1681 - Marriage of Johne Motion & Christian Traill
1698 - Christening of a child called Robert Motion
              (Son of Thomas Motion & Elizabeth Logie)
1711 - Marriage of Thomas Motion & Janet Mitchell

It is my belief that the Thomas of 1698 & 1711 are one and the same person, this Thomas could in fact be the christening back in 1680 (The one which didn't record the child's name).

The only other events recorded in the time span between 1681 and 1711 are the christenings and marriages of the children of Johne Motion & Christian Traill, so in a period of 30 years we find that there are only 2 or 3 adults which, we can't identify who their parents are. Given the shear lack of adults around in this 30 years it indicates to me that there was only one family living in Scotland at this time, it is also my belief that Johne Motion (1681) & Thomas Motion (1698, 1711) could very well be in fact brothers, if not Father & Son.

St Andrews started to keep records from 1627, but it isn't until 1680 that we are first mentioned in Scotland, why? Of course we could have been in another part of Scotland before we moved to St Andrews, but I don't really believe so. Other parts of Scotland started to keep records at various times, some before 1627 and some after 1627 (the earliest is 1553), so we could have been in another parish which didn't keep records, however if that were the case, then why is it only in St Andrews that we first appear, and indeed it is some 80 years before some move out of St Andrews, if we were in another part of Scotland then why is there no mention of us, at any time, it's only in St Andrews and then we can track our movements from there, not the other way around.

If we had been settled in another part of Scotland, surely not everybody would have moved to St Andrews, which gets us back to the same old question, why is there no mention of us other than in St Andrews. However, if the entire family did move to St Andrews from another part of Scotland then this would support the one family theory, giving that there are so few of us around in the late 1600s and early 1700s.

Go back a page

Page 3

Go to next page