post to Alexander McCausland’s family.

Since this blog is about the Calhouns and not the McCauslands, I won’t go into the ancient history of the McCausland (also spelled McAusland, McAuslane, McAuselan, etc.) family in Scotland.  Instead, I will focus on the period from the late 16^th through the 17^th centuries when McCauslands first migrated to Ireland.  In the last blog post I said the following:

“The association between McCauslands and Colquhouns can be traced back to at least 1395 in Scotland, when John McAuslane of Caldenoch witnessed a charter in which Humphrey Colquhoun, 6^th/8^th of Luss granted the lands of Camstradden to his brother Robert.  In 1631, the Colquhoun lairds of Luss were the immediate feudal superiors of the McCausland barons of Caldenoch, the family from which Alexander came.”

In Scotland, the term baron was not a title of nobility, but instead meant the owner of a small estate; in other words, a minor laird.  It was the McCausland of Caldenoch (in Gaelic, Cùlanach), the chieftain of clan McCausland, who in the 17^th century came to be referred to as “baron McCausland”.  The fact that the barons were designated “of” Caldenoch and not “in” Caldenoch indicates they held the property by charter, as opposed to simply being residents there.  Some derivative sources state the barons McCausland were from Glen Douglas, but this does not seem to be quite correct.  In the 17^th century at least, they did hold additional properties not far from Glen Douglas, but their seat seems to have been at Caldenoch, near Glen Mallan.  Since all these areas were very close to each other, this may seem like splitting hairs.  However, since it is claimed that the Irish McCauslands were from the baron’s family, knowing that the barons were of Caldenoch enables us to properly identify their ancestral home and possible ancestors. 

Although their precise father-to-son lineage has proven hard to determine, the McCauslands of Caldenoch were mentioned as early as the 1395 charter noted above and as late as the late 1600s.  There is an excellent blog at lammermoor.org (formerly called McAuslandGenes) that describes the barons McCausland and their properties, and the article by McIntyre and Ward that I referenced above also provides a superb history of Caldenoch:

• Post at Lammermoor entitled “The McAusland Barons of Caldenoch, Prestilloch, Innerquhonlanes and Craigfad”.  Includes a nice chronological history of the barons McCausland.
• Post at Lammermoor entitled “The McAusland Barony Became Part of the Lands and Barony of Luss”.  Describes the reversion of the Barony of McCausland to the Colquhoun of Luss family and includes some nice portraits of a few of the 18^th century lairds of Luss.
• Alistair McIntyre and Tam Ward.  “The History and Survey of Cùlanach Settlement in Argyll.”  North Clyde Archaeological Society.  Includes a comprehensive timeline of records pertaining to Caldenoch from 1395 to 1860.

For those interested in the McCausland family in further detail, all of these sources are well worth reading.

Buchanan’s Story of the McCausland Migration to Ulster

Writing in 1723, William Buchanan of Auchmar stated the following:

Alexander, last baron McAuselan, having only one daughter, who was married to a gentleman of the name of Campbel, after whose death, she sold her interest to Sir Humphrey Colchoun of Luss, her superior.  The remainder of the Scotch McAuselans, reside mostly in Lennox.  But the greatest number and of best account of that name, reside in the counties of Tyrone, Derry, and Down, in the north of Ireland.  The ancestors of the principal men of these last, were Andrew, and John McAuselans, sons of the baron McAuselan, who went out of the paroch of Luss to that kingdom, in the latter part of the reign of king James VI.  This Andrew had a son called Alexander, upon whom he bestowed a good education, by which means, becoming a prudent, active gentleman, he obtained a commission in the army, in time of the civil wars, in the reign of king Charles I.

William Buchanan of Auchmar. A Historical and Genealogical Essay upon the Family and Surname of Buchanan.  Glasgow: William Duncan, 1723, p. 275.

To summarize, Buchanan claims that two brothers named Andrew and John, sons of one of the barons McCausland, went to Ireland “in the latter part of the reign of king James VI”, which likely meant sometime during the period 1620-1625.  He speaks, in vague terms, of both brothers as being the ancestors of Irish McCauslands who by 1723 had spread out into Cos. Tyrone, Derry, and Down.  However, he mentions only one child born to either of them, namely Andrew’s son Alexander.  His description of this Alexander’s military service and the lands he was awarded (quoted in my previous post) identify him as the Alexander McCausland who died in 1675 and who was the father-in-law of William Colhoun of Newtownstewart.

This narrative, largely unquestioned as far as I can tell, has formed the basis for nearly all subsequent accounts of the settlement of Ireland by McCauslands.  However, as I will discuss below, I believe it is incorrect regarding which McCauslands went to Ireland.  Before doing so, I want to mention three early derivative works, each of which introduced additional errors into Buchanan’s original.  Because they too have served as source material for later pedigrees, accounts, and research, their errors have also been perpetuated.

Betham’s pedigree (1814-1830).  Included in the McCausland file at PRONI (D669) is a hand-drawn pedigree with the following certification:

I do hereby Certify that the above Pedigree has been faithfully compiled from authentic & sufficient documents, and now remains upon Record in the office of Ulster King of Arms of all Ireland.  Witness my hand & seal of office this 19^th day of Jan’y 1814 (signet).  –W. Betham, D[eput]y Ulster King of Arms of Ireland.

Continued [this?] 23^rd of April 1830 by your Humble servant, Richard B. McCausland.

PRONI D669/?

Betham’s 1814 and 1830 tree (PRONI D669/45). Image kindly provided by Dave McCausland. Check out his blog entry describing his discovery of the tree here!

Although I am not certain, my guess is that the original tree was compiled by Betham himself, with later additions by Sir Richard Bolton McCausland (1810-1900).  At the root of this pedigree is “… Baron McAuslane of Glendouglass in Dumbartonsh:, Chieftain of the Clan and last who assumed the title.”  Three things mark the first three generations of the tree as being derived from Buchanan’s account.  The first is that the baron is not named directly, just as Buchanan did not name him.  The second is that the tree includes only the two sons and one grandson of the baron that were named by Buchanan (Andrew, John, and Alexander, respectively) and no others.  (The generations beyond Alexander appear to be from original research, in part using Alexander’s 1674 will.)  The third is the terminology describing the patriarch at the root as the “last” baron McCausland.  

In his account, Buchanan mentions an “Alexander, last baron M’Auselan.”  However, the reason he was the last baron is that he had only a daughter; therefore, he is not also the baron who was the father of Andrew and John, as this pedigree states.  The claim that Andrew and John’s father was the “last baron McCausland” is an error that has been perpetuated in many later accounts.  In addition, this pedigree seems to be the origin of the idea that the barons McCausland were from Glen Douglas and not Caldenoch, something not stated by Buchanan and another likely error.

Burke’s (1836).  Because the 1814 pedigree above was given official approval by the Ulster King of Arms, it was undoubtedly used as source material for the entry “Mac Causland of Strabane” in Burke’s Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Landed Gentry (London: H. Colburn, 1836, p. 791).  This is clear because Burke’s repeats the claim that the baron McCausland was from Glen Douglas.  However, the article also explicitly states that it used Buchanan’s account directly.  While much of the article is most likely trustworthy, the genealogy opens with the following erroneous statement:

“Baron M’Auslane, of Glenduglas, came over to Ireland in the latter end of King James I.’s reign, about the year 1600, and left two sons, Andrew and John.  Of the younger, the line is now extinct.  The elder, Andrew M’Auselane, had a son, Alexander M’Auslane….”

Burke’s, p. 791.

This statement tells us that in addition to the two sons, the baron McCausland himself went to Ireland, perhaps even 20 years before his children.  This seems highly unlikely to me since the baron had his own ancestral lands in Scotland to manage and would not have left them.  Any McCauslands who resettled in Ireland were likely younger sons who were not destined to inherit property in Scotland.  The statement that the baron himself moved to Ireland, while almost certainly untrue, has been perpetuated in at least one later work (Thesta Kennedy Scogland.  Genealogy of McCasland.  Baltimore: Gateway Press, 1984, p. 2.).  (In the paragraph preceding the passage above, the Burke’s author quoted from Buchanan but truncated the original sentence, and it can be conjectured that the resulting loss of key information from the original source caused the misunderstanding.)  

Croslegh (1904).  In addition to its extensive chapter on the Calhoun family, Croslegh’s Descent and Alliances includes a brief chapter on the McCausland family (pp. 229-232).  Like Burke’s, Croslegh provides an extensive recap of Buchanan’s account, but he probably used either Betham’s pedigree or Burke’s as an additional source since he repeats the “Glen Douglas” claim.  Croslegh adds Alexander, the “last” baron McCausland mentioned by Buchanan, as a brother of Andrew and John, which, although probably incorrect, was not an unreasonable assumption.  The major new error that Croslegh introduces is the idea that John McCausland married Nancy, daughter of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss.  I have discussed this error, which was repeated for over a century, at length in previous posts.

Buchanan’s own account (1723).  Even laying aside these derivative works, I believe Buchanan’s own account is problematic.  Alexander’s birth date is often cited as 1617 (with no evidence that I am aware of), and from this we might guess that his father was born about 1590 and came to Ireland when Alexander was a young boy, consistent with what Buchanan tells us.  However, as I argued in the last post, Alexander’s appearance on the 1631 muster roll in County Tyrone suggests he was born between 1600-1610.  If Alexander were born on the earlier side of that range, he could have come to Ireland himself as an adult.  Furthermore, I have seen no records of Alexander’s supposed father and uncle, Andrew and John, in Ireland, and the derivative works say virtually nothing about them, suggesting their authors found no records of them either.

A 1642 roster of soldiers in Sgt. Maj. James Galbraith’s company of Sir William Stewart’s regiment, mustered at Raphoe, Co. Donegal, includes the following names:

• Alex’r McCarsan, corporal
• Andrew McCawslan

Alexander’s father, who according to Buchanan was named Andrew, would have been well over 60 years old in 1642 and not likely to have gone into combat.  This Andrew, while probably related to Alexander, was more likely a younger relative.

The Barons McCausland

Buchanan never names the baron McCausland who was the father of the supposed Irish settlers, Andrew and John.  Most subsequent researchers, assuming the general correctness of Buchanan’s account, identify him as John McCausland of Caldenoch, who appears on a list of gentry whose property was despoiled during the Glen Finlas Raid of December 1602.  Researcher Polly Aird notes that this John died shortly after the Battle of Glen Fruin in 1603, and several researchers identify his wife as Margaret Graham or Grahame.  I have not independently verified any of this information, but this has been the consensus so far.

The following McCauslands of Caldenoch from the 16^th and 17^th centuries, who presumably belong to the lineage of the “barons”, have been previously identified by other researchers.  Importantly, two of them are stated to have married Colquhouns.

Patrick McCausland of Caldenoch (fl. 1535-1543).  Sources can be found at Lammermoor.org.  This Patrick had a brother named Donald and a wife named Marjory Colquhoun:

“Mr. Adam Colquhoun of Blairvaddoch sold to Patrick M’Causlane of Caldenocht, and Marjory Colquhoun, his spouse, an annual rent of ten merks Scots, from the lands of Letterwald-mor ; and on 20th February 1543 they granted him letters of reversion, engaging, on his payment of one hundred merks Scots, to renounce this annual rent in his favour.”

Fraser vol. 1, p. 100.

Adam Colquhoun of Blairvaddoch was a son of Sir John Colquhoun, 11^th/13^th of Luss.  The property of Letterwald-mor passed between several of Adam’s siblings, and so my guess is that Marjory Colquhoun was Adam’s half-sister of that name.  Marjory (likely born in the early 1490s) married Sir Duncan Campbell, who died in 1536 (Fraser vol. 1, p. 93).  Fraser does not state what happened to Marjory after that, but she could well have remarried to Patrick McCausland of Caldenoch.  Marjory would have been in her forties when they married, so she may or may not have been the mother of his children.  I suspect she was a second wife.

Patrick McCausland of Caldenoch (fl. 1599).  There is only a single known record that mentions this Patrick (see Lammermoor.org).  Although I cannot be certain, I suspect that he had no children and that the John McCausland below was his brother.

John McCausland of Caldenoch (fl. 1602).  This is the John McCausland generally identified as the father of the Irish settlers, Andrew and John, mentioned in Buchanan’s account.  Again, Polly Aird states he died in 1603, and his apparently short tenure as baron may be because he inherited the title from a brother and not his father.

Patrick McCausland of Caldenoch (d. before 1617).  The research of Bruce Andrews, citing earlier research of James Dennistoun deposited at PRONI, mentions this Patrick, who is said to have married Agnes Colquhoun.  I will discuss Patrick at length in the next section since I believe he is the true father of the Irish settlers.

John McCausland of Caldenoch (fl. 1657).  Mentioned on a valuation roll from 1657, he probably died in or shortly before 1664 (see Lammermoor.org for references).

Alexander McCausland of Caldenoch (fl. 1664).  Mentioned on a 1664 sasine of Caldenoch and other lands that states, “Alexander McCauslane as eldest lawful son and heir of the late John McCauslane of Caldenoch” (see Lammermoor.org).  I assume he is one and the same as the “last baron McCausland” whose daughter Janet sold Caldenoch and the rest of her family’s lands to her feudal superior, Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, 21^st/23^rd of Luss, sometime between 1694-1718.

Patrick McCausland of Caldenoch and his will

I was particularly intrigued by this Patrick McCausland because of the claim that he married Agnes Colquhoun, as stated by Bruce Andrews.  In his well-referenced work, Bruce relied heavily on research performed in June 1828 by James Dennistoun and deposited at PRONI as part of the McCausland file (D669/52B and C).  James Dennistoun (1803-1855) was a Scottish lawyer, historian, and record scholar whose skill with challenging genealogical material seems to have rivaled that of Fraser (see Richard Marsden.  “Cosmo Innes and the Sources of Scottish History c. 1825-1875”.  University of Glasgow Ph.D. thesis, 2011).

Since the time this article was originally posted, I have been able to view a transcription of Dennistoun’s research, thanks to Matthew Gilbert.  Although Dennison defers to Buchanan of Auchmar regarding the brothers Alexander and John who supposedly went to Ireland, the remainder of his research appears sound and independent.  He states that Patrick McCausland died by 1617; that he married Agnes, daughter of Humphrey Colquhoun; and that they had a son John McCausland who married Alison Napier of Kilmahew (near Cardross, Dunbartonshire) on 2 August 1611.  Like Fraser, Dennistoun was a Scotsman working from Scottish records, and he seems to have done little or no independent research on the Irish branch of the family, at least by 1828.  However, he did recognize the Irish branch’s importance with the following statement:

In case any of the Irish Macaslands should feel any interest in their Scottish progenitors, I shall always be happy to communicate any particulars of which I may become possessed: and in return it would give me great pleasure to obtain from them an authentic account of their branch.  Indeed I presume they must now be the chiefs of the name — and I believe that at all events they are likely rather to confer than to derive lustre from the old house of Calderoth.  With this view, in compiling the genealogies of Dumbartonshire, it would be a matter of importance that I should have the details of the Macaslands of the County of Tyrone.

James Dennistoun, June 1828 (PRONI D669/52).

(I will revisit this idea that the McCauslands of County Tyrone were generally recognized as the heirs to the leadership of the clan in the next section.)

Curious about the connection to Agnes Colquhoun, I looked for supporting evidence and came upon the probate records of Patrick McCausland of Caldenoch (dated August 1616, probated November 1617).  Like the Colquhoun wills from the same period, it is written in old Scottish secretary hand and is very challenging to read.  With the help of Jeff Homes and Mike Barr, we have managed to read some portions of it, particularly the names of family members.  They include the following:

• Patrick’s wife, Agnes Colquhoun.
• Patrick’s children, Robert, Alexander, Isabelle, and Janet McCausland.
• Patrick’s brother John McCausland.
• Patrick’s sister Catherine McCausland.
• Patrick’s eldest son, the late John McCausland, who was apparently married to Alison Napier, sister of John Napier of Kilmahew.
• John McCausland, son of Alexander McCausland.
• Agnes McCausland, widow of the late John Campbell.
• Robert Colquhoun of Ballernick, Alexander McAulay, and Patrick’s son Robert McCausland, all executors of the will.
• Alexander Colquhoun of Luss, to whom some money was owed.

The will confirms that Patrick was indeed married to an Agnes Colquhoun, and that he had at least five children, one of whom was named Alexander.  As one of the younger sons, Alexander could well have relocated to Ireland after their father’s death.  I suspect this is exactly what happened:  Buchanan was correct in that at least one son of a baron McCausland went to Ireland in the 1620s, but that settler was Alexander, son of Patrick, and not Andrew and John, sons of John.  (Alexander’s brother Robert seems not to have gone to Ireland, since a sasine dated 30 June 1651 mentions Patrick of Caldenoch [presumably a son of John and Alison] as well as a Patrick, son of Robert in Caldenoch.)

A Proposed Tree of the McCauslands of Caldenoch

Based on the evidence above, I propose the pedigree of the McCauslands of Caldenoch to be something like the figure below.  We have no real evidence for birth dates for anyone from that time period, so I have filled in approximate dates as a way of verifying that the tree is reasonable.  Relationships with strong support are drawn with solid lines; for example, Patrick’s will of 1617 names his wife, his children, and two siblings.  Relationships that are proposed in the absence of support are drawn with dotted lines; for example, Patrick’s will notes two other McCauslands who could be his siblings, but are not explicitly stated to be so, and Buchanan’s account mentions a third, Andrew.  Those in the lineage of barons of Caldenoch, chieftains of clan McCausland, are marked in boldface.

Those who I propose went to, or were born in, Ireland are shaded in green.  There may have been others that I am unaware of since there were other McCauslands recorded in Ireland in the 17^th century who I cannot place.

Proposed tree of the McCauslands of Caldenoch from the 16^th and 17^th centuries. See text for the conventions used.

An important piece of evidence linking Alexander (d. 1675) of Ireland with Patrick (d. 1617) of Scotland is a letter in the McCausland file at PRONI from Lt.-Col. Redmond Alexander Macausland of Woodbank, Garvagh, Co. Derry, N. Ireland to Peter MacAuslane of Glasgow dated 14 February 1942 (PRONI D669/56).  Redmond states, “I also have in my possession the original of a letter written to Oliver McCausland dated 171- (between 1710 & 1715) asking him to return to Scotland to ‘heid’ the Clan.  There is no record of his reply but there is a tradition in the family that he refused on the grounds that he was an Irishman and not a Scot.”  The original letter, also at PRONI (T609.1), is in fact dated 1711, suggesting that the recipient, Oliver McCausland, Esq., of Strabane, was Alexander McCausland’s eldest son of that name, who died in 1721.  

Opening lines of the letter from the McCauslands of “Kilbride in Glen Fruin” to Oliver McCausland, Esq. of Strabane dated 6 December 1711. (PRONI T609.1.)

An offer to assume the leadership of the clan would not have been sent to anyone, but rather to the person next in the line of succession.  Presumably, it was written shortly after the death of Alexander, the last baron McCausland, who had no sons and, we must assume, no surviving brothers or nephews to inherit the title and property.  While there were other McCauslands living in Dunbartonshire at that time, this offer was made specifically to Oliver, suggesting that he was the next in line of succession despite his having been born in Ireland.  Oliver was the eldest son of Alexander McCausland (d. 1675), and for him to have been next in the line of succession, his father must have been the younger brother of baron John McCausland (d. ca. 1664).  This supports the idea that Alexander McCausland (d. 1675) of Rash and Mountfield, Co. Tyrone, father-in-law of William Colhoun of Newtownstewart, was the son Alexander mentioned in the 1616 will of Patrick McCausland of Caldenoch.

This brings us full circle to the Calhouns.  I have marked the three known Calhouns who married into the McCausland family in red in the tree above.  Since this post has gone on waaaaay too long already, exactly how all of the Calhouns associated with the McCausland family in Scotland and Ireland fit together will have to wait for next time.  See you then!

Acknowledgements

This work grew directly out of a fruitful correspondence with Mike Barr, a long-time researcher of the McCausland family, with additional help from Elaine Hamilton, Matthew Gilbert, and Paul Calhoun.  They, in turn, built on earlier research by Bruce Andrews, Dave McCausland, Polly Aird, and others.  At different times Mike, Matthew, and Dave all sent photos or transcripts of important documents relating to the McCausland family.  Jeff Homes, Mike, and I together helped transcribe the probate records of Patrick McCausland as best we could.  Paul, Mike, Matthew, Elaine, and Dave all provided helpful comments on the early draft of this article.  I am grateful for all of their help in what has truly been a collaborative project.

Update, May 1, 2024

Thanks once again to help from others, I was able to update this article shortly after its original publication.  I would particularly like to thank “Captain Craigengelt” for his very helpful comments, which can be found below.  His comments helped interpret the will of Patrick of Caldenoch, correct the McCausland family chart, and update the links to his blog.  I would also like to thank Matthew Gilbert once again, this time for sharing his transcriptions of James Dennistoun’s research.

*****

© 2024 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

For a list of posts, visit The Genealogy of the Calhoun Family homepage.

The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 1: The First Generations in Ireland

The Importance of the Crosh Family

Of the Colhouns of the Irish gentry, undoubtedly the most well-known group came to prominence near Newtownstewart, parish Ardstraw, County Tyrone, a family I refer to as Colhoun of Crosh.  (I realize this term does not accurately describe the family as a whole, but it is a heck of a lot more convenient than referring to them as “The descendants of James Colhoun of the Newtownstewart area, one particular group of whom later lived in a manor house in the townland of Crosh in County Tyrone.”)  They owe much of their renown (among genealogical researchers, at least) to a book published in 1904 by Charles Croslegh, who was himself a member of that family.  The pedigree that Croslegh proposed shows his family to be the patrilineal descendants of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss, the first well-documented Scottish Colquhoun landowner in Ireland.  Because William Fraser had in 1869 published a pedigree of the Colquhoun of Luss family stretching from Alexander all the way back to the Colquhoun family’s 13^th-century founder, anyone claiming descent from the Colhoun of Crosh family in Ireland could boast of an unbroken pedigree back to the year 1240 or so.

The idea of an unbroken pedigree back to Luss proved too tempting to resist for many Calhoun genealogists, whether amateur or professional, casual or serious.  Many Calhouns left Ireland for the Americas and other parts of the British Empire in the 18^th century as part of the Ulster Scot migration, and modern-day descendants of those emigrants who try to trace their ancestors often find their paper trails end at the Atlantic Ocean.  Because Croslegh’s has been the most readily accessible pedigree of Irish Calhouns from the 17^th and 18^th centuries, many of these modern-day descendants make the assumption that their immigrant ancestor belonged to the Colhoun of Crosh family.  And why wouldn’t they?  Doing so would not only allow them to claim specific 18^th-century ancestors in Ireland, but would seemingly join their family to a ready-made pedigree stretching back an additional 500 years.

As I have tried to lay out in previous posts, there are two problems with this.  The first is that the Colhouns of Crosh were only one of many Calhoun families in Ireland in the 17^th and 18^th centuries, each founded by a different settler from Scotland; therefore, it stands to reason that most Calhouns of the Irish diaspora are not closely related to the Colhouns of Crosh.  The second is that even if one’s connection to the Crosh family were to prove true, the part of Croslegh’s pedigree connecting the Colhouns of Crosh in Ireland to Alexander Colquhoun of Luss in Scotland is seriously flawed.  I described all the reasons why in two earlier posts (here and here), so I direct anyone interested to those articles rather than repeat the reasoning here.

In the last section of a previous post, I discussed the importance of finding at least one living Calhoun with both a genealogical and a Y-DNA genetic connection to the family’s 13^th-century founder, Humphrey of Kilpatrick:  it would enable us to at least begin to map William Fraser’s extensive pedigrees onto the Y-DNA genetic tree, thus helping to interpret the ancestry of many modern Y-DNA testers.  While the senior Scottish Colquhoun families have all died out in the male line, many people pointed to Croslegh’s pedigree as providing a critical male lineage through an Irish branch of the family.  If my posts managed to convince you that Croslegh’s proposed connection between the Crosh and Luss families is not correct, then we were stuck, since to my knowledge at least, there was no alternative.

This left us in the following quandary.  We had a number of living people who could claim genealogical descent from Humphrey of Kilpatrick, including the present-day Colquhoun lairds of Luss, but none followed the Calhoun male lineage continuously, meaning their Y-chromosome is not inherited from the earliest Colquhouns.  Conversely, we had many others who could claim genetic descent from Humphrey in the male line, namely those men belonging to Y-DNA haplogroup E-Y16733, but none had a well-supported, unbroken genealogical connection to him.  Therefore, we had people who could satisfy each one of our two necessary conditions, but no one who could satisfy both.

As it turns out, I believe we do have a group of living Calhouns that satisfies both conditions, and it is … the Colhoun of Crosh family!  I have now managed to construct a new genealogical connection between the Crosh and Luss families.  It is quite different from the one Croslegh proposed, but in my opinion, it is well supported by evidence.  Furthermore, those of the Colhoun of Crosh family who have tested do indeed belong to Y-DNA haplogroup E-Y16733.  We’re back in business!

I originally envisioned writing a series of two or three posts about the Crosh family, the first of the Colhoun families of the Irish gentry that I planned to tackle.  However, it was in the course of writing and researching this first post that I discovered what I believe to be the family’s true origins in Scotland.  To thoroughly discuss not only the various generations of the Crosh family in Ireland but also this new proposal will now probably take five or six posts altogether.  Oh, well.  In this first post of the series, I will discuss the family’s earliest days in 17^th century Ireland and the other Calhouns from that time who may have been related to them.  In the next two posts, I will lay out my new proposal and invite feedback, so stay tuned!

The Mountjoy Family

The Colhouns of Crosh can be traced in Ireland back to 1631, when they were living on the manor of Newtownstewart in County Tyrone.  Newtownstewart was named for Sir William Stewart, the senior-most owner of the property at that time.  A Servitor who came to Ireland in the early days of the Plantation and diligently developed his land, Sir William was rewarded with numerous properties, including Newtownstewart.  His descendants in the Stewart and Gardiner families were elevated to the peerage, and for simplicity, I will often refer to this family in its entirety as the Lords Mountjoy or the Mountjoy family.  Subsequent generations of Mountjoys added to the family’s holdings before all of it was finally sold off in the mid-19^th century.

As a family of the gentry, the Colhouns of Crosh had ownership rights to various properties, but property rights were multilayered in those days, and their rights to most if not all of their holdings seem to have been subordinate to the Lords Mountjoy.  Before discussing the Colhouns themselves, I want to describe those of the Mountjoys’ holdings in the Counties of Tyrone and Donegal most relevant to the Colhouns:

• Manor of Ramelton and Fortstewart (parish Aughnish, barony Kilmacrenan, Co. Donegal).  Originally the manor of Clonlarie [Glenleary] granted by patent in 1610 to the Servitor Sir Richard Hansard, it quickly passed to Sir William Stewart to become his first Irish holding.
• Manor of Tirenemuriertagh [Tirmurty] (parishes Cappagh and Bodoney Lower, barony Strabane Upper, Co. Tyrone).  Originally granted by patent to James Haig, it was surrendered in 1613 to joint ownership of Sir William Stewart and George Hamilton.
• Manor of Mountstewart (aka Aghanteane, aka Rashmount Stewart; parish Clogher, barony Clogher, Co. Tyrone).  Originally the manors of Ballyneconolly and Ballyranill granted to Edward Kingswell, Esq., probably a Servitor.  Kingswell sold these lands in 1616 and they were enfeoffed to Sir William Stewart shortly thereafter.  Except for a single mid-19^th century marriage record, I have found no Colhouns living in parish Clogher.
• Manor of Newtownstewart (parishes Ardstraw and Cappagh, baronies Strabane Upper and Lower, Co. Tyrone).  Originally the manors of Newtown and Lislap granted to James Clapham in 1610, they were soon transferred to Sir Robert Newcomen, from whom they passed by inheritance to his son-in-law Sir William Stewart in 1629.
• Part of the manor of Wilson’s Fort (aka Killynure, aka Cavan; parishes Convoy, Raphoe, and Donaghmore, barony Raphoe, Co. Donegal).  Originally the estates of Aghagalla and Convoigh [Convoy] granted to the Wilson family, it was around 1661 inherited by a descendant, Charles Hamilton, son of Andrew Hamilton, Esq.  In 1676, a portion went to a Wilson relative, Capt. John Nisbitt of Tullydonnell, and the rest was sold in 1712 to Col. Alexander Montgomery of Croghan, Co. Donegal.  Part was soon after acquired by the 2^nd Viscount Mountjoy.  (Marilyn Lewis. “William Willson: From Clare to Donegal.”  Ivan Knox, “The Houses of Stewart from 1500-” (2003), pp. 24-25.)

With the exception of Mountstewart, Colhouns lived or held property in all of these places (such as the townland of Crosh itself, which belonged to the manor of Newtownstewart).  Because of the Colhoun of Crosh family’s long association with the Mountjoys, it is worth considering that Colhouns living on any of these Mountjoy estates––not just Newtownstewart––prior to the mid-19^th century might have been related to the Colhouns of Crosh.

Pedigree of the Mountjoy family. Owners of Newtownstewart are shown in boldface. Upon the death of Sir William Stewart, Earl of Blessington, Newtonstewart and the majority of the Stewart estates passed to Charles Gardiner, for whose son the title of Mountjoy was recreated. The Baronetcy of Ramelton, meanwhile, passed to Sir Annesley Stewart. Presumably, ownership of the Donegal estate went with the baronetcy, since at the time of Griffith’s Valuation, Sir James Stewart (8^th Baronet, son of the 7^th) was a significant landowner in the parishes of Aughnish, Conway, and Tullyfern in Co. Donegal.

James Colhoun and Alexander McCausland

A 1631 muster roll of men living on Sir William Stewart’s estates in Co. Tyrone includes the following names, located relatively near each other on the long list:

• 80. James Cacone, sword and pike
• 111. Alexander McCaslane, sword and snapchance

As I mentioned in a previous post, despite the butchering of the names, I believe these two men to have been James Colhoun and Alexander McCausland (the presumed future father-in-law of James’s son William), respectively.  As they were considered old enough to fight in 1631, I estimate that both men were born between 1600-1610.  Given that time frame, both men were probably born in Scotland.  Unfortunately, the muster roll does not specify which townland, or even which manor, these tenants were living on.  However, both the Colhoun of Crosh and the McCausland families later lived in the vicinity of Newtownstewart, so my best guess is that Alexander and James were living in that portion of the manor of Newtownstewart lying in parish Ardstraw. 

Alexander McCausland was a soldier in the Wars of the Three Kingdoms, ultimately siding with Oliver Cromwell, and through this service he became entitled to a share of forfeited land in 1653.  “[Alexander] obtained a commission in the army, in time of the civil wars, in the reign of king Charles I.  At the end of those wars, partly by debenture, partly by purchase, he acquired the estates of Resh and Ardstraw in the county of Tyrone” (William Buchanan of Auchmar.  A Historical and Genealogical Essay upon the Family and Surname of Buchanan.  Glasgow: William Duncan, 1723, pp. 274-5).  Alexander’s land holdings in County Tyrone included the following:

• Manor of Ardstraw (parish Ardstraw, barony Strabane Lower).  Also known as the Termon, Erenach, or Churchlands of Ardstraw, this property was leased from the Bishop of Derry starting sometime prior to 1674.  It appears that the McCauslands’ rights to Ardstraw were subordinate to the Earls of Abercorn.
• Manor of Mountfield (parish Bodoney Lower, barony Strabane Upper).  This property was first purchased or leased by the McCauslands from Sir Henry Tichbourne of Blessing in 1658 (patent rolls #3455, 18 Jun 1658, Merze Marvin Book, James II, p. 43).  Alexander McCausland’s will states rent was owed to Sir William Tichbourne, suggesting the McCauslands’ rights remained subordinate to the Tichbournes’.
• Manor of Rash (parish Cappagh, barony Strabane Upper).  Located in the southern part of parish Cappagh.  The townland of Rash was later called Mountjoy Forest, and it appears that the McCauslands’ rights to this property may have been subordinate to the Mountjoys.

Alexander’s will of 1674 states that his daughter Catherine was married to William Colhoun of Newtownstewart, who I presume was the son of the James Colhoun with whom Alexander appears on the muster roll.  

The association between McCauslands and Colquhouns can be traced back to at least 1395 in Scotland, when John McAuslane of Caldenoch witnessed a charter in which Humphrey Colquhoun, 6^th/8^th of Luss granted the lands of Camstradden to his brother Robert.  In 1631, the Colquhoun lairds of Luss were the immediate feudal superiors of the McCausland barons of Caldenoch, the family from which Alexander came.  While it is by no means clear that James Colhoun was closely related to the Colquhouns of Luss, based on the long-standing connection between their ancestral Scottish families, it is certainly possible that James Colhoun and Alexander McCausland were friends and/or kinsmen in addition to being neighbors.  Given the marriage between their children, the two men were probably also of similar social standing.  Since Alexander was the supposed grandson of one of the barons McCausland, it seemed likely that James belonged to one of the Colquhoun families of the Scottish gentry.  Initially, I tried to identify a candidate for James among the “missing links” of the various senior Scottish Colquhoun families, but to no avail.  Eventually, I was able to determine that he was indeed from the Scottish gentry, as I will detail in an upcoming post.

At the risk of creating a new false narrative, (look out!) here come my unproven speculations.  Alexander McCausland served in the army in the 1640s, likely as a middle-aged officer, and was rewarded with Irish property.  James Colhoun, meanwhile, disappears from all records after the 1631 muster roll.  My working hypothesis is that James either died in the Rebellion of 1641 or served in the army alongside Alexander McCausland and died in the ensuing war, in either case leaving his son William Colhoun an orphan, or at least fatherless.  I speculate that after James’s death, the McCauslands “took charge” of William’s upbringing, in which arrangement William had the opportunity to meet and marry Alexander’s daughter.  This scenario seems to me a plausible origin of the oral tradition handed down in the Colhoun of Crosh family (as related by Croslegh on p. x of his book) that states the family’s “first ancestor in Ireland … had come from Luss, as a child, under the charge of his uncle MacCausland.”  Alexander McCausland was married to Jane (aka Janet, Jennett, Gennet) Hall, but we do not know anything about James Colhoun’s wife.  While it is possible that she was a McCausland or a Hall, making Alexander a true uncle of William, I think it is equally possible that Alexander was more distant kin or even a family friend, with the oral tradition casting him as an “uncle” as a term of affection.

Again, Alexander McCausland was probably born between 1600-1610; William Colhoun was probably born about 1635 and married Alexander’s daughter Catherine about 1660.  Records of the two men include the following (note that the 1659 Pender’s Census for County Tyrone does not survive):

Commissioners appointed for Poll Money Ordinances:

• 1660, County Tyrone, includes William Cahoon and Alexander mac Castguile (p. 627).
• 1661, County Tyrone, includes William Cahoon and Alexander mac Castlan (p. 646).

Hearth Money Roll, Co. Tyrone (1666):

• Rathkelly [Rakelly], parish Ardstraw, William Colhoune, 1 hearth.
• Lisnaresh [Lisnacreaght], parish Cappagh, Alexander M’Causland, 1 hearth.

Alexander McCausland’s Will

Fortunately, complete transcripts of the will of Alexander McCausland, Esq., dated 11 January 1674 and probated 1 July 1675, have survived the centuries (PRONI D669/29D).  Here are a few of the relevant highlights:

• To his “dearly beloved wife Jennett McCausland” he leaves half his moveable property and one third of the rents from the manors of Ardstraw and Mountfield.  She is to pay the proportionate share of the rents due to the Bishop of Derry and Sir William Titchburne, Knt. on these manors, respectively.
• To son Oliver McCausland he leaves the other half of his moveable property, plus the rights to the manors of Ardstraw and Mountfield with the exception of several townlands left to son Andrew.  Rent profits to be paid to his wife.
• To son Andrew McCausland £150; the outright ownership of the townland of Eskeradooey (parish Cappagh); the reversion of the leases of John Cunningham, Gent. for the townlands of Cullion and Lislap (parish Cappagh) in manor of Mountfield; rights to “the two towns of Aldclife” [Altcloghfin, parish Errigal Keerogue ?] and the townland of Ballykeel (parish Cappagh) held by lease from Lord Mountjoy.
• To daughter Anne McCausland £150.
• “I leave and bequeath to my grandchildren, viz., Alexander Coulhound and Gerrard Colhound £100 sterling English money equally to be divided between them, which I do hereby ordain and appoint my son Oliver McCausland to pay to them, and if it happen that they or any of them die that then the said sum to be paid by my son Oliver to the rest of the children begotten to be betwixt my daughter Catherine and my son in law William Colhoune.”
• Should Oliver and Andrew and their heirs die, the manors of Ardstraw and Mountfield to be divided equally among his daughters Catherine Colhoun, Margery McClenahan, and Ann McCausland, “always reserving thereout to my daughter Catherine Colhoune more than to any other of my said daughters the castle of Ardstreagh with the other House, Gardens, Orchards, and two Parks adjoining to the Bridge of Ardstreagh” in addition to her equal share in the remainder.
• Appoints sons-in-law William Colhoun of Newtownstewart and David McClenaghan of Newtownstewart, and son Oliver McCausland, as executors.
• Appoints his “truly and well beloved friend[s]” Sir William Stewart, Bart. [Lord Mountjoy], John Colhoune of Letterkenny, John Johnston of Clare, and John Logan the Elder of Newtownstewart as overseers of the will.
• Witnessed on 11 January 1674 by John Logan, Peter Colhoune, and John Logan Jun’r.

Selected passages from the will of Alexander McCausland, Esq. relevant to the Colhouns. (PRONI D669/29D; cropped from image kindly provided by Matthew Gilbert.)

From the will, we know that his eldest daughter Catherine married William Colhoun of Newtownstewart and that they had two children by that time, Alexander and Gerrard.  It appears that these two were William and Catherine’s only children at that time, since he also held out the possibility that the couple might have more children in the future.  We also know that among his trusted associates were two other Colhouns:  John Colhoun of Letterkenny and Peter Colhoun of unstated residence.  What are the odds that he would have such close ties to other Colhouns, at least one of whom was living a considerable distance away in Letterkenny, unless they were close relatives of his son-in-law William?

John and Peter Colhoun

The following Irish records mention a John and/or Peter/Patrick Colhoun that I believe refer to the men of those names in Alexander McCausland’s will.  (As I have mentioned before, the names Peter and Patrick have highly similar Gaelic cognates and were often used interchangeably in those days.)

Prerogative will of Sir William Sempill of Letterkenny, dated 12 May 1644 (transcribed in Betham’s genealogical abstracts.):  “To my servant John Colhoune, £18.”  Witnesses to the will included Rev. Preb. Alix’r Coninghame, and John Colhoune.  

Pender’s Census (1659):  names Peter Colhoune and John Colhoune, Gents., of Letterkenny town (see p. 54).  Also associated with them was Levinis Semphill.

Hearth Money Rolls (1660s):

• 1663 and 1665, Co. Donegal, Barony Kilmacrenan, parish Aughnish, Aughnish.  John Colhoune.
• 1666, Co. Tyrone, Barony Strabane, parish Ardstraw, Lisnaman (Newtownstewart).  Peter Colhoune.

Will of Henry Wray of Castle Wray, Co. Donegal, dated 9 August 1666 (Charlotte Violet Trench.  The Wrays of Donegal.  Oxford: University Press, 1945, p. 60.):  mentions Henry Wray is to be buried in the church of Letterkenny, and names his wife as Lettice née Galbraith.  A John Colhoune served as witness to the will.

List of representatives to the Laggan Presbytery during the period 1672-1700 (Rev. Alexander G. Lecky.  In the Days of the Laggan Presbytery.  Belfast: Davidson and M’Cormack, 1908, p. 144.):  a John Colhoun was named as representing congregations at Donaghmore and Letterkenny as a Presbyterian elder or commissioner.  

Chancery Bill, dated 25 Oct 1684 (PRONI T280, pp. 62-63.):  Plaintiff Patrick Hamilton, Gent.  Defendants Thomas McCausland (of Claraghmore, Co. Tyrone), Oliver McCausland, and John Colhoune.  Defendant Thomas McCausland sold to the plaintiff his half-interest in the town of Drumragh in the Barony of Omagh, on lease from Bishop of Derry, for £131 on 23 Aug 1684.  Will of Alexander McCausland left half-interest to son-in-law William Calhoune, other half in dispute but claimed by defendant Thomas McCausland, Alexander’s grandson, now age about 29 but a minor at the time of the will.  Although the plaintiff paid the money, the defendant and his trustees, Oliver McCausland and John Colhoune, have refused to execute the deed.  

Will index entries:

• Patrick Colhoun, Aughnish (townland or parish), Co. Donegal, 1703.
• Patrick Colhoune, Ardrummon (parish Aughnish), Co. Donegal, 1704.

An analysis of these records now follows.

John Colhoun appears first in 1644 and last in 1684, so we might estimate he lived in the general range 1610-1685, of similar age to James Colhoun of Newtownstewart.  John appears in three wills, all associated somehow with Letterkenny.  In the will of Sir William Sempill from 1644, John is described not only as a witness, but also as Sir William’s “servant”, to whom he left a small bequest.  The other witness, Rev. Alexander Conyngham (d. 1660), was the Dean of Raphoe and a powerful and influential cleric in the Church of Ireland.  This, along with the fact that John was a Gentleman, i.e. had some social standing, suggests John was not a menial servant but rather served in some administrative capacity, perhaps as Sempill’s estate agent.  Importantly, not only was Sempill the owner of the Manor of Letterkenny (later the Manor of Manor-Sempill) and other lands in Donegal, but he was also the son-in-law of Sir William Stewart of Ramelton, owner of the manors of Ramelton in Donegal and Newtownstewart in Tyrone (see the tree of the Mountjoy family above).  

In 1659, Pender’s census lists among the ten titled land-owners in Letterkenny, John and Peter Colhoun, Gents.  Also with them were Rev. Alexander Conyngham (co-witness with John Colhoun on Sempill’s will) and his son James, and Levinis Sempill (not a son of Sir William, but presumably a relative).  These names suggest this is the same John Colhoun who witnessed Sempill’s will in 1644, and that he and Peter were associated and likely related. 

In both 1663 and 1665, the Hearth Money Rolls for the Barony of Kilmacrenan, Co. Donegal show a John Colhoun in Augnish, parish Aughnish.  This was on the lands owned by the Mountjoy family, close relatives of Sir William Sempill, suggesting this is again the same John.  About that same time (1666), John was a witness on a second will, that of the young Henry Wray, from a land-owning family related to the Gores and Galbraiths.  Wray lived at Castlewray and Bogay in parish Aghanunshin, which is sandwiched between parish Aughnish to the north and Letterkenny to the south.

The last records of John of which we can be relatively certain are his appearance on Alexander McCausland’s will in 1674, where John is described as “of Letterkenny,” and a chancery bill from 1684 to resolve a disputed claim from that will.  Whether he was the same person as the John Colhoun of Letterkenny who was a Presbyterian elder during that period is less clear.  Most of John’s other known associations were with solidly Anglican gentry, namely the McCauslands, Stewarts, and Conynghams.  However, it cannot be ruled out.

Peter Colhoun first appears in Pender’s census in 1659, when he and John were among the tituladoes of Letterkenny.  At the time of the Hearth Money Rolls (1663-1666), Peter is found only in County Tyrone (1666), when he was living in Lisnaman (which probably referred to Lislas, the original name of the townland of Newtownstewart), parish Ardstraw.  He was likely still living there in 1674 when he served as witness to the will of Alexander McCausland.  However, he may have later returned to Donegal, since will index entries for a Patrick Colhoun of parish Aughnish can be found in 1703 (Aughnish, parish or townland) and 1704 (Ardrummon townland in parish Aughnish).  (These two entries may refer to the same person, since the 1703 entry is for a testamentary and the 1704 entry for an administration bond.)  If we assume that the Peter of Pender’s census was born about 1630, he could certainly have died around 1703.  Both Aughnish in Co. Donegal and Newtownstewart in Co. Tyrone were Mountjoy properties, and movement back and forth between properties under the same landlord is not unreasonable.

If in fact Peter were born about 1630, he was of an age to have been a son of James and brother of William Colhoun of Newtownstewart.  Despite the fact that Peter lived near William in 1666, I think this is unlikely for two reasons.  First, it appears that Peter lived near John in Letterkenny before moving to parish Ardstraw, suggesting a closer association with John.  Second, the name Peter/Patrick does not appear among William’s known descendants.  I therefore think it is more likely that Peter was a son of John (or perhaps a brother or some other relationship).  Finding John and/or Peter on the 1631 muster rolls would have been very informative, but unfortunately the rolls for the Barony of Kilmacrenan in Donegal (where he/they would most likely have been living at that time) have not survived.  Finally, although I think it is unlikely that Peter was a brother of William, I do think it is quite possible that John of Letterkenny was the brother of James from the Newtownstewart muster roll.

Either way, both James and John appear to have been Scottish natives, meaning that to date, Colhoun of Crosh is the only Irish Calhoun family for which we can name the Scottish founder(s).  Now if only we could place them in Scotland….

Are you aware of any other records pertaining to James, John, and Peter/Patrick Colhoun?  Can you shed any further light on the relationships between them?  If so, I’d love to hear from you!

*****

Special thanks to Paul Calhoun and Mike Barr for critical reading of this post and helpful edits, and thanks as well to Matthew Gilbert for the photos of Alexander McCausland’s will.

*****

© 2024 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

For a list of posts, visit The Genealogy of the Calhoun Family homepage.

The “Luss-Crosh Link” and the Story Behind It

The most commonly cited link between the Colquhouns of Scotland and the Colhouns of Ireland spans five generations, from Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss, Scotland to Rev. Alexander Colhoun of Crosh, County Tyrone, Ireland.  This five-generation pedigree, and the narrative behind it, has found its way into thousands of Calhoun family trees and written histories, both online and in print.  In my own words, I summarize the story told as follows.

“Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss, acquired the estate of Corkagh in Co. Donegal, Ireland in the 1610s.  Instead of residing there himself, he designated his son-in-law John McAuselan, husband of his daughter Nancy, to live on and manage the estate as his personal representative.  However, when Alexander died in 1617, rather than give Corkagh to John and Nancy, he instead bequeathed it to his son Adam, a merchant in Dumbarton.  Like his father, Adam also decided not to relocate to Ireland.  Upon the death of his wife in 1629, Adam sent his seven-year-old son Robert to reside there in his stead.  Adam died in 1634, after which Robert inherited Corkagh.  In 1641, Robert married his first cousin Catherine McAuselan, daughter of John and Nancy.  They had several children including a son William.  In 1651, at the age of eight, William inherited yet another Irish estate, Crosh House in Co. Tyrone, from Sir William Stewart, Baronet, apparently some kind of relative.  A stipulation of the inheritance was that William live there, and so the boy relocated from Corkagh to Crosh, where he was raised by Alexander McCausland and his wife, who were relatives of his mother’s.  William later married their daughter Catherine McCausland and had several children, including son Alexander, later Rev. Alexander Colhoun.”

This story has been part of Calhoun family lore for more than a hundred years, and many people have come to rely on it for determining their own ancestry.  However, if we are interested in getting as close to the truth of the historical record as we can (and why wouldn’t we be?), then every piece of received wisdom, no matter how old, is worth re-examining from time to time.  After all, the digitization of records has brought to light many sources that may not have been easily accessible to researchers a hundred years ago, or even forty years ago.  So getting back to this particular story, how true is it, or more accurately, how much of it is true?  Based on my interpretation of the evidence, the short answer is (spoiler alert!), “not much.”  I will analyze the specific elements of the story in the next post, but in this post, I would like to discuss how the story as a whole came to be.

The commonly-cited pedigree linking the Colquhouns of Luss with the Colhouns of Crosh. Additional details on the McCausland family added by me based on McCausland research.

From Oral Tradition to Croslegh

The core elements of this story originated with Charles Croslegh who first published it in his book on the family in 1904.  Croslegh’s roots ran through the Colhoun family of Crosh, and like many Calhouns, he was curious as to how his family was connected to the senior Colquhoun family of Luss, Scotland.  He says the following:

In the case of the [Colhoun] family I may claim credit for having established the historical connection between the Scotch and the Irish Colquhouns.  The Irish branch had always retained the tradition, but it had lost all documentary record of its descent from the old Chiefs of Colquhoun.  It knew that its first ancestor in Ireland, Robert Colquhoun, had come from Luss, as a child, under the charge of his uncle MacCausland.  But how that child was linked to the Lairds of Luss on the one hand, or to the Colquhouns in Ireland on the other, it did not know.  I have recovered that lost record.  I do not mean that I have discovered documents which would be received in a court of law as unshakeable evidence to prove the descent at every step.  But I have found testimony, (resting all along on trustworthy written or printed statements), sufficient, I think, to remove all reasonable doubt as to the general correctness of my deductions.

Croslegh, p. x.

I have to disagree with Croslegh here:  I believe there is plenty of room for reasonable doubt.  Croslegh performed his research 120 years ago, and it is a fact that there were sources available to him at that time that have not survived to the present day.  So are there things that he knew that we don’t?  Probably not:  he did an excellent job of citing the documents and personal communications he relied on, and there is relatively little in his list of references that is not also available to us.  On the other hand, the internet, digitization of books and records, and modern-day travel permit us access to sources that were not available to him.  Therefore, we can examine his story not only in light of the sources he used to construct it, but also in light of additional sources he may not have been aware of. 

Croslegh’s “story,” as I have called it, is in fact a hypothesis he built to explain the origin of his Irish Colhoun family in light of the documentary and oral sources he had to work with.  He says, “it is interesting to see how the chaos of apparently impossible dates and contradictory statements soon begins to grow, under careful attention, into an orderly and consistent story” (Croslegh, pp. 211-212).  In other words, he took discontinuous data and filled in the gaps with estimated dates and surmised relationships where necessary in order to create a continuous narrative.  There is nothing wrong with doing this, as building hypotheses is a necessary part of the process of discovery.  However, equally necessary to the process is the critical examination of hypotheses to determine which parts hold up and which do not.  Let us consider the two streams of evidence Croslegh used:  the oral tradition handed down in his family, and the set of documents he cites.

Croslegh mentions an oral tradition passed down through “the Irish branch” of the Calhouns, by which I presume he meant specifically his own family, the Colhouns of Crosh, County Tyrone.  According to Croslegh’s preface (quoted above), this tradition stated that (1) the Colhouns of Crosh believed they were somehow descended from the old Chiefs of Colquhoun in Scotland (i.e., the Luss family), and (2) the first of the Crosh ancestors to come to Ireland was a Colquhoun perhaps named Robert, born somewhere near Luss, who came to Ireland when still a young boy as the ward of an uncle named McCausland.  Because this tradition was more than 200 years old by the time Croslegh wrote it down, it is possible and even likely that errors had crept into it through repeated retelling.  Furthermore, we have only Croslegh’s version of the story, so we can’t know which parts might have been his own additions.  Nonetheless, such traditions often contain at the very least a kernel of truth, and we have to respect this possibility.

Croslegh also mentions his reliance on “trustworthy written or printed statements.”  As far as I can tell, these statements include not much more than the following, at least among those he cites specifically in his endnotes:

• Fraser’s discussion of the Battle of Glen Fruin.  (Endnote 12; from Fraser vol. 1, chapter XIV.)
• Fraser’s transcription of the will of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss, specifically the statement about Adam and the Irish lands.  (Endnote 17; from Fraser vol. 1, p. 231.)
• Statements that Adam Colquhoun married a daughter of Lindsay of Bonneil and that John McAuselan went to Ireland.  (Endnote 16; from William Buchanan of Auchmar.  A Historical and Genealogical Essay upon the Family and Surname of Buchanan.  Glasgow: William Duncan, 1723, pp. 88; 122-123.)
• General residency requirements for all undertakers to the Plantation of Ulster.  (Endnote 17; from George Hill.  An Historical Account of the Plantation in Ulster at the Commencement of the Seventeenth Century, 1608-1620.  Belfast: M’Kaw, Stevenson, and Orr, 1877, pp. 80-83.)
• Pynnar’s Survey of the Ulster Plantation from 1619, entry for Corkagh.  (Endnote 17; from Hill, pp. 511-512.)
• Instructions to the Lord Deputy of Ireland regarding denization and inheritance.  (Endnote 17; from Sir Richard Cox.  Hibernia anglicana, or, The history of Ireland…, p. 51.)
• Letter Patent of Denization for Robert Colquhoun of Corkagh, 1630.  (Endnote 17; from James Morrin.  Calendar of the Patent and Close Rolls of Chancery in Ireland of the Reign of Charles the First, vol. III.  Dublin: Alexander Thom, 1863, pp. 538-539.)

These documents may be trustworthy and provide important information (like the identities of laird Alexander’s children and his family’s ownership of Corkagh), but upon close examination, many of them prove to be of a general historical nature, and those that do refer to Calhouns don’t speak to the other specific relationships he proposes. 

Given the oral tradition and the set of documents above, one might imagine that Croslegh came up with the hypothesis that he did using the following reasoning.  He was aware that his ancestor Rev. Alexander Colhoun was born around 1663 and was the son of William Colhoun of Newtownstewart.  The oral tradition within his family stated that the first of them to come to Ireland was a Robert Colquhoun, who arrived from Scotland at a very young age, to be raised by an uncle named McCausland.  Therefore, he reasoned, this Robert must have been the father of William.  The tradition also stated that Robert had come from Luss and that the family had somehow descended “from the old Chiefs of Colquhoun.”  This is a vague statement, but Croslegh took it literally to mean that Robert must have been the son or grandson of one of the lairds of Luss.  He then searched Fraser’s work to see where such a connection might be made.

In Fraser’s book, Croslegh came across two “loose ends” among the children of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss:  a son Adam, who Croslegh believed inherited Alexander’s Irish estate at Corkagh, and a daughter Nancy, whose husband Fraser could not identify.  Adam’s connection to Ireland via Alexander’s will, and the fact that Robert physically went to Ireland, suggested to him that Adam must have been the father of Robert.  Why would Robert go to Ireland as a young boy in the company of an uncle and not his parents?  Perhaps it was because his mother had recently died, and his father could not care for him.  Who was this mother?  In Buchanan of Auchmar’s book, Croslegh found reference to an Adam Colquhoun, merchant of Dumbarton, who married a daughter of Lindsey of Bonneil and had a daughter named Helen.  He figured this was the same Adam mentioned in the will of Alexander of Luss and that, in addition to daughter Helen, Adam must have had a son Robert whom Buchanan neglected to mention.  Buchanan also mentioned a John McAuselan who went to Ireland in the last days of the reign of James VI/I, and so Croslegh reasoned that John must have been the uncle of his Robert and therefore the husband of one of Adam’s sisters, probably Nancy.

Croslegh was constrained by the birth of Rev. Alexander Colhoun in 1663 (which he probably knew from Trinity College records) and the marriage of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss in late 1595 (known from Fraser and references therein).  Between these two dates, he had to squeeze in the births of three other generations, and so he estimated the following birthdates to make it work:  Adam Colquhoun ca. 1601, Adam’s supposed son Robert ca. 1622, and Robert’s supposed son William ca. 1643.  This was a very tight fit:  most men from the Scottish gentry did not marry until their mid-20s at the very earliest, but Croslegh’s timeline required three successive generations of men to marry at ages 19-21.  Again, these birth dates do not appear in any of the written sources he cites, and because he does such a good job of referencing, it seems unlikely that they came from uncited sources but rather were his own estimates. 

If you have read my previous three blog posts, you already know that I believe that Adam was not born until about 1612, that Adam did not inherit Corkagh, that he did not have a son named Robert and in fact was not even married until 1644, and that if Nancy married at all, she did not marry John McAuselan, at least not before her father died in 1617.  If I convinced you of the truth of even a single one of these statements, Croslegh’s hypothesis falls apart.

From Croslegh to Orval

Croslegh’s hypothesis was expanded 70 years later by Orval Calhoun in his book series Our Calhoun Family (OCF).  As many have pointed out, Orval was not as diligent as Croslegh in referencing his sources, in part because he relied heavily on information sent to him by other family members from around the world.  Although we do not know what sources were or were not available to him, we must use the sources now available to us to cross-check his statements as best we can.  To do so, we must first identify statements that are Orval’s and not also Croslegh’s––in other words, statements in OCF that were not also present in Croslegh’s earlier work.  For example, Croslegh says the following:

That the Laird of Luss should exchange the bonny banks of Loch Lomond for the wilds of Donegal was out of the question. He fulfilled the condition of residence by deputy. He sent his son-in-law, John MacAuselan or MacCausland, a younger son of the last Baron MacAuselan who was then living in the parish of Luss, to Ireland, to live on the estate, and to manage it. He also made certain arrangements, the precise nature of which does not appear, concerning this newly acquired property. But whatever these arrangements may have been, he cancelled them by his last will….

Croslegh p. 213-4.

If these “certain arrangements” that Alexander supposedly made regarding the Corkagh estate “do not appear”, how did Croslegh know about them?  Fraser, who unlike Croslegh actually worked from the documents at Rossdhu, did not mention anything about this, so I tend to believe this was speculation on Croslegh’s part, although again, we cannot know for sure.  Orval tells the same story as follows, with the underlined portions being new elements that he added:

The Laird of Luss, had no desire to exchange the Bonnie Banks of Loch Lomond, for the wilds of Donegal. That is how it became possible for him to place his daughter, Nancy & her husband John McAuselan (Younger son of the last Baron McAuselan) to live on the land in Ireland, to develop it according to the directions of the Crown. They had proceeded with these instructions according to schedule and received the O.K. from the Royal Commission on each of the Surveys that were conducted about every two years, so that Nancy & John were still living on the Irish Lands, when Sir Alexander died on May 23rd 1617, but they did not inherit Manor Corkagh from her father at his death, like an earlier WILL had stated they would, as Sir Alexander Colquhoun had made some previous arrangement for this estate with John & Nancy. But for some unknown reason he cancelled them by his last WILL….

Regardless of the disappointment on not inheriting Corkagh, Nancy and John McAuselan, continued living at Corkagh, & managing it for Adam Colquhoun, her brother, who had inherited it. Sir John realizing what expenses Adam would be up against at Corkagh, agreed upon a sufficient provision for his brother Adam, to maintain the Estate.

OCF vol. 1, p. 20.

As a first new story element, he mentions biannual surveys that apparently mention Nancy and John McAuselan living at Corkagh before and after 1617.  Indeed, four Plantation surveys were conducted between 1611 and 1622, but at best, they simply recorded the number of tenants on each proportion of Irish land, not the names.  I have been able to find no surveys, nor any other document, stating that John and/or Nancy McAuselan either lived at Corkagh or were associated with the property in any way.  The earliest record of anyone of that surname I have found living there is a Patrick McCausland recorded in the townland of Corkey in the Hearth Money Rolls of 1665.

Second, Orval states that the “certain arrangements” made for Corkagh, which Croslegh provided no evidence for and told us were unrecorded, were in fact detailed in an earlier draft of Alexander’s will.  Neither Fraser nor Croslegh described such a document, and only one version of the will is currently deposited at the National Records of Scotland.  If in fact no such earlier draft of the will exists, as I believe to be the case, this statement most likely arose from a misunderstanding of Croslegh’s use of the phrase “last will” (meant as in “last will and testament” and not “last of several wills”).

Finally, he states that the provision that Sir John Colquhoun made for his brother Adam was intended to maintain the estate of Corkagh.  Not so.  Sir John was obligated by his father’s will to provide for each of his younger siblings as they came of age, essentially giving each of them the share of inheritance they were owed.  As I mentioned in a previous post, Fraser notes that around 1631, when Adam was about 19, “Sir John agreed upon a sufficient provision for his brother Adam” (Fraser p. 248).  The details of this provision have not survived, so there is no evidence that it was for the purpose of maintaining Corkagh.  Since we know for certain that Adam acquired the estate of Glens in Stirlingshire, the provisions more likely had to do with arranging money for the purchase or long-term lease of Glens, but even this is not known for certain.  

I have summarized how I believe the well-known story about the relationship between the Colhouns of Crosh in Ireland and the Colquhouns of Luss in Scotland came into being.  I recognize that there may have been sources known to Croslegh in 1904 and Orval in 1976 that I am not aware of, but I believe the story as we know it today is largely the product of their work and not from pre-existing sources.  In the next post, I will go into more specifics of what I believe is true, false, and unknown concerning Adam, Nancy, and Robert Colquhoun, so stay tuned!

Do you disagree with me based on your own research?  For example, have you seen the mysterious early draft of Alexander’s will, or tenant lists showing the McAuselans at Corkagh, or the details of any provisions made by Sir John to Adam Colquhoun?  If so, I’d love to see them for myself!

*****

I am greatly indebted to Paul Calhoun and to a second reader (you know who you are!) for critical reading of this post and helpful edits. I believe this article was much improved thanks to their efforts.

*****

© 2023 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

The “Missing Links” of the Calhoun Family?

A Brief Recap

As I outlined in previous posts, we as researchers of the Calhoun family have two valuable pieces of information to work with.  First, we have a structural outline of the family tree of male-line descendants of Humphrey of Kilpatrick, 13^th century founder of the Calhoun family, built from Y-DNA genetic information.  We can be reasonably sure that Humphrey belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E-Y16733 and that all Calhoun men today who belong to this haplogroup are his patrilineal descendants.  Several dozen Calhouns and several Kilpatricks from this haplogroup have taken Y-DNA tests, and this genetic tree is based on the results.  Although the tree shows approximately when the male-line ancestries of these men diverged from each other, it can’t tell us the names of the ancestors at the internal branch points.  Nonetheless, the split between the Calhoun and Kilpatrick families provides a historical landmark to roughly indicate the time in the 13^th century when Humphrey of Kilpatrick adopted the Colquhoun surname.  This tree will only grow in importance and accuracy over time as more Calhoun men take Y-DNA tests.

Second, we have a solidly researched pedigree of the senior Scottish line of the family, the Colquhouns of Luss, and a few of its collateral branches that was constructed by Sir William Fraser based on medieval source documents.  This tree spans an amazing 600 years, describing unbroken father-to-son relationships from Humphrey of Kilpatrick in the 13^th century to the last known male-line descendants of these senior lines in the 19^th century.  The men in this pedigree were the chiefs of the Colquhoun clan, not to mention wealthy landowners, so it is perhaps not surprising that documents mentioning them have survived.  This senior line for the most part leads from eldest son to eldest son according to the rules of primogeniture.  However, it represents just one of a great many patrilineal lines that stem from Humphrey.  Younger sons typically inherited less wealth, becoming less “important” and therefore less well documented, if documented at all.  At each generation, there can be at most one eldest son, but there can be many younger sons, so it stands to reason that after 600 years, the vast majority of Humphrey’s descendants come from untraceable lineages that branched off the documented Luss “stem family” through younger sons somewhere along the line.

All of us who are interested in genealogy and family history want to know the names and stories of our ancestors.  For those of us who come from lineages without long paper trails, wouldn’t it be great if we knew approximately when our own family line branched off the Luss lineage?  If we did, we could at least put names and stories to those of our Calhoun ancestors who lived prior to that branch point.  In theory, the Y-DNA genetic tree should enable us to do just that, since both the genetic tree and Fraser’s pedigree follow patrilineal lines of descent originating with Humphrey of Kilpatrick.  To be able to do this, however, we need at least one point of reference in the genetic tree, in other words, at least one tester with an unbroken patrilineal link to someone in Fraser’s pedigree, preferably following that senior line for as long as possible before branching off of it.

This is easier said than done, since all of the well-documented branches of the senior Colquhoun line have ended in the male line.  Short of exhuming and testing long-deceased Colquhoun ancestors (just sayin’…), our only option is to identify someone with an unassailable paper trail to an obscure branch of the Luss “stem family” or one of its cadet families via an unbroken male line.  Depending on what documents have survived, this may or may not be possible, but this search is the work ahead of us.  I should point out that many people claim patrilineal descent from the Luss family through William Colhoun (b. ca. 1643) of Crosh, County Tyrone, Ireland, who they believe was a great-grandson of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss.  While I would not be surprised if William is descended from a branch of the Luss family somewhere along the line, I am skeptical of this particular claim, since I have yet to see convincing evidence to support it.  In terms of creating a reference for the genetic tree, a speculative pedigree does us little good.  It would be like building a house on an unstable foundation.

Some Loose Ends

Fraser did leave us with some low-hanging fruit to start our search.  At each generation of the Luss family and its cadet branches, he included in his books what information he could find about the siblings of the chief or laird, but in most cases he did not go so far as to trace their descendants.  All of the Calhouns in the E-Y17633 genetic tree are probably the descendants of these siblings, or of other siblings Fraser was unable to discover.  Below, I list all of those siblings mentioned by Fraser who meet three criteria.  First, they must be males, and therefore able to continue the male (Y-DNA) line.  Second, the possibility must remain that they had sons; in other words, Fraser did not explicitly say they did not marry, or that they had no sons.  Third, they lived after about 1500, so the possibility exists that there could be surviving records to trace their lineage forward; prior to 1500, there are no church registers and too few other records of commoners to make it possible to trace less “important” lineages.

When a chief or laird died, it was typically his eldest son who inherited the position.  Failing that, it went to an uncle, a brother, or a brother’s son, depending on who was left.  Failing that, it probably would have gone to a more distant male cousin, but clearly there was a limit to how far out one could look.  For that reason, I think the earlier generations from this list are more likely candidates to have male-line descendants today than the later generations.  Later generations would have been of closer relationship to the chief or laird and therefore more likely to have been identified and tapped to inherit the line when it otherwise failed.  I don’t know this for sure, but it is my speculation.

I have organized the list below first by the cadet branch of the family and then by generation.  In the case of Robert Colquhoun, 8^th of Camstradden, Fraser did go as far as tracing some of his descendants (taken in part from Burke’s History of the Commoners of Great Britain and Ireland vol. II, pp. 346-347), and so I have provided a tree to visualize them and identify the possible branches that might have continued (in red).  I’m hoping against hope that someone will look at this list and say, “Hey, those are my ancestors!  I have a solid paper trail to them.”  I think it goes without saying that if that happens for one of you, please contact me to discuss! 

Unless and until that happens, perhaps we can crowd-source the research to try to trace these “loose ends” forward.  To get the ball rolling, I have briefly looked into the descendants of Patrick Colquhoun, Esq. LL.D. (1745-1820), a well-known Scottish statistician, magistrate, and founder of the first modern police force in England.  He was himself a descendant of Robert Colquhoun, 8^th of Camstradden, as shown in the tree below.  He had one son who survived to adulthood, James Colquhoun (1780-1855).  James had three sons, Patrick Macchombaich, James Charles Henry, and Ewing Pye.  As far as I can tell, none of them had any children.  Although I have left James’s sons in red in the tree for now, I think this branch can be safely “pruned” from consideration.  Perhaps in a future post I can update the list below based on what I and others find.  In the list below, the “loose ends” are underlined in boldface, and in the tree figure, they are marked in red.

colquhoun of Luss

Between 1500 and the end of the male line of succession in the Luss family in 1718, the only loose end is a son of Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss.  Fraser (vol. 1, pp. 235-36) states that in addition to the son below, Alexander had two other sons, Walter and George, who “died abroad without issue”, but he offers no further details.  Assuming this to be true, the remaining son is:

• Adam Colquhoun (b. ca. 1612), still living in 1634.

Colquhoun of Camstradden

Sons of John Colquhoun, 7^th of Camstradden, and Christian Lindsay:

• William Colquhoun (b. early 1500s), who settled in Dunglass, East Lothian, Scotland “and was progenitor of several persons of the name of Colquhoun in and near that place” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 189).
• James Colquhoun (b. early 1500s, recorded 1576) (Fraser vol. 2, p. 190).

Descendants of Robert Colquhoun, 8^th of Camstradden, and Marjory Murray, and of John Colquhoun, 9^th of Camstradden, and Elizabeth Danzelstoun (Fraser vol. 2, p. 200): see chart below.

Selected lines of descent from Robert Colquhoun, 8^th of Camstradden, namely those leading to potential “loose ends” (marked in red). Note that other sources state that John Colquhoun, M.D. of Greenock, son of David, had no children.

Sons of Robert Colquhoun, 10^th of Camstradden, and second wife Janet Buchanan.  Of them, Fraser (vol. 2, pp. 203-4) states, “From these sons many Colquhouns in the Isle of Benleven are descended.”  (Ben-Leven is actually a peninsula stretching from Dumbarton to Arrochar, bounded by the Firth of Clyde on the south, Loch Lomond on the east, and the Gareloch and Loch Long on the west.  Luss, among many other places, is located in Ben-Leven.)  The sons: 

• George Colquhoun (recorded 1659).
• Adam Colquhoun (burgess of Dumbarton in 1667).
• Patrick Colquhoun (recorded 1676).

Sons of Alexander Colquhoun, 11^th of Camstradden, and Anne Graham (first two sons) and Christian Colquhoun of Ballernick (third son):

• Robert Colquhoun, married Jean Darleith and had two sons, Walter (merchant in Edinburgh, married a daughter of Colquhoun of Kenmure and had several sons), and Daniel (married Mary Donald and had son Humphrey who acquired a fortune in Jamaica; Humphrey had a son of his own, also named Humphrey, who was a merchant in Glasgow) (Fraser vol. 2, pp. 207-8).
• Alexander Colquhoun, married Helen Govan ca. 1684. It was not known if he had children (Fraser vol. 2, p. 208).
• Walter Colquhoun, guild brother in Dumbarton in 1701 (Fraser vol. 2, p. 209).

Sons of John Colquhoun, 12^th of Camstradden, and Margaret Zuill:

• Archibald Colquhoun (b. 1699), married Margaret Denham “and had issue” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 222).
• Thomas Colquhoun (b. 1701).

Sons of John Colquhoun, 13^th of Camstradden, and Elizabeth Donaldson (Fraser vol. 2, p. 227):

• John Colquhoun (b. 1709).
• James Colquhoun (b. 1711).
• Archibald Colquhoun (b. 1713).

Colquhoun of Kenmure

Son of Arthur Colquhoun, 1^st of Kenmure, and Katherine Lockhart:

• Matthew Colquhoun, executor of his mother’s will in 1625; no further info (Fraser vol. 2, p. 260).

Natural sons of Adam Colquhoun (ca. 1470-1540), Rector of Strobo and son of Patrick Colquhoun, 2^nd of Glens, and Margaret Hamilton (Fraser vol. 2, pp. 265-9):

• James Colquhoun, legitimation from the Crown in 1529.
• Adam Colquhoun, legitimation from the Crown in 1529.

Sons of John Colquhoun, 2^nd of Kenmure, and Janet Woddrope:

• John Colquhoun.
• Alexander Colquhoun.

Son of John Colquhoun, 4^th of Kenmure, and Elizabeth Wynram:

• Humphrey Colquhoun (b. 6 Dec 1692) (Fraser vol. 2, p. 261).

Colquhoun of Barnhill

Son of John Colquhoun of Milton, 1^st of Barnhill, and Janet Lang:

• Patrick Colquhoun (recorded 1576) (Fraser vol. 2, p. 263).

Sons of Walter Colquhoun, 2^nd of Barnhill, and Janet Wright (Fraser vol. 2, p. 263):

• Patrick Colquhoun.
• James Colquhoun.
• Andrew Colquhoun.

Son of John Colquhoun, 3^rd of Barnhill, and Margaret Mackie (mar. in 1582):

• Andrew Colquhoun (Fraser vol. 2, p. 263).

Son of Walter Colquhoun, 4^th of Barnhill, and first wife Margaret Logan (mar. in 1610):

• James Colquhoun (Fraser vol. 2, p. 263).

Sons of James Colquhoun, 5^th of Barnhill:

• Alexander Colquhoun (recorded 1696).
• John Colquhoun (recorded 1706) (Fraser vol. 2, p. 264).

Son of Humphrey Colquhoun, 7^th of Barnhill:

• John Colquhoun (recorded 1704).  He probably died young with no children, since John’s sister’s children, and not John himself, succeeded his brother as laird of Barnhill (Fraser vol. 2, p. 264).

Colquhoun of Kilmardinny

Sons of Walter Colquhoun, ancestor of the Colquhouns of Kilmardinny, and Elizabeth Stewart (Fraser vol. 2, p. 262):

• James Colquhoun (recorded 1554).
• Patrick Colquhoun (recorded 1565).
• Walter Colquhoun (recorded 1584).

Sons of John Colquhoun and Isabella Stein (Fraser vol. 2, p. 262):

• Malcolm Colquhoun (recorded 1601)
• Matthew Colquhoun, married Margaret Semple ca. 1587.

Colquhoun of Garscadden and Killermont

Son of William Colquhoun, 3^rd of Garscadden, and Isabella Lang:

• Archibald Colquhoun, married Marion, daughter of Robert Colquhoun of Camstradden in 1656 “and had issue” (Fraser vol. 2, p. 257).

Sons of Andrew Colquhoun, 5^th of Garscadden, and Jean Crawford (Fraser vol. 2, p. 258):

• Archibald Colquhoun (mentioned in his father’s will, 1702).
• Hugh Colquhoun (mentioned in his father’s will, 1702).
• James Colquhoun.
• Andrew Colquhoun (recorded 1707).

Colquhoun of Tillyquhoun

Sons of Alexander Colquhoun, 1^st of Tillyquhoun, and Annabella Stewart:

• James Colquhoun, married in 1704 Elizabeth, daughter of John Colquhoun of Auchintorlie.  They had a son George Colquhoun (recorded 1750-51) (Fraser vol. 2, p. 165).
• George Colquhoun (b. 1678) (Fraser vol. 2, p. 166).

*****

© 2023 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

archives

Most recent Posts

• May 2024
• April 2024
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• July 2023
• June 2023
• May 2023

• The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 3: Scottish Origins
• The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 2: The McCausland Connection
• The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 1: The First Generations in Ireland
• The Colhouns of the Irish Gentry
• The Manor of Corkagh: Part 2 of 2

The Senior Colquhoun Lines of Scotland

titles and terminology

By Scottish tradition, the chief of the Calhoun family is The Colquhoun of Colquhoun and Luss, who has resided for centuries on the shores of Loch Lomond in Dunbartonshire.  He is officially recognized as a clan chief by the Court of the Lord Lyon, the legal arbiter of Scottish heraldry.  This entitles him to bear the undifferenced arms granted to his ancestor Sir John Colquhoun, 13^th of Colquhoun and 15^th of Luss, in 1542 by that same court.

Source: Fraser vol. 1, p. 417.

As with most Scottish clans, the chief is the senior-most male descendant of the family’s founder, in our case Humphrey of Kilpatrick, who is considered the first chief (i.e., 1^st of Colquhoun).  All chiefs who have followed him are numbered consecutively, and I follow the numbering of Fraser, who may or may not have originated the system.  In the early generations of the family, their seat was in the Barony of Colquhoun from which they took their name.  The chief of the family was therefore also the laird of Colquhoun, with laird being not a hereditary title implying nobility but rather a Scots word meaning specifically an estate owner.

Around 1368, Humphrey’s great-great-grandson Sir Robert Colquhoun, 5^th of Colquhoun, married the daughter and heiress of Godfrey, 6^th of Luss.  Her given name is not known, so she is referred to by Fraser and others, in fairy-tale fashion, as “The Fair Maid of Luss.”  With Godfrey’s death around 1385, the male line and surname of Luss came to an end, and the family’s extensive property on the shores of Loch Lomond was inherited by his daughter and her husband, the aforementioned Sir Robert Colquhoun.  Evidently the Barony of Luss was a more desirable property than the Barony of Colquhoun, since the Colquhoun chiefs soon moved their seat to Luss, where they have remained ever since.  They thus became lairds of Luss beginning with Sir Robert, who succeeded Godfrey as 7^th of Luss.  From Robert’s time on, the senior-most Colquhouns have been referred to with two numbers, of the form “Sir Robert Colquhoun, 5^th of Colquhoun and 7^th of Luss.”  Eventually, the lands of Colquhoun passed out of the family’s ownership, and so I take the title since then to mean “5^th chief of Colquhoun [the family] and 7^th laird of Luss [the property].”  Whether this interpretation is correct or not, I’m not sure.

I tend to use a shorthand format of my own invention to describe the chiefs succinctly with both numberings.  My shorthand for the example above would be “Sir Robert Colquhoun, 5^th/7^th of Luss.”  It is not standard, and I hope no one is offended by this.

On 30 August 1625, the Colquhoun chiefs acquired another hereditary title when King Charles I granted to Sir John Colquhoun, 16^th/18^th of Luss the rank and dignity of Baronet.  The initial grant was a new Baronetcy of Colquhoun in the colony of Nova Scotia in America, to be located near LaHave.  In 1704, Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, 20^th/22^nd of Luss, 5^th Baronet, having no male heirs to pass the baronetcy to as required by the original grant, surrendered the title to the Crown and was regranted the same under terms that allowed its succession to his son-in-law, James Grant, who would then become Sir James Colquhoun, 21^st/23^rd of Luss.  However, Sir James subsequently inherited the Grant estate, and that original baronetcy passed into the Grant family.  James Grant’s son Sir James Colquhoun, 23^rd/25^th of Luss was granted a new title, Baronet of Great Britain, just a few months before his death in 1786, and this new title has been in the Colquhoun of Luss family ever since.  The present chief of the family is Sir Malcolm Rory Colquhoun, 31^st/33^rd of Luss, 9^th Baronet of Great Britain.

Again, the position of chief and laird is typically inherited by the eldest son of the outgoing chief, or if he has no surviving sons, the eldest in the family’s male line according to rules of British primogeniture, which I don’t fully understand.  However, younger sons from the Luss family sometimes acquired property of their own, either through division of the Luss estate or by marriage into another landowning family.  These younger sons therefore established junior lines (so-called “cadet branches”) of the Colquhoun family, named for the property of which they became laird.

Relationships of the various cadet branches to the Colquhouns of Colquhoun and Luss based on Fraser vols. 1 and 2.

The Colquhouns from these families belong to the gentry, the upper social strata of British commoners, and none of them to my knowledge have risen to the peerage (aristocracy).  Even Baronets do not belong to the peerage.  I’m an American and confess that I’m not used to the terminology of titled gentry and aristocracy (with the notable exception of the Duke of New York, A-Number One [video, with sound], once held by the late, great Isaac Hayes).  The table below describes the social ranks to which the Calhoun gentry of Scotland and Ireland belonged, as best I have been able to figure them out.  As always, I welcome any correction by those who know more than I do.

Rank	Hereditary	Prefix Title	Description
Baronet	yes	Sir/Lady	Hereditary honor created by James I in 1611 to raise revenue for the crown
Knight	no	Sir/Lady	Non-hereditary; there are several orders, all but one of which fall between baronet and esquire in rank
Esquire	no	none	Traditionally for eldest sons of knights and some younger descendants of peers, but also bestowed by virtue of certain offices
Gentleman	no	none	Generally men of “good social standing” who did not need to work for a living

Genealogical importance of the senior lines

I focus on the Colquhoun of Luss family in this post because of its genealogical importance.  Using family records from Rossdhu and Camstradden, Fraser built pedigrees of this family and its connected cadet branches beginning with Humphrey of Kilpatrick in the 13^th century and extending all the way to the 19^th century, an unbroken lineage of Colquhoun chiefs and chieftains.  Most of us who are interested in family history and genealogy would love to connect ourselves to such a pedigree, but very few of us (if any) can actually do so.  In centuries past, only families who were deemed “important” in some way (namely, those with land, titles, or money) were documented.  Such people were a minority, and so for most of us, our paper trail ends in the 18^th or 19^th century.

Can genetic information from Y-DNA help us?  In theory, yes.  In my earlier post, I stated that Humphrey of Kilpatrick was the patrilineal ancestor not only of males from the Colquhoun of Luss family (prior to 1718) and its cadet branches, but also of all Calhoun males belonging to haplogroup E-Y16733.  For most of us, however, there is a five- or six-century gap between Humphrey and our earliest documented Calhoun ancestor.  If we can simply find someone who is a patrilineal descendant of Humphrey of Kilpatrick with an unbroken paper trail—namely someone descended from the Luss family or one of its cadet branches—to take a Y-DNA test, he could serve as a “gold standard” for those without such a paper trail.  Having this point of reference would not magically create paper trails for the rest of us, but it would at least close the gap between Humphrey and ourselves considerably, since we would have a much better idea of approximately when each of our ancestries branched off from Fraser’s lineage.

Here’s the problem:  the male lineages of the Colquhouns of Luss and of every cadet branch of the family have ended.  Yes, the Colquhouns of Luss have continued to the present day, but there was a break in the strict father-to-son lineage in 1718 with the death of Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, 20^th/22^nd of Luss, 5^th Baronet.  As I mentioned above, he had no sons, and so the family line continued through his daughter Anne Colquhoun, who married James Grant.  The present-day Colquhouns of Luss are the male-line descendants of Anne’s younger son Sir James Colquhoun, 23^rd/25^th of Luss, whose Y-chromosome came from the Grant family.  The following table describes the fates of the various Colquhoun family branches (source:  Fraser vols. 1 and 2).

Family	Founder (First in Male Lineage)	Last in Male Lineage
Luss	Humphrey of Kilpatrick, 1st of Colquhoun (1190-1260)	Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, 20th/22nd of Luss (d. 1718)
Tillyquhoun (Tullichewan)	Alexander (fl. 1666), third son of Sir John Colquhoun, 16th/18th of Luss	Robert-David Colquhoun, 7th of Tillyquhoun (d. 1838)
Camstradden	Robert, son of Sir Robert Colquhoun, 5th/7th of Luss (1395-1439)	Sir Robert Gilmour Colquhoun, 17th of Camstradden (d. 1870)
Kilmardinny	Walter (d. bef 1541), third son of Sir John Colquhoun, 11th/13th of Luss	John Colquhoun (7th generation), d. ca. 1692
Garscube	James, second son of Humphrey Colquhoun, 12th/14th of Luss	Property soon reverted to Luss
Garscadden and Killermont	Descendant of John, second son of Robert Colquhoun, 6th of Camstradden	James Colquhoun, 7th generation from John (d. 1801)
Balvie	Humphrey, second son of Alexander Colquhoun, 15th/17th of Luss	No children, did not continue
Kenmure	Patrick, third son of Sir Humphrey Colquhoun, 6th/8th of Luss	William Colquhoun Stirling of Edenbarnet (d. 1866)
Barnhill (Bonniel, Bonhill)	John Colquhoun of Milton, 1543 charter from Sir John Colquhoun, 13th/15th of Luss	Walter Colquhoun, 8th of Barnhill (d. 1827)

Despite this, there is some good news.  Just because the titled positions above have all ended in the male line, that doesn’t mean we won’t be able to find male-line descendants.  In my next post, I will list many younger sons from the various family lines above who are unaccounted for (by Fraser, at least) and who could have male-line descendants alive today.  My sincere hope is that eventually someone with a solid, documented pedigree back to someone in that list will be identified and would be willing to take the Big Y test.  More soon!

*****

Special thanks to Paul Calhoun for critical reading of this post and helpful edits.

*****

© 2023 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

Calhoun Haplogroup E-Y16733

As determined by the Calhoun Surname Project at FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA), most Calhoun men today (or at least, most of those who have taken Y-DNA tests) belong to haplogroup E1b1b1, also called E-M35.  I and many others believe that the Calhouns in E-M35 are the direct patrilineal descendants of Humphrey of Kilpatrick, later of Colquhoun, 13^th century founder of the Calhoun family.  In my previous post, I outlined the evidence for this, the main points being that (1) the common patrilineal ancestor of the E-M35 Calhouns lived around the time that Humphrey did, and (2) some of their closest genetic relatives, connecting shortly before Humphrey’s time, are named Kilpatrick or Kirkpatrick, consistent with a 13^th century name change from Kilpatrick to Colquhoun.  I want to devote this post to the E-M35 Calhouns not only because it is Humphrey’s haplogroup and bears on the origin of the family, but also, more selfishly, because it’s the haplogroup of my own Calhoun ancestors.

In fact, the SNP M35 that defines haplogroup E-M35 is more than 25,000 years old, so the Calhouns represent only a minuscule fraction of all E-M35 men alive today.  It is more precise to refer to these Calhouns as belonging to E-Y16733, a much more recent haplogroup, which at about 1,300 years old predates the surname era by just a few centuries.  It includes all of the E-M35 Calhouns and their Kilpatrick relatives, and very few others.

The SNPs that occurred between M35 and Y16733 tell us about the migration patterns of ancestors from prehistoric times until about 700 CE, while the SNPs that occurred after Y16733 tell us more specifically about the origins and the structure of the Calhoun family, in some cases revealing important genealogical information.  Some of the SNPs in the ancestry of the E-M35 Calhouns include the following, from oldest to youngest:

SNP	Age (YA)	TMRCA (YA)	Likely Place of Origin
M35	34,000	25,000	Ethiopia
M78	20,000	14,000	Egypt
V13	8750	5075	Between Anatolia and Kosovo
BY3880	4250	4200	Kosovo?
Y16729	4200	4100	Eastern Europe?
Y16721	4100	4000	Europe?
Y16733	1325	975	Britain or Flanders?
BY5775	925	725	Scotland, in the Kilpatrick or Calhoun family
FT350465	725	575	Scotland, in the Calhoun family
FT32806	725	675	Scotland, in the Calhoun family
BY5778	725	475	Scotland, in the Calhoun or McCarter family

YA = years ago. TMRCA = time to most recent common ancestor. Ages and TMRCA are based on estimates from FTDNA Discover; alternative estimates can be found at YFull. Places of origin of SNPs are usually more difficult to determine than ages, and these are my best guesses based on recent studies.

Migration of Calhoun family’s Ancestors in ancient times

The places and ages of formation of these SNPs tell the story of the migration of the Calhouns’ patrilineal ancestors from prehistoric times.  The story begins about 34,000 years ago in the Horn of Africa, likely in the modern country of Ethiopia, where M35 occurred in an ancient ancestor.  By 20,000-25,000 years ago, his descendants had moved north into what is now Egypt, where M78 formed.  As climate conditions changed, some M78 descendants returned to the Horn of Africa, while others, including our ancestors, continued north, crossing out of Africa into the Middle East.  This northern migration of M78 individuals is associated with the spread of Afroasiatic languages (from which modern languages like Arabic, Hebrew, and many others arise).

Sometime around 9,000 years ago, Neolithic people bearing the SNP M78 entered Europe from Anatolia.  They had by this time adopted a farming lifestyle, and as they entered Europe, they displaced or absorbed the existing hunter-gatherer populations.  Somewhere between Anatolia and the Balkans in Europe, V13 formed in an M78 descendant.  Haplogroup E-V13 has been a particularly interesting topic for scientific study because (1) it is the only E-M35 lineage that exists primarily outside of Africa today, and (2) it is associated with the first wave of farmers in Europe, predating the Indo-Europeans by several millennia.  V13 reaches its highest frequencies in the Balkans (particularly in the modern-day region of Kosovo), Greece, and parts of Italy.  Its frequency diminishes significantly as one moves north and west from the Balkans.

Frequency of haplogroup E-V13 based on the data set of Cruciani et al (2007). (Source: “HgE1b1b1a2.png” by Hxseek. Creative Commons license CC BY 3.0.)

Just over 4,000 years ago, three SNPs in the Calhouns’ specific ancestry––BY3880, Y16729, and Y16721––occurred in rapid succession and may have been associated with the migration of V13 people out of the Balkans.  BY3880 descendants live in many places throughout Europe, Russia, and the Middle East.  Interestingly, Y16729 has only two known descendant lineages, one primarily in the Arabian Peninsula, and the other (Y16721) primarily in Scotland.  Y16721 probably arose in continental Europe several millennia before people in that haplogroup arrived in Scotland, and it is possible that most of its descendant lineages outside of Scotland have died out or have yet to be identified.  As far as I can tell, most Y-DNA testers that belong to E-Y16721 also belong to the much more recent haplogroup E-Y16733, which probably formed about 700 CE.

Although V13 is rare in the far west of Europe, it can be found in several pockets in Britain, including the historic regions of Wales, Cumbria, and Strathclyde (now part of Scotland and notably including Dunbartonshire).  How did it get there?  One widely held theory is that it arrived with Roman soldiers from the Balkans who were stationed in Britain starting in 150 CE. (See Steven C. Bird, “Haplogroup E3b1a2 as a possible indicator of settlement in Roman Britain by soldiers of Balkan origin”, 2007).  As the chart “Phylogenetic Tree of Haplogroup E1b1b” at eupedia.com shows, V13 testers in England and Scotland belong not just to Y16721 but to several subgroups of V13 that are distantly related to each other.  While the Roman-soldier theory is plausible, it implies that all of these different V13 lineages arrived in Britain at approximately the same time and all directly from the Balkans, both ideas that are difficult to prove.

Others argue that the various V13 haplotypes in Britain did not all come at the same time but rather via multiple migration events that brought V13-bearing Phoenicians, North Africans, French and Spanish Jews, and other groups to the island.  (See DNA Consultants, “Right pew, wrong church”, 2012).  Perhaps more relevant to the Calhoun family is the possibility that V13 also arrived with Flemish soldiers and mercenaries who came in the wake of the Norman conquest of England in 1066.  (See Rick Sinnott, “Synnott history: a compendium”, 2020).  Some of these Flemings were stationed in Wales, and it is possible that others were recruited to the fledgling feudal aristocracy of Scotland established by King David I (see my earlier blog post).  While V13 and BY3880 have been identified in modern Flemish testers in FTDNA’s Flanders & Flemish DNA Project, subgroups Y16721 and Y16733 have not.  However, the current sample size is extremely small.

Genetics of the E-Y16733 Calhouns in the Genealogical Era

The common ancestor of E-Y16733 testers lived shortly before the adoption of surnames in Scotland, and so this haplogroup and its descendants are of genealogical relevance.  Of the more than 100 Y-DNA testers in the Calhoun Surname Project who belong to E-Y16733, more than 60 have taken the Big Y (comprehensive SNP) test.  The accompanying tree summarizes the relationships of these 60 based on their terminal haplogroups and information about some of their earliest known paternal ancestors.

We got extremely lucky with the timing of formation of two particular SNPs in this group.  The first is Y16733 itself, which includes both Calhouns and Kilpatricks, but very few others.  Because it dates from roughly 700-1050 CE, shortly before the surname era, it is safe to assume that people in this group who share the same surname do so because they inherited it from a common ancestor with that name.  The second is the more recent SNP BY5775, which dates from roughly 1100-1300 CE and neatly separates the Calhouns from the Kilpatricks.  All E-Y16733 Calhouns who have tested so far are positive for BY5775, while all Kilpatricks are negative.  This observation is consistent with the idea that the Calhoun name was first adopted by a man named Kilpatrick prior to 1300 CE.  From the historical record, we know this man to have been Humphrey of Kilpatrick, who adopted the Colquhoun name around 1240 CE.  <Mic drop!>

In addition to Kilpatrick, the surnames Welch/Welsh, McClelland, and a few others appear among the deep branches of the E-Y16733 tree.  These may have come about from NPEs within the Kilpatrick family, or they could connect to the Kilpatricks and Calhouns prior to the surname era.  At present, there is not enough data to resolve the relationships of these deep branches to each other.

All of the BY5775 testers belong to one of three subgroups, two of which (FT350465 and FT32806) include only Calhouns, while the third (BY5778) includes only members of the McCarter family.  While it seems likely that the McCarter group are the biological descendants of a Calhoun (or, less likely, a Kilpatrick) ancestor, acquiring the McCarter name through an NPE that occurred sometime between 1300 and 1550, there is no way to know at present.  In addition, there is not yet enough data to resolve the relationships between the three subgroups of BY5775.  I will therefore focus on the two Calhoun subgroups, which split from each other between 1300 and 1350, very early in the history of the family.

E-FT350465 includes Calhoun testers of diverse backgrounds.  Some are descendants of Ulster Scots from Ireland, while others are descendants of Scots who as far as we know never moved to Ireland.  Several are known to have been Anglicans, while others were Presbyterians.  Some were wealthy landowners while others were poorer tenants.  It is clear that among the ancestors of this group were at least five Calhouns who independently moved from Scotland to Ireland in the 17^th century.  Notably, this group includes the landowning Colhoun family of Crosh, County Tyrone, Ireland whose supposed pedigree was published by Charles Croslegh in 1904.

E-FT32806 likewise includes some testers with Irish (Ulster Scot) ancestry and others with Scottish ancestry.  However, most if not all appear to have been Presbyterian in the 18^th century, and there are no known landowning families in their ancestry.  One subgroup of FT32806, FTA41789, includes relatives of Vice President John C. Calhoun and other Calhoun families who settled in Abbeville County, South Carolina in the 1700s.  At least two ancestors within this group independently moved from Scotland to Ireland in the 17th century.

Tree of haplogroups of E-Y16733 Big Y testers as of April 2023. SNPs are labeled with red dots, placed at TMRCA. Testers are described with surname and place of origin of earliest ancestor, colored in red for Calhoun surnames, blue for Kilpatrick surnames, and gray for others. Those known to have originated in Ireland labeled with green flags, and those in Scotland with the Scottish flag (blue). Green screen marks the period of Ulster settlement by Scots, ca. 1625-1700. Groups of testers who could be descended from a common settler of Ireland have the green flag column boxed in light green.

E-Y16733 and the colquhoun of luss lineage

An important question that many Calhoun testers ask is how they might be related to the Colquhouns of Colquhoun and Luss, the “senior line” of the Calhoun family in Scotland whose pedigree, worked out by William Fraser, stretches back to Humphrey of Kilpatrick in the 13^th century.  Unfortunately, the answer at present is, “we don’t know.”  The reason we don’t know is that we have no point of reference in the genetic tree more recent than Humphrey of Kilpatrick himself, who is the ancestor not only of the Luss line but of all other Calhouns in E-Y16733.  The specific male line of the Luss family that began with Humphrey of Kilpatrick in 1240 ended in 1718 with the death of Humphrey Colquhoun of Luss, 5^th Baronet. 

The only guess I would hazard to make based on the genetic data is that FT350465 probably hews more closely to the Luss lineage than FT32806.  The Colquhouns of Luss were upper-class landowners in Scotland, and FT350465 includes two upper-class landowning Colhoun families from Ireland, one from Crosh, County Tyrone and the other from Taughboyne, County Donegal.  Money begets money, as they say.

I and many other researchers have been working to build an evidence-based pedigree between a living Calhoun and someone from the pre-1718 Luss lineage that can serve as a “gold standard,” a frame of reference for all E-Y16733 Y-DNA testers.  However, to my knowledge this has not yet been accomplished.  I hope this blog will contribute to that effort in some way.

*****

Once again, special thanks to Paul Calhoun for critical reading of this post and helpful edits.

*****

© 2023 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

Calhouns and the Y-Chromosome

Many members of the Calhoun family have participated in genealogical genetic testing, particularly Y-DNA testing.  This is the first of two posts that I wanted to devote to what we have learned from these results so far.  Most people participate in genealogical genetic testing because they want to learn something about their own personal ancestry.  However, the crowd-sourced nature of comparative genetics means that everyone’s individual results also tell us something about testers as a population, in this case the Calhoun family.  The conclusions I draw here can and probably will change as more family members participate and we develop an ever clearer picture of the family’s structure.  Although we have learned a lot already, I would encourage all Calhoun family members to join in this effort, whether you know a lot about your own ancestry or not.

Y-DNA Genetic Testing

Modern genealogists and family historians have two parallel tracks of evidence available to them.  One is a paper trail of historical documents, often supplemented with oral history and tradition, stating personal relationships between people.  The other is genetic testing results, which provide evidence of biological relationships between people.  These two tracks provide complementary information, and each can sometimes help to overcome roadblocks in the other.

There are several types of genealogical genetic testing, but Y-DNA testing, which looks only at the Y-chromosome, is the type best suited for the study of males with a particular surname.  This is because the Y-chromosome, found only in men, is passed nearly unchanged from father to son, in the same way that surnames are typically passed down in Western societies.  I say “nearly” unchanged because it does undergo occasional changes (mutations), and these minor differences allow us to compare testers to one another and estimate when their most recent common patrilineal ancestor may have lived.  In general, Y-DNA of men who are more closely related will have fewer differences than those of men who are more distantly related.  Two kinds of mutations are commonly examined for genealogical purposes:  short tandem repeats (STRs) and single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs).  For further information on how Y-DNA testing works and what the terminology is, a good resource is the ISOGG wiki page on Y-DNA tests.

The Y-chromosome is passed from father to son (green path). Y-chromosomes and surnames are usually co-inherited, in this case the Calhoun surname and a Y-DNA chromosome belonging to haplogroup E. (Modified from Marc McDermott, originally posted at https://www.genealogyexplained.com/dna-testing/y-dna-test/.)

At present, the company that does the most genealogical Y-DNA testing and has the largest match database is FamilyTreeDNA (FTDNA).  FTDNA offers both STR testing and comprehensive SNP testing, the latter via a relatively new test called “Big Y”.  In contrast with STR mutations, which change back and forth between states relatively frequently, SNP mutations are very stable, meaning once one occurs, it is unlikely that it will later change back to its original state.  This means the Big Y test provides more accurate results than STR testing alone.  However, it is more difficult to perform:  while STR tests only need to examine a relatively small number of predetermined locations on the Y-chromosome, comprehensive SNP tests like Big Y require a more open-ended search that interrogates hundreds of thousands of locations, not only determining the states of previously known SNPs but also looking for new ones. 

Surnames and Y-DNa

The earliest heritable surnames in Britain are just under 1,000 years old.  When two men whose most recent patrilineal common ancestor lived less than 1,000 years ago share the same surname, the simplest explanation is that their common ancestor had that surname, with both men inheriting it by unbroken patrilineal descent.  When two men whose most recent patrilineal common ancestor lived more than 1,000 years ago share the same surname, it is not by common inheritance, and several alternative explanations are possible.  Some examples:

• The surname was acquired independently by several founders in early medieval times, and each man has inherited the name from a different founder.
• At some point in the ancestry of at least one of the men, the surname was acquired from an adoptive father, not a biological one.
• At some point in the ancestry of at least one of the men, the biological father was not the mother’s husband.
• At some point in the ancestry of at least one of the men, the surname was acquired from the mother (perhaps because she was unmarried), not from the father.

In the first example above, each independently founded family with the same surname would be of comparable age, resulting in––theoretically, at least––comparable numbers of modern male-line descendants.  The last three examples above are referred to in genetic genealogy as non-paternity events (NPEs), and they can occur anytime between the early medieval period when surnames were first acquired and the present day.  Generally speaking, the more recent the NPE, the fewer the number of possible descendants in the present day.

The calhoun Surname project

Because Y-DNA tests are so often used to study ancestry within a surname group, FTDNA hosts client-administered research projects for many surnames.  One of these is the Calhoun Surname Project, which as of this writing has 416 members, roughly 250 of whom have posted Y-DNA testing results for comparison.  Of the 250 tests, roughly 100 include Big Y SNP profiling.  Because Big Y is newer and more expensive than STR tests, fewer people have taken it, but the numbers are growing, and I would encourage any Calhouns who are considering testing for the first time, or who have only taken STR tests, to take or upgrade to Big Y.

The Calhoun testers fall into several Y-DNA genetic groups (haplogroups) that are for all intents and purposes unrelated to each other.  (In other words, with common paternal ancestry long before the surname era.)  As of this writing, the Calhoun Surname Project identifies 8 haplogroups that include more than one tester with the name Calhoun, at least one of whom has tested to 111 STR markers or more.  The following table shows, for each of these 8 groups, the haplogroup name (as per the Project), the number of testers to date, and a description of the group members:

Group	Size	Members
E1b1b1	107	Calhouns, Kilpatricks, McCarters from Scotland, Ireland, America, and elsewhere.  Common haplogroup of the Calhouns and McCarters BY5775 (ca. 1100 CE).
R1b1a2_A	12	Mostly descendants of Samuel, son of William Cahoon (1633-1675), Scottish prisoner transported to Massachusetts.  Possible haplogroup BY76688 (ca. 1550 CE).
R1b1a2_C	12	Mostly descendants of William Cahoon (1633-1675), Scottish prisoner transported to Massachusetts, by various sons.  No Big Y testers.
R1b1a2_N	5	Calhouns with Irish roots.
R1a1_A	4	Colquhoun family from Argyll, Scotland, including descendants of Archibald Colquhoun (1758-1839) and Mary McCorquodale, and Malcolm Colquhoun (1767-1823) and Christian McCorquodale.
R1b1a2_G	3	Calhouns with Scottish roots.
R1b1a2_M	3	Stated descendants of Patrick Calhoun Sr., grandfather of US Vice President John C. Calhoun.  (Others of his descendants belong to E1b1b1.)
J2	2	Samuel Colhoun of Ireland and his son John Colhoun (1845-1916) of Trinidad and Tobago.

Note that one of these haplogroups, E1b1b1, is more than twice as large as all of the others combined.  I suggest that this haplogroup represents the Y-DNA lineage of Humphrey of Kilpatrick, 13^th century founder of the Calhoun family, for several reasons:

• It includes by far the largest number of testers, suggesting it has the most descendants today and is therefore the oldest of the groups above. (However, there are alternative explanations for this.)
• The SNP common to all Calhouns in this group, BY5775, is believed to have arisen about 1100 CE, give or take a couple of centuries, which is consistent with the adoption of the Colquhoun name by Humphrey of Kilpatrick around 1240 CE.
• It includes Calhouns from many families, from Scotland, Ireland, America, and elsewhere, suggesting it predates the dispersion of the family from its Scottish homeland.
• Some of the closest genetic relatives of the Calhouns within this group have variants of the name Kilpatrick, which is consistent with a name change from Kilpatrick to Colquhoun by Humphrey.

All the other haplogroups above are much smaller, and the common ancestors of the Calhouns in each appear to be much more recent, than in E1b1b1. This suggests that all of the other seven groups above originated with breaks in the co-inheritance of Y-DNA and surname from the original lineage, i.e., NPEs.

Result of an NPE (break in the co-inheritance of Y-chromosome and surname). In this case the result of the NPE is a man inheriting his mother’s Calhoun surname but his biological father’s Y-chromosome haplogroup R. His Y-DNA genetic matches would be to the Smith family. (Modified from Marc McDermott, originally posted at https://www.genealogyexplained.com/dna-testing/y-dna-test/.)

The fact that there is only one haplogroup with both a large number of testers and common ancestry in or before the 13^th century supports the idea that the Colquhoun name was adopted only once in medieval times, by a single individual.  Based on the data we have now, no other Calhoun haplogroups are as old as the 15^th century, which is when some Scottish commoners began adopting the surnames of their clan chiefs.  In my earlier post about the origin of the Calhoun family, I stated that I saw little or no evidence of this practice within the Colquhoun clan, at least on a wide scale, and this is why.  Of course there are many assumptions in this hypothesis, including “every male founder has a comparable number of patrilineal descendants”, “there is no bias in who decides to take a Y-DNA test”, etc.  I recognize this, but it’s the best I can do for now, and I welcome any comments.

*****

Thanks to Marc McDermott for kind permission to use and modify his figure, and once again, special thanks to Paul Calhoun for critical reading of this post and helpful edits.

*****

© 2023 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

The “Big Four” Sources in Calhoun History and Genealogy

The Calhoun family is now about 800 years old, and it has been remarkably prolific, with many thousands of members living today.  This also means there are many people interested in the its history and genealogy, and much has been published in the last 150 years or so.  I am fortunate to live near one of the largest family history libraries in the US.  Not long ago I paid a visit, and I found there were roughly a dozen books on the Calhoun family on the shelves, not even counting manuscripts and books about other families that also touched on the Calhouns.  Many of these were specific to American families by the names Calhoun, Cahoon, Cahoone, etc., but some reached back to the family’s origins in Scotland and residence in Ireland as well.

For those of us in America, the Irish branches of the family, established in the 1600s thanks to the Ulster Plantation and other migration events that brought Scots to Ulster, are of outsized importance.  During the 1700s, many immigrants came to America directly from Scotland, but they were outnumbered nearly two-to-one by their Ulster Scot cousins coming from Ireland.  The ancestry of American Calhouns as a whole, therefore, is biased towards those family branches that were established in Ireland during the 1600s.

I would assert that, of all the various works that have been published about the Calhoun family, four have been especially influential on American Calhoun researchers, genealogists, and historians.  Each of these secondary sources has its own area of focus as well as its own strengths and weaknesses.  I call these the “Big Four” of Calhoun research.

Fraser

The first of the four is The Chiefs of Colquhoun and Their Country, a two-volume set by William Fraser, published in 1869 in Edinburgh.  When it comes to expertise in Scottish history and genealogy, Sir William N. Fraser (1816-1898) was the real deal.  He was a Scottish solicitor (lawyer) who early in his career became involved with a number of cases requiring antiquarian and genealogical research, so he developed a high degree of expertise in this field.  Using this expertise, he eventually wrote histories of 20 or 30 of the most notable families in Scotland.  As far as I know, he was not a Colquhoun by relation, but we are very fortunate that the Colquhouns were among the families he chose to write about.  He was eventually knighted for his contributions (becoming Knight Commander of the Bath), and the University of Edinburgh established in his honor the Sir William Fraser Chair of Scottish History and Palaeography, which continues to this day.

An expert in deciphering medieval manuscripts, Fraser notes his primary sources for the Colquhoun books as family records of the Luss family held at Rossdhu, records from the Duke of Montrose, records of the Camstradden family held by Sir Robert Gilmour Colquhoun of Fincastle, and personal recollections of Sir James Colquhoun, 26^th/28^th of Luss.  The first volume covers the history of the Luss lineage of the family, and the second volume covers the cadet branches of the family as well as descriptions of the Colquhoun family’s territories and transcriptions of medieval charters.

Even a cursory reading of Fraser’s books reveals the thoroughness of his research and the quality of his genealogical work.  Original sources are not only referred to and referenced but quoted directly; these include letters, wills, land deeds, legal documents, and other materials.  As he was a legally trained scholar, his writing is not prone to hyperbole but rather sticks to the facts as he saw them.  I have found what I think are a few minor errors in Fraser’s work, so I believe it is not perfect, but for the most part I accept his pedigrees of the senior Scottish Colquhoun families at face value.

You may recall me complaining in my first blog post about the need to carefully examine derivative sources (of which Fraser is one), so isn’t this acceptance hypocritical of me?  Yeah, kinda.  However, for the time being I am content to use Fraser’s pedigrees because (1) I trust the quality of his research since he typically cites original sources when drawing his conclusions, (2) it would be very difficult for me to access and double check many of the family sources he used (and in the case of older medieval documents, to even understand or transcribe them), and (3) I have not yet been able to bridge the documentary gap in the male line between the last patrilineal descendants of Humphrey of Kilpatrick described by Fraser and the present day, so it is a case of “I’ll cross that bridge when I come to it.”  (The importance of this male line will hopefully become more apparent in a future post on the genetics of the Calhoun family.)

From the standpoint of my own research, the main “weakness” of Fraser is that it focuses solely on the senior Scottish lineages of the family and relies only on source material in Scotland.  The first point is forgivable, since that was his stated intent in writing the books, but the second point means that he missed those biographical details of the family members he covered that pertained to their life and property in Ireland.  In the 1600s, some members of the Luss and other senior Scottish Colquhoun families acquired property in Ireland and/or migrated there, either temporarily or permanently, and yet there is almost no mention of any of this in his work.  This is truly unfortunate, since at the time Fraser was doing his research, many Irish legal documents existed that have since been lost to us forever.  Nonetheless, I’m grateful for the work he left us.

Freely available online: Fraser vol. 1

Freely available online: Fraser vol. 2

Croslegh

The full title of the second source is Descent and Alliances of Croslegh, or Crossle, or Crossley, of Scaitcliffe; and Caddington, of Oldbridge; and Evans, of Eyton Hall, by Charles Croslegh, published in London in 1904.  In this book, there is an extensive chapter on the Calhoun family spanning pages 183-228, and a small chapter on the related McCausland family on pages 229-233.  Charles Croslegh, D.D. (1839-1923), born in Newlands, County Tyrone, Ireland, was the grandson of Letitia (Colhoun) Crossle, hence his interest in the Calhoun family.  He was an Episcopal priest who served a number of parishes in Ireland and England over the course of his career, last serving as vicar at Bradninch, Devon, England from 1897-1917.

Like Fraser, Croslegh was a scholarly man, and in his book’s Preface, he provides a huge list of sources, both personal contacts and documentary sources, that he used during his research.  Furthermore, his referencing throughout the rest of the book is so extensive that even his endnotes have footnotes!  Despite all of this, it is sometimes unclear as to which sources underlie which statements or conclusions.  His pedigree of the Calhouns begins with the first 15 generations of the Luss lineage, from Humphrey of Kilpatrick to Alexander Colquhoun, 15^th/17^th of Luss, taken unchanged from Fraser.

Two elements of Croslegh’s work have had a lasting influence on subsequent researchers of the Calhoun family.  The first is his proposed connection of the Luss lineage to one specific branch of the Irish Colhouns.  Right or wrong, Croslegh was probably the first historian of the family to make such a connection, and it provides a means for Calhouns of Irish extraction to attempt to trace themselves back to the family’s 13^th century Scottish founder.  The specific branch of the Irish Colhouns for whom he made this connection was a landowning family that lived at Crosh, County Tyrone and happened to be the family of his grandmother Letitia.  Solid pedigrees of Irish families from the 17^th and 18^th centuries are exceedingly rare, which leads to the second lasting influence of Croslegh’s work:  a sampling bias toward this family that has affected many later researchers.  As researchers have attempted to trace their own Irish Calhoun ancestors back to the 17^th and 18^th centuries, the Crosh pedigree originating with Croslegh is often the only one to be found, so many people “force” their own lineages to connect to it in the absence of evidence.

Croslegh was an excellent researcher, and he no doubt did the best he could with the source material available to him.  Nonetheless, the critical part of the pedigree connecting the Crosh Colhouns of Ireland to the Luss Colquhouns of Scotland is poorly sourced.  Croslegh admits to this in places, but many subsequent researchers of the family have stripped out all of his caveats and accepted his pedigree without question.  I have often wondered whether Croslegh left any research notes that might provide greater explanation, but I have yet to make inquiries at Bradninch as to where such notes, if they exist, might be held.  It’s on my “to do” list.  I hope to explore the critical connection between Ireland and Scotland posed by Croslegh in a future post.

Like Fraser, Croslegh worked at a time (pre-1922) when many more Irish records survived than they do now.  Also like Fraser, he seems to have done surprisingly little research in the archives of Ireland.  Instead, many of the critical primary source documents he used (wills, leases, letters, etc.) were “in the possession of private families” that were not specified.  He did enumerate many newspapers, periodicals, books, and British Library manuscripts, and he notes as well that he “searched parochial and diocesan registers in England, and in Ireland,” some of which might have been lost in 1922.  Finally, he mentions numerous human sources of information on the Calhoun family and these include his cousins William Colhoun of Toronto and James Colhoun of Alabama (son and grandson of Charles Colhoun of Sixmilecross; see footnotes 45 and 46 on p. 224), Charles Alexander Colhoun (grandson of Charles; see footnote 49 on pp. 225-226), and William Wilson Hanna (grandson of Charles; see footnotes 41 and 42 on pp. 223-224), as well as Captain John C. Calhoun (grandson of the US Vice President; see p. 192).

Freely available online: Croslegh

McPherson

The third source, perhaps less well known than the others but definitely valuable, is Calhoun, Hamilton, Baskin, and Related Families, by Lewin D. McPherson, originally published privately in 1957 but reprinted in 2021 by Hassell Street Press.  Lewin Dwinell McPherson (1876-1964) was a corporate attorney by trade, but he was also an avid genealogist, as was his wife, Hannah Elizabeth Weir.  Over the course of decades, the two of them published several books about their ancestral families, including this one, written when Lewin was 81.  He claims descent from 3x-great-grandparents Archibald Hamilton and Frances Calhoun, hence his interest in the Calhoun family. Both Archibald and Frances were born in Ireland about 1705, immigrated to America about 1733, and later migrated to Augusta Co., VA.  Frances’s ancestry is not documented, but based on religion, migration patterns, and proximity, researchers have suggested that she was a close relative of Patrick Calhoun Sr. (ca. 1683-1741), the grandfather of US Vice President John C. Calhoun.  McPherson (p. 451) cites several sources of family tradition as stating in fact that Patrick Sr. and Frances were brother and sister.

The first thing any reader of this book (at least in its original 1957 printing) will notice is that it is dense, both in terms of content and layout.  It is set in a two-column typewritten format with virtually no whitespace on the pages and no separation between sections, so it can be exhausting to try to read through.  (He doesn’t even waste paper on a full title page!)  However, it is rewarding for those who do, since McPherson packed an extraordinary amount of information into his book, and it is meticulously sourced.  His footnotes come in the form of numerals in the right hand of each column, and they refer to a list of sources that can be found on pp. 353-365.  This reference list is followed by a geographical index (pp. 366-379) and a personal names index (pp. 380-446) of some 24,000 people, including 2,300 Calhouns.

McPherson devoted a significant portion of the book, unsurprisingly, to those Calhouns he knew or believed to be his kin:  descendants of Patrick Calhoun Sr. and Catherine Montgomery (pp. 8-77), and of Frances Calhoun and Archibald Hamilton (pp. 133-208).  However, he also included information about numerous other Calhoun families whose relationship to him was less certain, compiled as the “First Appendix––Calhoun Section” on pp. 78-114.  A postscript to the book (pp. 451 and 453-454) provides a more specific list of these families and the page numbers on which they appear.

Much if not all of McPherson’s research appears to have been conducted in the US using a combination of primary sources, books and articles, and correspondence from other family researchers. His extensive reference list, which includes the names of individuals who supplied information to him as well as the specific primary and secondary sources that he relied on, is invaluable.  Much of the family lore that underlies Calhoun family trees constructed today––some of which I will try to address in this blog––originates with tradition passed down in American Calhoun families, and by identifying the specific letters, manuscripts, and individuals who supplied him with information prior to publication in 1957, McPherson enables us to begin tracing the origins of some of those traditions. Even if for this reason alone, McPherson is a fantastic resource.

Freely available online: McPherson

Orval calhoun (OCF)

Dominating the shelf of the genealogy library is the massive set entitled 800 Years of Colquhoun, Colhoun, Calhoun, and Cahoon Family History in Ireland, Scotland, England, United States of America, Australia and Canada by Orval O. Calhoun, published in 4 volumes between 1976 and 1991.  (The title is a mouthful, so it is often called Our Calhoun Family [OCF] for short.) Orval O. Calhoun (1905-1993) of Cobourg, Ontario, Canada spent at least 18 years of his retirement assembling this history of the family, and it is truly a monumental achievement.  Rather than being restricted to a specific lineage like Luss (Fraser vol. 1), Crosh (Croslegh), or Patrick Calhoun Sr. and his sister (McPherson), Orval’s books include all Calhoun lineages about which he had found or was given information, regardless of their country of residence.  Orval’s own lineage comes from John Colhoun (d. 1853) and his wife, Catherine McIlmurray, of Castletown, County Tyrone, Ireland.  He posits that this John was one and the same as John (b. 1779), the son of Charles Colhoun of Sixmilecross, which if true would make him a close cousin of Croslegh.

Orval’s text strikes a markedly different tone than Fraser’s or Croslegh’s.  For the most part, especially in volume 1, he provides no sources or citations to back up specific facts, and when he does mention sources, it is only in an indefinite way, not connected to any specific conclusion.  (For example, OCF vol. 2 p. 17 lists numerous sources, including “Various Family Bibles, Diaries & Unknown Manuscripts located in Ireland since 1976.”)  This makes it impossible to retrace his steps and generally difficult to separate fact from conjecture from fiction.  Another blogger said it well:

Orval was not a professional genealogist, and he worked from a lot of secondary sources that he had no way of authenticating.  The book should be read primarily as a compilation and narrative rather than as hard-nosed research, though there is some of that.  Many people use the book as their only research, which is a mistake.  As Orval himself pointed out, the book should be a starting point for further research.

Bill Calhoun (http://calhoun-mcknight.blogspot.com/2010/05/colhouns-of-donegal.html)

Orval does state that he performed some original research himself, particularly in Ireland (see for example, OCF vol. 1, p. 30).  Because this research was done between the 1960s and 1990s (in other words, in the post-1922 era), nearly all of the Irish documents that would have been available to him should still be out there and available to us.  I can tell from his text that he discovered most of the primary sources that I have uncovered in my own research, even when he did not reference them explicitly.  This is remarkable, since his research was conducted in the pre-internet age, when records were much harder to obtain and fewer were indexed.  However, he often mentions more exact dates, additional children, personal details, and deeper pedigrees than I have been able to glean from those sources.  As far as my cursory reading of his books has gone, nowhere does he point me to a primary source that would substantiate any of this “additional” information.  Although Croslegh’s research notes have not been located, Orval’s survive and are currently in the possession of an American Calhoun.  I have been told by that owner that much of the notes comprises personal correspondence with family members, but I am hoping that some of them point to primary sources that I have not yet found.

Despite this concern, the pedigrees in Orval’s books now underlie many of the Calhoun family trees posted on the internet, whether the posters know it or not.  Worth noting is that Orval took Croslegh’s somewhat tentative connection between the Colquhouns of Luss and the Colhouns of Crosh in Ireland (also mentioned in passing in McPherson) and not only accepted it without question but expanded on it, adding numerous additional descendants from the early generations in Ireland.  For instance, he increased the number of children of Rev. Alexander Colhoun of Crosh from four (Croslegh, p. 191) to twelve (OCF vol. 1, p. 28), including among his new entries the Patrick Calhoun Sr. (as “James Patrick Calhoun”) and Frances Calhoun covered by McPherson.

I remain skeptical of those portions of the information from both Croslegh and Orval that lack a solid foundation.  Regarding Orval’s pedigrees, my general strategy is to use them as a guide for further research but to assume nothing is confirmed until I have some corroborating evidence.  It is clear from Orval’s passion for the subject that he enjoyed research as much as I do, so I would like to think he would not take offense at this approach.

Not available online; however, some helpful indexes and information can be found here: OCF

*****

Special thanks to Paul Calhoun for critical reading of this post and helpful edits.

*****

© 2023 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

In Search of the Calhouns

I’ve been researching my own ancestors for many years now. One ancestor who has always particularly fascinated me is Mary Calhoon, who was born near Cookstown, Northern Ireland and immigrated to the US as a teenager in the 1880s.  As an Irish Protestant with a Scottish name, Mary was undoubtedly a descendant of a Scottish man named Colquhoun who settled in the northern Irish province of Ulster sometime in the 1600s.  My search for Mary’s ancestors has led me to explore the Calhoun family, particularly those in Ireland, more broadly.

Mary Calhoon (1870-1900)

I’m certainly not the first person to do this, and there are plenty of other books, articles, blogs, and websites out there on the topic of the Calhoun family.  So why should I add another one?  Two reasons.  The first is that the story of this family is complicated, and I’m hoping that putting together posts on specific topics will help me clarify my thoughts and put my own research on as solid a footing as I can.  Although I’m doing it for myself, perhaps this exercise might prove useful to others also.

The second is that others out there might be in possession of a missing piece that could help solve a puzzle.  The most important thing that could come out of this blog is a reader’s contribution of evidence that I have not found, and I certainly hope that happens.  If you have evidence or source material that bears upon something I say––whether it proves me right or wrong––by all means let me know.

Throughout the course of this blog, I will try to explain why I think the way I do, and to back up my statements with evidence from source documents.  Not all sources are created equal, and I believe it is important to assess not only what a source is saying, but how likely it is to be correct.  Was it written around the time an event occurred?  Was the source’s author likely to have had first-hand knowledge of the events?  Is it derivative of other sources?  Did the author have any motive to embellish or fabricate?  These are all important questions that lead to a better understanding of our Calhoun ancestors and their lives.

As with any family that has been around as long as the Calhouns have, there is a lot of unsubstantiated family lore that is rarely questioned in any serious way.  It is my hope that this blog will do just that. Some of this family lore may end up being supported by evidence, some may be refuted, and some may not be addressed by evidence at all, in which case there is no reason to think it is either correct or incorrect. 

I believe that most of us who develop a passion for genealogy and family history do so because we want to discover and understand our ancestors. Whether my own ancestors were rich or poor, famous or obscure, they were the real-life forebears who made me who I am, and I feel I would be doing a disservice to them if I did not make every effort to get their names and their stories correct.  I’m guessing that most of you feel the same way and would like to set the record straight.  So let the search begin, and let’s see where it leads.

*****

ABOUT THE AUTHOR, Brian Anton.  I’m an amateur genealogist and have been researching my own roots since the 1990s.  While I’m not a professional, I do like to get the story right, and I hope my efforts help others as well.  The Calhouns are just some of my ancestors, but due to the depth of their history and the rich sources of information about them that have survived the centuries, they have been especially interesting to me.  While I’d like to think I have learned something about genealogy, I’m completely out of my depth when it comes to publishing on the web, so bear with me!

*****

Special thanks to Paul Calhoun for critical reading of this post and helpful edits.

*****

© 2023 Brian Anton. All rights reserved.

*****

Archives

• May 2024
• April 2024
• February 2024
• January 2024
• December 2023
• November 2023
• October 2023
• September 2023
• August 2023
• July 2023
• June 2023
• May 2023

Most Recent Posts

• The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 3: Scottish Origins
• The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 2: The McCausland Connection
• The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 1: The First Generations in Ireland
• The Colhouns of the Irish Gentry
• The Manor of Corkagh: Part 2 of 2