John "Hugh" Baird - John "Hughes" Baird, immigrant? Child of John Baird and Janet Davidson?

Private User, Erica Howton, this should be a good place to air concerns and gather colonial and Scottish sources.

I am not aware of any evidence which proves that John Baird, a resident of Colonial Virginia (Who is thought to have been a Scot and to been born there in circa 1675), is the same person as that child named John Baird, son of John Baird and his wife Janet Davidson, whose baptism was registered at Glasgow on 30 March 1682.

Private User, Ancestry.com does not find the baptism record, for me. This is puzzling. I couldn't find the marriage record either. Can you tell me what platform you are using that has this information?

There are only two ways we can be pretty certain these are the same individuals: If there's a written account of origin for John Baird, found in Virginia. The other, ambiguous way, is a dated immigration record for a John Baird to anywhere in the New World between age 18 and 30, which would be 1700 and 1712. There may be such a record, as I point out in the opening paragraph, but we do not have a date attached to it. The reason I'm hoping Erica can help with this is by locating some reference which may more precisely describe John Baird's history, maybe as just a side note of the Rookings marriages, and indicate that he was an immigrant. That's likely to be about as good as we're going to get in this case, unless we hit pay dirt and a detailed birth date is also mentioned. I doubt that.

We can *disprove* the relationship by trying to discover if John Baird b. 1682 in Glasgow had a life and family of his own *in Scotland*. If he did, he wasn't an immigrant.

If none of this can be shown, then we're left with the DNA evidence that there's a connection. I would note the caveats in the profile and leave it be, noting that it could change if other details come to light.

See the ScotlandsPeople website for surviving records of baptisms, marriages, burials, wills, census returns and some other minor records. Please note that the survival of the old parochial registers is haphazard. Consequently, many if not most sought after events will not have been recorded. This makes it difficult or impossible to construct a pedigree using this class of records alone.

Thanks -- this site does show up the baptism record.
It also shows a Glasgow marriage between a John Baird and Janet McClintock in 1708:

BAIRD
JOHN
JANET MCCLINTOCK/
27/01/1708
644/1
240 136
Glasgow

There is also a death record that could apply but is not certain by any stretch, at least without a subscription:

BAIRD
JOHN
JOHN BAIRD
M
12/07/1710
644/1
450 181
Glasgow

What is *very* clear is that there are a lot of John Bairds in Glasgow in the mid-1700's. We're going to need more detail than I can get with the summary.

Looks like there were two children born to the marriage mentioned:

BAIRD
JOHN
JOHN BAIRD/JANET MCCLINTOCK
M
16/12/1708
644/1
90 47
Glasgow

and

BAIRD
SARAH
JOHN BAIRD/JANET MCCLINTOCK
F
29/10/1710
644/1
90 97
Glasgow

There are no other records for children for this couple, at least in Glasgow.

I have found no other records of a John Baird born in Glasgow in the target date range, but as Neil says, that's not definitive. Still, this is good evidence that John "Hugh" Baird is not the son of John and Janet Davidson, since John "Hugh" Baird's son Rook was supposedly born in 1702.

Private User Would the full written death record for John & Janet McClintock in any way have a chance of identifying John's parents? How about the marriage record? Is this something you could look for?

The following says that John Baird was born in Colonial Virginia in about 1675:

https://ancestors.familysearch.org/en/L26L-ZP8/john-baird-1675-1738

The following says that he was born in Scotland in about 1675:

http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~nmllanera/genealogy/notesBaird.html

The following says that he was born in Glasgow in 1675 but overlooks the fact that his putative parents, John Baird and Janet Davidson, did not have a son named John who was born in that year:

https://gw.geneanet.org/comrade28?lang=en&pz=steve&nz=kaulb...

It looks to me as if the author of the last pedigree was reluctant to accept that the ancestry of John Baird cannot be discovered (not at least without information which uniquely identifies him in Scottish records). I cannot say why they latched on to Glasgow, when there are at least two baptismal records from other parts of Scotland for a child named John Baird who was baptised in 1675, is anybody's guess. That's the point I suppose. They were just guessing!

Are Glasgow baptism records reasonably complete in Glasgow and surrounding parishes for the year 1675?

As already discussed, it's best not to fixate on the year of birth of an immigrant, because the only source of information for him during his life in his new home is he himself. I have other ancestors (some relatively recent!!) who did not accurately report their year of birth on the census multiple times,; this is part of life in a colonial landscape, or in a situation where home life was disrupted. I would therefore accept any year of birth within quite a distance of 1675 as being not unreasonable.

As to why Glasgow was "latched onto" -- place of origin is something the immigrant almost never gets wrong. That's why I'm looking for the accounts that say that John told people he came from Glasgow, and that he was a carpenter. Even if I don't find this account, my Index of Suspicion remains high. It's also still the case that John clearly did come from the Glasgow Bairds, maybe not John and Janet Davidson, but perhaps a brother or uncle, or the DNA would not work out. If we accept the marriage I found as "tying up" John b. 1682, then we're going to have to find another Glasgow-area birth and see if it can be related to the same Baird family.

Unfortunately, I have a number of different John Bairds baptized in Glasgow in the appropriate time frame, found by Ancestry. For example, these two are both dated 1683:

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=60143&...

and

https://search.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/sse.dll?indiv=1&dbid=60143&...

The 1708 marriage is therefore not dispositive, since it could easily represent one of several John Bairds.

Ok, so it seems to me that we cannot claim an alternate Scotland life for this John, unless we make assumptions about the records in ScotlandsPeople vs. the records in Ancestry. I am surprised these are so different, but that is another problem.

I’m really unfamiliar with this family, so all I can offer are some generalities of Scotch Irish to Virginia.

Notice I said: Scotch Irish. The bulk of people with Scots origins (at least in my tree) arrived from the Ulster Plantation, “not” direct from Scotland; and this is a big reason why Records are in such short supply: they’re gone from Ulster.

The Scots who showed up in Virginia in this period & married into “Gentry” were of the professional class, and of course with more Edinburgh tracks, not Glasgow. Ministers, bankers, attorneys, merchants; they are trackable.

The Scotch Irish I’ve been able to track back to Scotland were noted as “Scotchmen” in contemporary records. Do you have anything to indicate that in the Virginia notes? I suspect not: so how do we even know to (needle in haystack) look in Scotland?

I wouldn’t connect to parents without a lot more info than seen so far. I would go down tree and start driving up. That’s also the way to tease out any valuable family studies that may be “out there.”

'Notice I said: Scotch Irish. The bulk of people with Scots origins (at least in my tree) arrived from the Ulster Plantation, “not” direct from Scotland; and this is a big reason why Records are in such short supply: they’re gone from Ulster.'

A brother of John definitely went to Northern Ireland, so it's perfectly reasonable for him to have gone as well. BUT in order to satisfy the dates he would have had to stay there only a short time before heading off to the New World.

Maybe the place to start is Rook Baird. He's unusually named and should appear in histories.

Searching for him on Google turns up our Geni profile, and also this one in wikitree, which is similar:

https://www.wikitree.com/genealogy/Baird-Family-Tree-1865

No original sources seem to appear for Rook. All I can find are trees and they are numerous, even discussed in message boards going back into the 1990's All seem to attack Rook's father John to Glasgow. Will keep looking.

Here's a reference that does *not* suggest anything other than "Scotland" for John Baird's origin. There's apparently a book too:

https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~nmllanera/genealogy/notesBaird.html

This hand-written summary indicates that John Baird was of Scottish origin and arrived 70 years BEFORE the Scotch-Irish migration into the area. I do not know when it was written however.

https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~nmllanera/genealogy/gendocs/BairdDa...

That’s the earliest record found, so the one closest to “what was known.”

Apparently my Ross family was very early to Elizabeth City (or so the DNA is pointing). A collab on that line speculates Highland Origins - we have a long discussion going.

But your guy is a bit later. I don’t know if there’s a thing you can say (yet) except “Scotland.”

So here's the evidence in favor, so far:

(1) Handwritten notes describing origin in Scotland with a rough date given of 1675;
(2) Numerous web trees, some of whom describe occupation as "immigrant and carpenter", tying John Baird d before 1783 in Virginia to John Baird and Janet Davidson of Glasgow;
(3) DNA evidence tying descendants of Rook Baird unequivocably to the Glasgow Bairds;
(4) The known baptism date of John and Janet's son John is consistent with what we know about John from near contemporaneous records;
(5) No unequivocable evidence that John son of John and Janet had a life in Scotland rather than in the New World.

Here's the evidence AGAINST:

(1) There were other John Bairds born within the proper date range in Scotland, and maybe one of those is similarly related with the Glasgow Bairds, as yet unidentified.

Given this level of evidence, I would normally have left the tree be as-is with a caveat in the overview of John "Hugh". The caveat would state that the pedigree has been challenged but not disproven, and include the evidence summarized above. Would that be acceptable?

I've updated the profile overview presenting the information gathered here. Please review and let's discuss any changes people may want to make. Or, if there is still unanimous support for an outright disconnection, please let me know.

I would be interested to learn about the DNA evidence that links the descendants of Rook Baird unequivocably to the Glasgow Bairds.

I wouldn’t tree link to “overseas” without more definitive support. The names are too common. You don’t even know if this Glasgow couple had children. FWIW, I spend much time reviewing tree connections to England & Scotland. Most of them from web trees are wishful thinking. When there is a baptism record, they turn out to be grafts onto a child who died young in Europe or who never emigrated.

'You don’t even know if this Glasgow couple had children'

Yes we do. The records for this family were found in www.scotlandspeople.gov.uk . There are baptism records for John Baird (b. 1682), and they are quite specific as to the father and mother. All that we can't do definitively at this point is find records indicating that John Baird b. 1682 in Glasgow to John Baird and Janet Davidson is the same John Baird that died in Virginia.

'I would be interested to learn about the DNA evidence that links the descendants of Rook Baird unequivocably to the Glasgow Bairds.'

I can provide screenshots of the chromosome browser perhaps. I will have to blackout the names since those are private. Let me think how best this can be done.

I’ve searched through this book and do not find this family.

https://archive.org/details/bairdbeardfamili1918catc/page/207

Their might be info on the wife’s family.

https://www.ancestry.com/boards/thread.aspx?mv=flat&m=8&p=l...

Historical Highway Marker, Flying Point, K-223
Sign reads, "This is six miles north. William Rookings patented land there in 1636. His son, William Rookings, was one of the leaders in Bacon's Rebellion, 1676." Located at Rte. 10 & Cabin Point Road, Surry County, Virginia.

——

Researching John BAIRD b. Abt. 1675, d. Bef. Sept. 15, 1738
On 6 May 1710, John bought a lot in Jamestown and 20 acres on James City Island. Both deeds were witnessed by Phillip Ludwel.

John married Margaret ROOKINGS, probally dau. of William Rookings III of "Flying Point (Rookings Plantation)at Chippokes Creek in Surry County VA.

Four sons- Rook, Reuben, John and Ephraim

John lived at Jamestown, James City County VA until 1717/18 when he moved to Chippokes Creek in Prince George County VA.

https://www.genealogy.com/forum/surnames/topics/rookings/41/

found a new set of books on Jamestown and a list of all the people that had lived and owned property there.I found that John Baird (carpenter) and Margaret Rookings Baird bought property in 1707 and lived there until 1717.They then moved to a plantation across Chippokes Creek from Flying Point, the Rookings Plantation.John and Margaret lived on the Prince George side of the Creek.

I do not find the family listed here

https://www.familytreedna.com/public/baird?iframe=yresults

I am not interested in the actual DNA. Can you provide any written evidence which connects Rook Baird with an individual who was living in Glasgow in the remote past.

Margaret Baird Is not listed as an orphan of William Rookings ll

https://genfiles.com/rookings/william-rookings-ii-c1635-1677/

And the Egbrough tree seems wrong:

“Some descendants have fairly recently proposed that William Rookings and Nicholas Wyatt married sisters named Ann Egbrough and Frances Egbrough. (Although a “Frances” is known to be the given name of Wyatt’s wife, the given name of Rookings wife does not appear in any records.) I could find no record that two such sisters existed. This theory seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the relationship between William Rookings and his stepfather William Egbrough ...”

https://genfiles.com/rookings/william-rookins-c1598-c1642/

https://books.google.com/books?id=tcM40zgdAZgC&pg=PA359&lpg...

Adventurers of Purse and Person, Virginia, 1607-1624/5: Families G P edited by John Frederick Dorman

Edward Travis purchases from John and Margaret Baird in 1717

https://lists.rootsweb.com/hyperkitty/list/vaprinceg.rootsweb.com/t...

Frederick Baird
4/29/2003, 6:43:47 AM
Mike: You seem to be very knowlegeable re/ early pioneers and cavaleirs around Charles City, Va.,Therefore , I feel compelled to ask you a few questions.First, to identify myself,Fred baird, I believe that I am directly related to a John baird that shows up in James City,nect to Charles City Va.He md. a Margaret Rookings there abt. 1700.He was well known and held some high positions as did his sons ROOK and BENJAMIN. Some said they thought he came from Scotland,but, I do NOT agree, he owned too much land and was very influencial.I think , that he is probably a second generation Baird there, As ,I have foundA william Baird and wife Joane there in 1635 with land and servants. So, anyway, I think he was bn. there and that his parents or gd. parents came there from ENGLAND. Your thoughts, If I may.

——

Frankly I think you need to consider this. The Bacon’s Rebellion people were 2nd or 3rd generations landed gentry & it’s looking like I this was a successful-enough family to marry into some heady Names: Nicholas Wyatt is a big name for instance.

There was a fad for Scots Ancestry in genealogies: enchanted by Sir Walter Scott stories perhaps.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailypress.com/news/dp-xpm-1991062...

Maj. William Rookings, son of William and Jane Rookings who had patented Flying Point on the Upper Chippokes in 1638, was father of three young children when he was sentenced to death in 1677. He died in prison. His will mentions children, William, Elizabeth, and Jane, and his cousin Mary Short's children.

Overseers and guardians were his brother-in-law, Capt. Nicholas Wyatt of Charles City, and neighbors William Simmons and John King of Upper Chippokes, all Bacon's men.

Although Flying Point was confiscated, Rookings' legacies were regained by heirs. His son, William Rookings, was a Justice of Surry county in 1714.

——

http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~bhusler/genealogy/Bill/Reunion/Web%2...

William Rookings III succeeded in inheriting the property and died about 1715. His son, William Rookings IV lived until about 1750. William III was probably the father of Margaret.

-Research of John C. Baird, etal, 6685 Player Drive, Olive Branch, De Soto County, Mississippi, 38654-8255, 13 February 1999.