Averil, several times you have reminded us that both Robert L and Jane Kneen referred in their wills to their only son. Yes, we all agree that they had one son, called John. That was John one in the nomenclature that we have been using.

You then say that John Looney and Margaret Hutchen do not descend from Robert Looney and Jane Kneen. I hope I am right to insert the word “because” at that point to link that statement to what you say next, which sets out the consequences of removing John L and Margaret Hutchen from your 1841 chart. That was the point in your favour that I was making in the passage that you quoted at the start of your posting under reply. However, The Radcliffes’ book is inconsistent here, for if John two, the son of John L and Margaret Kelvie, had a son John who had a wife Rachel (as they say on pp 268/9, I should have said before), that implies that John two was married to Isabel Camaish, as on CKR’s chart. That precludes a marriage to Margaret Hutchen, the agreed mother of Daniel, who was at Cardle Veg in 1841, contradicting their statement that all the Looneys in Maughold at the time of the 1841 census were descended from John L and Margaret Kelvie. So you can’t accept the whole of the Radcliffes’ article. You have to choose between that general statement about the descendants in 1841 and the specific statement about John the third son. I choose the latter, since it accords with CKR’s chart, and am prepared to say that when they made that general statement they were forgetting that CKR had assigned the Cardleveg people to a different family.

Then comes the table, which is your compilation, unexceptionable apart form the contents of the columns headed Daniel #1 and John #2

Then comes a paragraph starting John 1745, another of your compilations.

The remainder of the posting contains plenty of interesting information which nevertheless has no bearing on whether the ancestor of this family was John one or John two. There is a point on son Daniel, but as I said in my last posting, I’ll hold that back until we have finished with John one, two and three.