I thought that that was the line but was concerned that John was only 17 when George was born.....
Now, George married to Agnes Middlemist, his father....
At that time the family followed closely the convention of first male child named after father's father, second after mother's father, third after father, fourth after father's grandfather, etc.
We have William, first son of George, had male children: 1. George 1786, John 1787, William 1790. which follows the convention.
John, second son of George, I have not yet tracked down issue.
James, third son of George, had male children: 1. George 1787, John 1798, James 1802. which follows the convention.
George fourth son of George, had male children: George 1793, Adam 1800, William 1807. which follows the convention.
I think it is very clear therefore that George's father was William.
The contender's:-
I can find only one - William b. 06/08/1704, Hutton, son of William and Katharin Scougal/Liongat/Lidgat.
The theory is therefore:
Source 1. William Clazy b.c.1680 m. Katharin ? Hutton 14/06/1703
Issue 1.1 William b.06/08/1704 Hutton
1.2 Elizabeth b.10/03/1706 Hutton
1.3 Joseph b.31/05/1713 Swinton
1.1 William b. 06/08/1704 Hutton m ?
Issue 1.1.1 William b.?
1.1.2 George b.c 1730 m. Agnes Middlemist 02/06/1751
1.1.3 Thomas b 15/08/1737 Edrom
1.1.4. Jean b.23/07/1740 Ladykirk
1.1.5 Kathrine b.30/01/1745
That's the theory anyway, now I just have to prove it!
Do you have anything that will help to prove or disprove it?
Andrew