...do YOUR families link back to first South Australian wheat growers?
Christina and Donald McLEAN from Scotland 1837
1827 - 1912 (85 years)
||Margaret MCLEAN  |
||Argyll Scotland 
- Born about 1827 or 1828 in Duisky.
||Although there are records of the births/baptisms of all of her 11 other siblings, we have not found a birth record for Margaret. However there is no doubt that she was part of the family of Christina and Donald because:-|
* She is not specifically named as a passenger on the Navarino in 1837, but there is a record of Donald travelling with 4 unnamed younger children (Margaret would have been about 10 years old) as well as the older children named. However, Dianne Cummings and Barry Leadbeater, actually name her in their passenger lists.
* She is listed with the family in the 1841 census for Strathalbyn - named as Margaret aged 14 years (check this).
* She is mentioned in Donald's will.
* In her biography, there are references to her interactions with her nephew (Donald William McDonald) and grand-niece Christina May Parker, nee McDonald).
* Unfortunately the record of her marriage to James Keating does not specify the name of her father or the exact date of birth - just aged 23 years in 1850.
* Her death record specifies that her parents were Christina and Donald.
(This note was by Don Gordon on 15th Dec 2019) 
||Father's Will - see Donald McLean's profile for details in Donald's Will in which Margaret was a beneficiary. |
||For inheritance of part of 57 Hindley St - see E51 in Small Print. |
||00 Oct 1855
||Homepage menu-SMALL PRINT
|Extensive,evidence,persuasive narrative in SMALL PRINT MENU on HOME PAGE MENU|
|Section 2623, Strathalbyn There was a dispute about a property that Jane, Margaret and Rachel had inherited from their father who had died the year before. |
In November 1856 there was a court case over ownership of 75 acre Section 2623 by Mr Shorney and Mr Thrum against Jane, Margaret & Rachel. These three women were named as beneficiaries in their father's Will, so they inherited 2623 and other properties. Rachel had said that her father had brought it at a land sale. Rachel's husband (Ewen McDonald) swore that Donald had told him, as far back at 1848, that the farming property belonged to the three daughters. It had "lain open" for some time after it was purchased, so Shorney and Thrum "took possession" of it - probably the south-eastern portion. They were leasing it and paying rent to Donald. They had been living and improving the farm for 4 or 5 years.
They argued that "This is a case of great hardship. The defendant holds under a lease with right to purchase from Mr MacLean whose title he could not suppose required investigation. Five years labour have been expended on the land which has now greatly increased in value".
The dispute was presented to the Supreme Court and the Chief Justice accepted that the women were technically the owners because they held the land grant, but it was suggested that there should be a compromise to compensate Shorney and Thrum. It was suggested that the compensation could be paid out of Donald's estate.
Interestingly, because the three woman had got married after being named as beneficiaries, their husbands joined them in this dispute, after presenting proof of their marriages. It was the practice in that era, that husbands, rather than wives, should own property.
SUPREME COURT - Civil Side
Macdonald And Others v. Skorkney
Mr Gwynne for the plaintiffs; Mr Bakewell for the defendant.
This was an action of ejectment to recover possess on of Section 2623, Angas Special Survey, near Strathalbyn. The case for the plaintiffs rested simply on the production of a land grant to Rachel Maclean, Margaret Maclean, and Jane Maclean. Mr Gwynne submitted that the husbands of those grantees were entitled to possession during coverture, even against their wives. He called, to prove the marriages, Ewen Macdonald, who stated that he was married to Rachel Maclean in December, 1847.
By Mr Bakewell - Had heard his wife say that her father bought the section in question at a land sale. He heard of his right to that property shortly after his marriage. The section had lain open for some time after it was purchased; at last Messrs Shorney and Thrum took possession of it. He supposed that he knew when they took possession, and be was aware that they lived upon it. He first objected to their living on it about five or six months ago. Before that time he made no objection. He delayed so long in asserting his right because there was one of the plaintiffs (James Keating) out of the colony, That was the reason why he did not interfere with the defendant's occupation of the land. Did not know that the defendant had been paying rent all along to his late father-in-law. D Maclean died about 12 months ago. Would swear that so far back as 1848 he was told by his father-in-law that the section in question belonged to his three daughters. He was not aware that his father-in-law had leased the section. He knew that Thrum and Shorney were upon it, but never interfered with them until within the last six months.
By Mr Gwynne - Could not tell exactly what portion of the section Shomey occupied. Believed it was the eastern portion. His (witness's) wife was of age when he married her.
John Cheriton, farmer, on the Angas, stated that he was married to Jane Maclean in November, 1848. She was one of the ladies mentioned in the land grant. The defendant had been in possession of the south-eastern portion of the section for four or five years.
By Mr Bakewell - The diggings sprang tip about the time the daughters were, all married, and the parties entitled were not until lately, all in the colony at the same time. He first saw the land grant produced after the death of Mr Maclean. He knew that he was entitled to his share in the land before Mr Maclean died. Knew that Shorney was in possession of the land, but knew nothing, of a lease to him from the late Mr. Maclean.
The Chief Justice, on ascertaining that the defendant held under such a lease, suggested that there should be a compromise.
Mr Bakewell - This is a case of great hardship. The defendant holds under a lease, with right of purchase, from Mr Maclean, whose title he could not suppose required investigation. Five years labour has been expended on the land, which has now greatly improved in value.
Mr Gwynne admitted that the defendant had a right to look to the estate for compensation. The question, however, in the plaintiffs' family was whether the compensation should come from the plaintiffs or the estate generally. There was no probability of an agreement in the family, and the only way to settle the matter was on its legal merits. The estate of the late Mr Maclean was quite equal to meet any damage which the defendant had sustained.
The Chief Justice said there really was no defense against the land grant, but he thought it would be advisable to join the wives with their husbands as plaintiffs in the action, and also to come to some compromise
Mr Gwynne would, if His Honor pleased, make the amendment suggested, as the plaintiffs' wives were in attendance.
The Jury then, under direction, returned a verdict for the plaintiffs.
Macdonald and Others V Thrum
This was a similar action for another part of the same section, and terminated with a similar verdict.
(Source: Adelaide Observer, 15th Nov 1856, p3 & BRB p19)
||30 Jul 1912
||Geelong Vic 
||Christina and Donald McLean | Margaret McLean's descendants
||27 Dec 2020 |
||Donald b1779 MCLEAN, b. 26 Sep 1779, Blaich Scotland , d. 11 Oct 1855, Strathalbyn SA (Age 76 years) |
||Christina b1787 MCPHEE, b. 28 Apr 1787, Crieff Scotland , d. 9 Apr 1869, Strathalbyn SA (Age 81 years) |
- Assumed handfasted or/&...12months and one day as was the practise....see https://englishhistoryauthors.blogspot.com/2016/11/handfasting-in-scotland.html
Handfasting rituals, especially in Scotland, has long been surrounded by mythical images of couples binding their hands and even drawing blood to form a trial marriage that would last one year, after which, the couple could in mutual consent, stay together or part. The real ritual.... There was no need for witnesses (ONLY STRENGTHENED the proof) or the consent of the parents. There was no need for a priest. .... Two people could exchange vows and that was enough. There was no need for banns or a mass to bless the marriage, just two people consenting. It wasn?t even necessary to have sexual intercourse, the marriage was binding. This legal position was made from about 1200 onwards with the support and direction of the Church.
In Scotland there was a third type of marriage called ?marriage by habit and repute.? This was a marriage established when a couple lived together as if married and presented themselves to society as married; a kind of common law marriage. .....
Like elsewhere, in Scotland, divorce wasn?t possible. A couple were married for life...It wasn?t until the Scottish Reformation in 1560 that divorce and remarriage became possible.
The common process for a marriage in the late medieval time up until the Reformation included a betrothal, a proclamation of the banns and consent in the present tense.... Though the Church and the law recognized clandestine marriages (marriages made without witnesses and the usual Church presence) they did everything they could to discourage them. ...With the Reformation many Protestant.....In 1563 the Roman Catholic Church ...... Since Scotland became a Protestant country in 1560.... So both Scottish civil law and the Church essentially kept what made a marriage unchanged. ...The only changes were to permit divorce and remarriage and a reduction in the degrees of consanguity.....By the 18th century,....the civil law continued to support it and that remained unchanged until 1940.
Though the civil law essentially remained the same the cultural customs surrounding marriage did change over the 4 centuries between the Scottish Reformation and 1940. Handfasting fell away about the late 17th century or.....?
In the late 18th century a kind of a myth arose around handfasting,.....and it continued on until the 20th century and eventually became incorporated in the neo-Pagan rituals still practiced today.
|Children of marriage
||* OPRs: We have found birth records (OPRs) for all the 12 children, except for Margaret.|
* Naming: There were Ann X 2, Mary X 2 & Hugh (Ewen) X 2. The first Mary & first Ann died as infants whereas the Hughs survived to adulthood and are diffentiated by being referred to as 'the elder' or 'the younger'.
* Mother: The mother is variously recorded as Christian X 5, Christn, Christy, Catharine X 2, Mary, and Effie (or Essie). The records with Catherine, Mary & Effie are probably original clerical errors and we are confident that they are 'our' family because the birth place is specified as Duisky in each of these cases - and the father was Donald of course.
* Place: All the births were in the parish of Kilmallie. The first 4 births are specified as Blaich and all the later births were at Duisky.
1. Allan McLean - baptism 12th Feb 1811 in Blaich - Son to Donald McLean in Blaich & Christian McPhee in Blaich
2. Mary McLean - baptised 24th Jan 1813 in Blaich - Baptism on 24th Jan 1813 - McLean, Mary daughter of Donald & Christn McPhee - Blaich
3. Ewen McLean - baptized 27th January 1814 - Son of Don'd & Christian McPhee, Blaich
4. John McLean - born 1st Feb 1816, baptized 2nd Feb 1816 - Son of Donald, Blaich & Christian McPhie his spouse
5. Mary McLean - baptized on 5th Apr 1818 in Duisky - Baptism of daughter to Donald MacLean Duisgy and Catharine MacPhee
6. Anne McLean - baptized 18th Feb 1820 - Daughter to Donald MacLean Duisky and Catharine MacPhee
7. Archibald McLean - baptised 4th March 1821 - Son to Donald MacLean in Duisgi and Effie (or Essie?) MacPhee
8. Ann MacLean - born 6th April 1823 in Duisky - Daughter to Donald MacLean Duisky & Mary McPhee his wife
9. Rachel McLean - born 13th Feb 1825 in Duisky - 1825 Baptisms - Feb 13 - Rachel dau to Donald McLean in Duisky & Christian McPhee, born 6th
10. Margaret - probably born in 1827 in Duisky. No OPR has been found - this is surprising because she is the only one of 12 siblings whose birth was apparently not registered.
11. Jane (Jeane) McLean - born 18th April 1830, baptized 16th May 1830 in Kilmallie - 1830 Baptisms May 16th, Jeane daughter to Donald McLean tenant in Duskey Ardgour & Christion McPhee, born the 18th April last
12. Ewen McLean - born 26th May 1836 in Duisky - Ewen son of Donald McLean & Christy McPhee in Duisky
* (This note was by Don Gordon on 12th April 2019.)
|Children of marriage
||In addition to the 12 children accepted as 'our' family, some researchers have proposed 4 others:-|
* RICHARD: This name appears on some 'Navarino' passenger lists [research: Which ones?], but this might not be based on the authentic record. There are no other indications of this Richard in colonial records (eg marriage, children, death, or Trove etc). However there is a Richard listed with the family in the 1841 census for Strathalbyn (BRB p13) but this is considered to be a clerical error (check this) as it should have been Rachel. He is not mentioned in Donald's will.
* ELIZABETH: This name appears on some 'Navarino' passenger lists [Barry Leadbeater & Dianne Cummings) but this might not be based on the authentic record - it might have been added later. It is stated that she was born in 1835 or 1836, and died in 1907. There are no other indications of this Elizabeth in colonial records. (eg marriage, children, death, or Trove etc). In fact there might be confusion with Elizabeth DIXON who was the second wife John McLean - she was born in England in 1835, migrated in 1858, married John in 1874, and so was known as Elizabeth McLean when she died in Strathalbyn in 1907. Donald's Will makes no mention of anyone called Elizabeth.
* HUGH: BRB p8 "The persistent inclusion of a Donald and a Hugh McLean who arrived in 1840 by ship 'Tomatin' must be an error. The listed children are the same 10 who were listed on the ship when their emigrating parents, and all appear in the father's Will. These two may have been nephews. If they were of an earlier marriage of Donald, he had three sons named Hugh which is carrying things a bit far as to names! There is a family story that 'two sons were sent to Venezuela to look for farming possibilities' referring of course to the Donald and Hugh on the 'Tomatin' of 1840. Then not discovering anything suitable followed on to SA. Nothing further is known of them although two of the same name were at Naracoorte in the South East quite early, and the names of the families were the same as those of the Donald McLeans. They were not mentioned in Donald McLean's Will." And the BRB p544 has, in 1864 "Hugh McLean of the ship 'Tomatin' of 1840 and his wife Elizabeth (nee Scott) were staying at 'Ardgour Cottage' in Strathalbyn with Hugh the Younger and Margaret. According to a 'Register' newspaper of Adelaide a little daughter of Elizabeth and this particular Hugh McLean, died at 'Ardgour Cottage' on 23/7/1864. She was named Mary and was aged 2 years & 2 months. This has caused some confusion concerning the deaths of the two infants. The Hugh of the 'Tomatin' must certainly have been kin to the Strathalbyn McLeans, but certainly not a third son of Donald & Christina, named Hugh".
* DONALD: See the quote for Hugh, above (BRB p8).
(This note was by Don Gordon on 30th July 2018).
||Group Sheet | Family Chart
||James KEATING, b. c1825, UK , d. 1860, Victoria (Age ~ 34 years) |
||8 Aug 1850
||Adelaide SA 
|+||1. Elizabeth KEATING, b. 6 May 1851, Glen Osmond SA , d. 12 Jun 1926, WA (Age 75 years) |
||5 Feb 2021 10:51:13 |
||Group Sheet | Family Chart
||Wedding of William McDONALD & Christina CAMERON 1880 - with Jenny McDonald, Margaret JOHNS, Rachel McDonald & Jessie McNaughton|
Donald 'William' McDonald and Christina Cameron on their wedding day in 1880. The bride and groom are seated. Standing, from left, are Rachel Jane Cheriton 'Jenny' McDonald, aunt Johns (Margaret Johns, previously Keating, nee McLean), the groom's mother Rachel McDonald (nee McLean), and Jessie McNaughton, a cousin of the bride.
||Margaret JOHNS, previously KEATING, nee McLEAN - about 53 years old|
Photo of Margaret (aunt Johns) at the wedding of her nephew Donald 'William' McDonald in 1880.
- [S-3] BRB 'Donald & Christina McLean & Their Descendants', 1995 copies available, Copies of the BRB available Strathalbyn National Trust Museum & Library, several libraries around Australia including State Library SA, and Western Australian Genealogical Society Bayswater WA Request assistance for locating a copy through 'Contact us' on this website. .
- [S-1] SA SRO records, https://archives.sa.gov.au/, 9 Jan 2021 Researcher Lorna Mclean.
In the memorial papers being signed upon/after Christina became a widow; dated 20 Feb 1858. Margaret is mentioned such....."James-
Keating of Melbourne in the colony of
Victoria Licensed Victualler and Margaret
His wife (formerly Margaret MacLean spinster)"..... This is an excerpt of an extensive list of signatories itemised on said MEMORIAL
- [S-64] PUBLICATION "Belvidere" Lance C Wakefield 1992, (Mr Lance Wakefield, Printed: Lutheran Publishing House 205 Halifax st Adelaide), ISBN 0 646 122 010., 107, 2 February 2017 Researcher Lorna McLean.
within the last paragraph of MCLEAN section offers Margaret as birth:L1827 and death:1908, married James Keating of Melbourne and Richard Jones in qld and died at Geelong Vic leaving an only daughter. Researcher not altered dates.
PUBLIC NOTICE: before using ANY details from this website ensure YOU further research accuracy of our information to limit the effect of misdirection by any compounded human error.
James KEATING m. Margaret MCLEAN on 1850, August 08 at The Manse Freeman St Adelaide Groom Age: 25 Birth Year: 1825 Groom Marital Status: N Groom Father:unknown Bride Age: 23 Birth Year: 1827 Bride Marital Status: S Bride Father Name: unnamed Adelaide SA Book/Page: 7/216