Gerhard,
Let's walk your text through.
"Testament is the collective term used to describe all the documents relating to the executry of a deceased person."
Testament is a collcetive term... All documents... Deceased person. Okay, so somebody died.
Moving on.
"Every testament has an inventory of the dead person's property..."
Yes indeed. How does that differ from today?
"Where there is a will, the document was known as a testament testamentar (the equivalent of English probate). If there was no will, it was called a testament dative (the equivalent of English letters of administration)"......
Or, when there is a will, there is a way.
"For family historians wills can often provide a wealth of detail about family relationships, and about how people lived."
Often is far from always.
"You can hope to find names of family members, their relationships and details of everyday possessions."
You just posited how comprehensive these testaments are, yet one can only hope.
"You may also find details of the debts that they owed at the time of their death."
If you may, you also may not. Either you find them or not. If it is a matter of wishful thinking, it hardly constitutes firm and uniform documentation with no exceptions.
"It is worth remembering, however, that the eldest son in a family will often not be mentioned, because he inherited the heritable property (land and buildings) of his deceased father." ( in Magnus Sinclair's testament dative the eldest son was mentioned)."
What if there is no son? Then the paragraph above bears not much intel.
"As a rule testaments include all living children (testament testamentar or dative)."
Above you said this is wishful thinking. You said also it is a rule that the oldest son is not included in the testament given that he inherits everything By default. So, it is not justified to speak about rules.
This is called "having it both ways." The logic of it does not survive closer inspection.
"I am sure that Janet had many children but only Elsbeth is mentioned in the testament "
You just said it is a rule that everybody be listed in the testament. So It's not a rule, after all?
"We are all children of Odin."
I am not.
"Why did I write this?"
Good question. I honestly don't know.
"Power and politics"
Bold and Beautiful.
"Why did Robert Stewart steal his own clan’s property?"
Because he could?
"Why did several of Marie’s and her second husband’s children leave Scotland to join the Swedish army?"
Because of the Swedish Swimming Bikini Team?
Why did a number of Scottish men / families join the Swedish army? It was not limited to bros Sinclair (whose relationship is false, even though there is a reference which I should read but nobody else should? There is a link posted in the profile... Then the bros are not properly placed in the tree, but I am sure that you are above the facts.
Moving on.
The first family to move to Sweden / Finland was?
Tait / Teit, who moved to Sweden (Finland) already at the times of Birger Jarl (of Bjälbo / Folkunga).
Then names such as Fleming, Forbes / Forbus, Hamilton, Ramsay, Duwall (MacDougall), Douglas, Ruthven are kinda like household names, but then so and so many other Scots came to Sweden (Finland) and I mention just one last more, Udnie. My friend's grandfather. Pretty much unknown in Finland (Sweden) and I probably knew of Udnie because he influenced in Viipuri.
The noble family which comes closest to me in terms of being my grandparents is Cedersparre, which was also of Scotch origin (Joungh).
But if it was not the Bikini Team, what might it have been?
The usual reasons. I'll quote Otto Donner: ”The general causes of emigration are in all ages the same: the state of affairs in the fatherland not affording sufficient facilities for the winning of fame and fortune, which… In Scotland moreover, the disturbances over citizens, the religious persecutions… The desire felt by the young nonbles to take part in warlike enterprices, which were considered a necessary part of their education…”
The DNA issue was very interesting, and beautiful in It's simplicity. How do you pick up a location of a cellular phone? You mirror it via a triangle, but you already score an estimate on an X scale By two points. It's quite simple math, and it can be used to show whether or not a given individual would fall in a given range.
I offered Justin transparency - we'd do it togethe so there is not fiddilng with the numbers.
My impression is that he got scared and we might find out a range, then he just doublepacked up, said atDNA cannot be used to di this and that, I agreed, but I said it can be in doing this and that.
Then he writes about the coat-of-arms, when I do he doublebacks.
Then he says, providing nothing to back how he rolls up. And now thanks you for semantics.
You say testament is used by a taxman. But when you start your text, you make a reference to a dying of a person, and I should guess Mr. Taxman is interested in taxes all of the time, not just when somebody dies. Then you say blaah, and blaah, then you dismiss yourself making your text be of a lesser value, but valuable to those who have some weird agenda in stalling things from happening rather than doing something clever and productive.
He thanks you. I don't know for what.