I wanted to pose the question to this group: if someone is described
as a tacksman, how safe is it to assume that they are in fact related
to the laird's family ? If a woman receives, for example, "liferent"
in her own name on a laird's land, is it likely that she is a
daughter? Any opinions on this are welcome. Best, Bronwen
Without other evidence, I don't think it's safe to assume
anything about relationships.
The OED defines "tacksman" thus:
"One who holds a tack or lease of land, a watermill, coal-mines,
fisheries, tithes, customs, or anything farmed or leased; a
lessee; esp. in the Highlands, a middleman who leases directly
from the proprietor of the estate a large piece of land which he
sublets in small farms."
Only one of the quotations indicates a relationship:
"1791 T. NEWTE Tour Eng. & Scot. 125 The Tacksmen of the
Highlands were usually descendants of those heads of families of
whom they held their lands."
That example has the word "usually" and it uses the past tense.
Look at the examples in the Dictionary of the Old Scots Tongue.
It's online here: http://www.dsl.ac.uk/dsl/
The headword is spelled Takisman.
There are over sixty examples of the use of the word there. Not
one of them specifically indicates any blood relationship between
the tacksman and the laird.
--
James
Lloyds Encyclopedic Dictionary 1893, says simply:
tacksman
Scots Law: One who holds a tack or lease of land from another; a lessee,
a tenant.
and it quotes:
The Chief must be Colonel: his uncle or his brother must be Major; the
tacksmen, who formed what may be called the peerage of the little
community, must be the Captain. (Macaulay: Hist. Eng., ch. xiii)
Thanks, everyone - all this really clears it up. :) My
interpretation is that the laird's ancestors, family and in-laws may
be the first place to look, but there can be no certainty that a
specific tacksman will be found there. Thanks again - Bronwen