Archibald Dunbar of Newton and Thunderton (-3 May 1689)

Same as
Additional names
Parents
Father:1James Dunbar (25 May 16??-)
Spouses and relationship events
Married:212 May 1666Elizabeth Hacket (-)
Married:321 April 1681Katherine Innes (-4 February 1686)
Married:428 April 1681Katherine Innes (-4 February 1686)
Children
Children with Elizabeth Hacket:
Robert Dunbar of Newton and Thunderton (February 1670-September 1742)5
Archibald Dunbar of Thunderton (1671-16 April 1733), sheriff of Moray6
Attributes
Events
Died:73 May 1689
Personal Info
Groups
Issues

Sources

1 Charles Mosley, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage, Clan Chiefs, Scottish Feudal Barons, Volume I: 107th Edition (: Burke's Peerage and Gentry LLC, ), Dunbar of Northfield, p. 1209-10.
2 Ibid
3 Peter Beauclerk Dewar, Burke's Landed Gentry of Great Britain - The Kingdom in Scotland 19th Edition Volume 1: Together with Members of the Titled and Non-titled Contemporary Establishment (Wilmington, Delaware, USA: Burke's Peerage and Gentry LLC, 2001), Innes of Balvenie, p. 709-16.
4 Charles Mosley, Burke's Peerage, Baronetage, and Knightage, Clan Chiefs, Scottish Feudal Barons, Volume I: 107th Edition (: Burke's Peerage and Gentry LLC, ), Dunbar of Northfield, p. 1209-10.
5 Ibid
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
certainlyThe information is supported by primary sources.
probablyThe information is supported by secondary sources which is most likely based on primary sources.
possiblyIt is unclear if the secondary source cited is based on primary sources, or the information is an assumption well supported by other evidence.
likelyThe information is only found in secondary sources with questioned quality, or there is a reason to suspect the information is wrong. Or the information is a likely assumption based on other evidence.
apparentlyThe information is doubtful and poorly documented, but still most likely correct.
perhapsThe information might be correct or it might be wrong. It is not supported by any trustworthy sources. It might me an assumption.
disprovedThe information is proven to be wrong.