ABERDEEN-L Archives

Archiver > ABERDEEN > 2007-10 > 1193441362


From: Goldie & Lido Doratti <>
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] returning to Boddoms
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:29:22 -0700
References: <c7c.16b02bb6.3451a76b@aol.com> <472050C2.9030202@which.net><00b601c816e1$4592cb40$6401a8c0@Lyn> <4720ACDA.9010505@which.net><BAY114-DAV1404CEEA429ED5832667CFD9950@phx.gbl><4721A57F.10109@which.net><BAY114-DAV12D0B6AFD3804222727D7D9960@phx.gbl><47221EEA.50701@which.net>


I have 'The People of Clatt & Kinnethmond 1696 book and in the front, IN
PART, this is what is written:
"Supposedly a tax on every person over the age of sixteen not a beggar,
although this has been disputed. Therefore for genealogical purposes an
extant list of over 30,000 names from 1696 is of immense value............."
Further on " Anyone wishing to check the original will find it in Aberdeen
University Archives (MS5480)".............."although dated 1696 the date the
lists were approved, in fact they were compiled in September 1695".
Maybe this helps? It might explain why the fellow couldn't find the
youngsters of his....Goldie

----- Original Message -----
From: "Gavin Bell" <>
To: <>
Sent: Friday, October 26, 2007 10:07 AM
Subject: Re: [ABERDEEN] returning to Boddoms


> ann zeman wrote:
>
>>Thanks, Gavin, once again. Your knowledge is such an asset to this forum!
>>I have one other question I forgot to add to the previous:
>>Some families are paying tax for their children--example: "George
>>Cruickshank, tennent, of valuatione is 7s. 6d., with his oun, his wyfe,
>>his
>>sone, and daughter in familia, their poll is....1 11 06"
>>As above, sometimes the son or daughter is not named, sometimes is, but
>>William Mitchell and his wife, who according to OPR at this time had at
>>least 3 quite small children, has no children mentioned.
>>Question is: was there an age after which children paid tax and if they
>>were
>>small they were exempt? I'm trying to understand why no children were
>>mentioned for him.
>>
>>
>
> The tax is generally described as applying only to adults, but I don't
> know exactly what the cut-off age was.
>
>>And, was there a poll a few years later that has been transcribed for us,
>>that might mention the names of the children?
>>
>>
>
> No. The 1695/6 Poll Tax is a lucky one-off - so far as I know, no
> records have survived for similar taxes in other years.
>
>
> Gavin Bell
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message

This thread: