In this connection cousin Cyndi Myers wrote "While in Wigton, I met an author named Donna Brewster who writes historical fiction ...I found it very interesting reading taken place in our Walker area and during the time period of the covenenters. ... She was very interested in any information I could give her on our ancestors. She had a computer database that had early settlers on it, and she searched it for ours. It contained the early church records, marriages and births. We did find

[A]. a birth of Alexander Walker, son of John and Jane McKnight Walker born 1682, Wigton. ...

[B] Also in the register of Sasines, 1701-1720 found at the Dumfries Galloway Family History Center, a John Walker, son of Alexander W, minister at Kirkcud. Date of record, 21 April 1713, Vol. 103, Fol. 269 Peebles County.

[C] A John Walker, tenant in Athelsford, date of record 11 August 1703, Vol 83, Fol 297,County Berwick."

Cindi didn't give full citations for all of the above Item [A} is particularly interesting in the light of other discussions concerning the Cowan Walker connection. This data suggests that there is a record substantiating Alexander as the son of John I. Just don't know what it is. Don't know exactly what went into the data base. Could be an inference based on the marriage records of Alexander that we have seen.

Item [B] is also most interesting. the John being referenced could conceivably be John I. But he could be the son of the Alexander in [A], or someone else altogether. Again, this shows that there is at least some data out there worth tapping---

Can't say that I see the relevance of item [C}

I've had no follow up from Cindi since the initial message. I posted this to the list in January of 1999. The full message can be found at http://listsearches.rootsweb.com/cgi-bin/ifetch2?/u1/textindices/W/WIGTON-WALKER+1999+334664544+F

Other than the above the closest I've come here is citing the fact that there is a tombstone (more likely a cenotaph) to one George Walker in one of the church cemetery's in Wigton. I've an email in the archives on this subject dated Date: Mon, 15 Sep 1997. The stone is dated 1685. His body may or may not lie beneath the stone, which may or may not be contemporary with his death, or within living memory of those who knew him. So its value as a primary record is moot. Also, there's nothing to link him directly to our family anyway, other than his last name. Probably all this shows is that the Walker surname was in the area prior to 1700, but I think we already could assume that.

From time to time others have noted references to a Rev. George Walker been cited as the father of John I. Cousin Wayne, for example, noted a reference to a George Walker in the area, as dying in 1677. Other sites give Rev. George as the father of John, and sometimes also as the son of yet another Rev. George Walker. Presuming that these various and sundry George Walkers were Presbyterian, and ministers to boot, adds to the plausibility of a connection to Rev. Samuel Rutherford. Its unfortunate that other than the tombstone above we have little in the way of primary records for these Georges. I should also note that these Rev. Georges seem to be on occasion confused with the Rev. George Walker "Hero of Londonderry"---but that would seem to be a red herring of an entirely different color.

Possibly the reference to George Walker is the individual whose cenotaph appears in the church yard at Wigton---its possible that someone noted the name, and jumped to the conclusion that he must be John I's father. The DOD would be consistent with someone of age of John I's father. But the fact that its possible doesn't make it so. George could be John I's father. He could be and uncle. He could be of no relationship at all. Without better data on who he was, we are nowhere at all with this question. And the bottom line on George is that we need documentation for his existence before we can show that he's John's father.

Its worth noting that if John I's father was in fact George, you'd sort of expect John I, Alexander I, or their descendants to have named someone after him. If there's one thing our Wigton ancestors were its uncreative when it came to given names. I may not know who John I's father was, but I'm willing to bet that his given name was one of the following: John, Alexander, Joseph, James, or Samuel. George' is a real long shot.

With regard to Jane McKnight's parent's: Some have identified them as John McKnight and Sarah Moore. The basis for identifying her father as John McKnight appears to be the inscription in the Walker Rutherford Bible, printed 1621, with the name John McKnight born 1627 "written in this book"--(White 1902-278). Some have used this information to infer that John McKnight must be Jane's father. That interpretation is consistent with the likely DOM from John Walker=Jane McKnight (c. 1680---when John McKnight would have been about 50 years of age---appropriate for the marriage of a daughter born relatively late in life). Unfortunately, showing that these facts are consistent with identifying John as Jane's father, this is not the same as showing it to be true. These same data would be consistent with him being an uncle, a cousin, or no relation at all.

An email to the list from cousin Paul Parker noted that someone had identified John McKnights husband as Sarah Moore. There doesn't seem to be any information whatsoever as to the basis for this.

Again, for any and all of this information, primary documentation is much needed. I believe that from the number of references (especially those noted by cousin Cindi) there are extant records that are worth pursuing. If anyone has done a systematic search of these records I'm sure we'd all welcome hearing the results of their search.

On occasion folks will say that White 1902 states that Katherine is descended from Rev. Samuel. Cousin Tali Barbosa cited a caveat made by Emma White herself in an email to the list of 19 Dec. 1999. White stated that:

"On page 489 of his History of Virginia Henry Howe says that James Moore (whose mother was Jane Walker, daughter of John of Wigton) was a lineal descendant of Rev. Samuel Rutherford; failing to find proof of this assertion I only say in my book that he was nearly related to our ancestor, John Rutherford."

So White was convinced that there was a relationship; she just wasn't convinced what that relationship was. I'd like to see the evidence that supports the relationship given in say As always, primary documentation is what's needed to resolve this question. In particular, the following specific bits of data need documentation:

a) Evidence that Katherine Alleine married John Rutherford

b) Evidence that John Rutherford was in fact related to Rev. Samuel Rutherford. (You can find this stated in many places. The issue is what is the documentation that supports this. White 1902 doesn't count. Neither does a citation to Kid's work (or that of any other author) without inclusion of what the sources of information were for these specific points.)

c) Evidence that John served in Ireland during the Willamite wars.

d) Evidence that John was a minister, and served at Kirkcudbright/Anwoth, just as Rev. Samuel did.

With regard to Rev. Joseph Alleine, the evidence for a connection is very limited. White makes it clear that she thinks it is so, but so far I've seen nothing that would seem to support this idea. Too be blunt, even if it can be shown that Katherine's mother was Isobell Alleine,---and even if it can be shown that Isobell's father was a Rev. Joseph Alleine, that doesn't mean that he was THE Rev. Alleine. During this time period there actually were two or three Rev. Joseph Alleine's---but only one of them is the author of Alleine's Alarum etc. that White shows a connection to. Again, the bottom line here is that without primary documentation this is interesting, but in my opinion its not even a good working hypothesis. Just an example of how we all tend to gravitate in the direction of concluding our ancestors were famous folks. I like nothing better than for someone to prove this one. Don't think its going to happen though, and don't think its true.

Nothing much else seems to have shown up as a candidate for THE SHIP.

However, even if some of the family came over in say 1730 can we be sure that the main Walker family didn't come over then as well? In part, this is a problem because White doesn't explain the basis for the other dates for their arrival, just saying that "other documents" say 1728 or 1730. Presumably she was basing her 1726 on the Joel Walker record.

What we'd really like to have here is a land record, a church record, or a tax record (etc.) that shows our Walkers in the area by a certain date. Cousin Phil Rhoton has been looking at the marriage and land records in PA, and with the exception of the data on Ann Houston=John III, has noted nothing that seems to clearly (or unclearly) point to our Wigton line.

Some related questions: "Where exactly did our family first settle? White 1902 implies that they settled near the Nottingham Meeting House. But where was that? I've seen nothing other than White 1902 that really places the Walkers et al in this area. Where exactly was the Walker homesite? Where were the other family home sites (e.g, Campbell's, Hudson's, etc.). My suspicion is that the Walkers were living in East Nottingham based primarily on the fact that Ann's brother is identified as a "farmer of East Nottingham". This could be either north or south of the present Pa/MD border. I'm inclined to suspect that they lived south of the border near the community of Rising Sun. In part this is based on the fact that Hugh and Elizabeth Rutherford Hudson settled in Maryland (White 1902), and Elizabeth is identified as sister of James Rutherford, brother of our Katherine Rutherford. So if Katherine's sister settled in Maryland, perhaps Katherine and John did to.

There were Walkers in the Nottingham area of PA and MD before 1726 when the Wigton Walkers got there. There were Walkers there after 1738 when the family of John III and others moved to Borden's Grants. Are these other Walkers related in anyway to the Wigton line? Are there descendants of John I who came to America with John II, settled in this area, but are not accounted for in White 1902?

This suggests that in truth John III had died prior to 1778. When exactly is unclear. However, her his will mentions sons Samuel and John. yet we know from other sources that Samuel probably died about 1776. So we'd guess that John died prior to 1776.

Some have accepted this idea as an unquestioned fact...witness several web sites that state this as fact. While I think the hypothesis has considerable merit, I personally think it remains unproven. It's one thing to come up with a good hypothesis which explains how loose ends could fit together. Its another thing to prove that hypothesis to be true. Considerable weight would be given to this idea if it could be shown that the Alexander who married Janat Cowan is indeed Alexander I.

Some have placed great emphasis on the "long standing relationship between the Walkers and Cowans through the generations". The implication with such statements is that the Cowans who are indubitably present in Wigtonshire around 1700, and continue to be present to the present day, are related to the Cowans who are known to have married into our Wigton line (notably the three Cowan brothers who married daughters of John III.) The possibility that such a relationship exists is highly intriguing. Indeed, at almost every location that John I, John II, John III, and John IV lived---there are Cowans nearby. Regretfully, we do not know that the Cowans in each of these locations (Wigton, Newry (? not sure of this), Nottinghamshire, Rockbridge, NC, SW Va, NW TN, and the Knoxville area TN) are related. Obviously some are, but for this line of reasoning to do much good you have to show that there's a continuous connection between the Cowans at least in the critical range of PA to Rockbridge to NC and SW Va. A break anywhere along the line renders this argument null.

Cousin Bob Cowan clearly believes that there is continuity in the Cowans between SW VA, NC, and Rockbridge. As yet I remain un-convinced that, for example, the Alexander Cowan who married one of John III's daughters, and lived in SW Va, is the same as/related to the Cowans that lived on Beverly's grant, a few miles north of Walkers Creek. Its likely that they are connected, but I have yet to see sufficient proof.

---It would be very good if it could be shown that the Cowans who married John III's daughters, (or their immediate family), in fact lived in all of the places that John II and John III lived. If that could be done then the idea that the Alexander who married Janat Cowan is in fact Alexander I, brother of John II would become very much credible.