Mackenzie Baronets, of Scatwell

[Robert Jewell]

I've come across this problem and hope someone has better sources than I. This sort of thing bugs me.

Sir Lewis Mackenzie of Scatwell, 3rd Baronet, had at least three sons:

My reference sources show problems with the birthdates:

Sir Roderick Mackenzie, 4th Baronet, born about 1740 - descended from him are the 5th and 6th Baronets

Colin Mackenzie, born 1749 - descended from him are the 7th, 8th, and 9th Baronets

George Mackenzie, born 1748 - descended from him are the presumed 10th, 11th, and 12th Baronets

Does anyone see the problem, and have a source for clarification?

No one seems to have noticed this. Burkes has these dates. Succession of George's progeny was too late for the Complete Baronetcy.

[bx...@yahoo.com]

Robert,  I was looking at Debrett's Online, and here is the descent as I understand it:

The second through the six baronets all descend from father to son,  but  there is a bit of wrinkle  with the seventh baronet.  His father is Lewis and his grandfather is Colin (b. 1742), who is the second son of the 3rd baronet and a younger brother of the 4th baronet.  The descent then continues with the 8th baronet (son of the 7th) and the 9th baronet (son of the 8th and grandson of the 7th).

After the 9th baronet, things get a little confusing.  Looking back to the 3rd baronet, besides the 4th baronet and Colin (the grandfather of the 7th baronet), there is a younger son named George (b. 1749).  George had a son named John (b. 1779).  It is through John's 2 sons, John (b. 1820) and Francois (b. 1823) that we get the 10th thru the 12th (current) baronets.  John (b.1820) had a son Edmund (b. 1858) and a grandson Kenneth (b. 1891)  Kenneth is the father of the 10th baronet.

After the death of the 10th baronet, we follow the line of Francois (b. 1823).  He had a son John (b. 1869) who was the father of the 11th baronet and grandfather of the 12th (current) baronet.

So it appears to be as follows, from the 3rd baronet forward:

1. 3rd Baronet

1.1. 4th Baronet (b. 1740)

1.1.1. 5th Baronet

1.1.1.1. 6th Baronet

1.2. Colin (b. 1742)

1.2.1. Lewis (b. 1788)

1.2.1.1. 7th Baronet

1.2.1.1.1. 8th Baronet

1.2.1.1.1.1. 9th Baronet

1.3. George (b. 1749)

1.3.1 John (b. 1779)

1.3.1.1. John (b. 1820)

1.3.1.1.1. Edmund (b. 1858)

1.3.1.1.1.1. Kenneth (b. 1891)

1.3.1.1.1.1.1. 10th Baronet

1.3.1.2. Francois (b. 1823)

1.3.1.2.1. John (b. 1869)

1.3.1.2.1.1. 11th Baronet

1.3.1.2.1.1.1. 12th Baronet (current)

Hope this helps.

Brooke

[Robert Jewell]

That is what the problem was: the printed sources I have gave Colin's birthdate as 1749 (I guess a hand-written 2 could've been mistaken for a 9 ! ) What still bugs me is how Burkes, and other sources could put a son putatively born 1749 before a son born 1748. 

But, thank you. I am content.

Robert

[bx...@yahoo.com]

You're very welcome. 

We would like to think a prime source like Burke's (or Debrett's , for that matter) would be 100% accurate.  Unfortunately, as I found out first hand when working on the project involving how all of the Dukes connected with the Royal Family, I found instances from both of them that just made me scratch my head.    I guess you found just another example.

If only there was a Spellcheck equivalent for situations like this.

Brooke

[dpth...@gmail.com]

There is some mystery in this. Surely Colin was older than George, yet even Cokayne says that Colin died 3 Feb 1814, aged 64. Usually when he says something like that he is taking the age from some official death or burial record. Burke's undoubtedly used the same source, or just took Cokayne's word for it.

[dpth...@gmail.com]

The mystery deepens:

A contemporary source, Gentleman's Magazine (1814) gives Colin's death date as 4 February 1814, at Bath, "in his 66th year".

See attached

Could it be George's birthdate which is wrong?

[Robert Jewell]

Seems like I just threw a blazing frog into the woodpile.

[Robert Jewell]

Just found this on find a Grave: At Bath Abbey

[Robert Jewell]

The Find a Grave page gives his birth as 1747 and sets his age as 66/67

[dpth...@gmail.com]

thanks!

If "in his 66th year", as per Gentleman's Magazine, and also per the gravestone, is correct, then he was born in 1748 or 1749. If "in his 66th year" actually means he was aged 66, then he was born 1747 or 1748. Either way, it seems likely that it is George's birthdate which is wrong and must be late 1749 at the earliest?