Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper
-
Gjest
Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
The Ryhill ancestry of Beatrice is noted in the IPM of Henry Fitz John:
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. IX, Edward III, London, 1916:
Pages 317-319:
417. Henry, son and heir of John son of Henry, or John Fitz Henry.
Writ after the death of the said Henry, who died a minor in the king's
wardship, 4 November, 23 Edward III.
Inq. taken at York, Thursday after the octave of Easter, 24 Edward III.
Ingelton. Two parts of two parts of the manor (extent given), including rents
in Yarlesbergh, Souterskales and Bentham. The residue of the manor Joan, late
the wife of Henry son of John, and Cecily late the wife of John son of Henry
hold in dower of the inheritance of the said heir. The whole manor is held of
Henry son of Hugh by knight's service and by service of rendering £10 yearly
and 17s. yearly for fines of the wapentake of Youcros, and 22s. yearly for
'Burton Male.' The custody of the premises during minority was committed to
William del Wode. Decrease in value owing to the pestilence.
No other lands &c. in the said county came to the king's hand by reason of
the minority of the said heir.
He died on 12 October last. Beatrice daughter of Henry son of John, aunt of
the deceased, married to Thomas de Fencotes, aged 26 years and more, is his
heir.
Writ, 4 November, 23 Edward III.
Northumberland. Inq. taken at Whytyngeham, 1 February, 24 Edward III.
By reason of the minority of the said heir, the following lands &c. were
taken into the king's hand ex officio by Robert Bertram, late escheator of the
county.
Whityngeham, Throunton and Barton. Two parts of a moiety of the manor of
Whityngeham and of the hamlets of Throunton and Barton, which are parcel thereof
(extents given), including rents in Glanton, held of the king in chief by
service of two parts of a moiety of half a mark yearly by the hands of the sheriff,
because the manor and town of Whityngeham and the hamlets of Throunton and
Barton are held of the king in chief by service of a hawk or half a mark yearly
only, as appears by a charter of Henry [II], king of England, made to Roger de
Flamenvilla in these words:
H. Rex Anglorum et Dux Normannorum et Aquitanorum et Comes Andegavorum,
archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus comitibus boronibus justiciis vicecomitibus
ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse
et presenti carta confirmasse Rogero de Flamenvilla totam terram que fuit
Huchtredi filii Gamel in Withingch' et Trowentona et Bartona et Glantadona, ipsi
et heredibus suis, ad tenendam de me et de heredibus meis quietam ab omni
servicio excepto uno espervario inde michi reddendo per annum. Quare volo et
firmiter precipio quod ipse Rogerus et heredes sui post eum totam terram illam
habeant et teneant de me et heredibus meis bene et in pace libere et quiete
integre plenarie et honorifice per prenominatum servicium cum omnibus pertinentiis
et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus suis. Testibus F[rogerio] episcopo
Sagiensi, Hugone de Creissi, Goscelino Castell' fratre Regine, Ayd. Argentom
(sic).
King John on 30 March in his first year, confirmed the said charter to
William son of Roger de Flamenvilla. (the text here given is the same as that in
Rotuli Chartarum, p. 42b, with the addition of the following witnesses:----Robert
de Ros, Richard de Reveriis, William de Cantilupo and Robert de Vancy.)
Nedderton in Cokedale. Two parts of a moiety of the town, held of William
Heroun by service of two parts of a penny yearly.
Great Rihill in Cokedale. Two parts of a moiety of the town, held of the heir
of Richard fitz Rauf by service of two parts of a penny yearly.
Little Rihill. Two parts of a toft and of 40 acres land held of the
inheritance of Henry de Rihill by service of two parts of a pair of gloves yearly or
two parts of 2d.
Alburwyk. A cottage held of Alan de Belyngeham by service of a rose yearly.
No other lands &c. are held of the aforesaid inheritance in this county.
He died on Monday after the octave of St. Michael last. Beatrice fitz Henry,
his aunt, aged 24 years and more, is his heir. She married Thomas de Fencotes,
knight.
C. Edw. III. File 104. (19.)
Roger de Flamville left a son William and four daughters, Constance, Alice,
Maud and Christiana.
1. Roger de Flamville
1.1 William de Flamville
1.2 Maud de Flamville
1.3 Christiana de Flamville
1.4 Constance de Flamville [died bef. Nov. 26, 1261]
+William de Bataille
2.1 Robert de Bataille
2.2 Constance de Bataille
+ Sir William Douglas [1200-1274]
3.1 Sir William Douglas [1235 - bef. Jan. 24, 1298]
+ Elizabeth Stewart [1244-1289]
4.1 Sir James Douglas [1286- Aug. 25, 1330]
4.2 Willelma Douglas [died Dec. 25, 1302]
+ William Galbraith
+ Eleanor de Louvaine [aft. March 5, 1326]
4.1 Sir Archibald Douglas [1290-July 19, 1333]
4.2 Hugh Douglas
1.5 Alice de Flamville
+Michael Ryhill
2.1 Thomas Ryhill [Died ca. March 15, 1266/7]
3.1 Michael Ryhill [Died ca. March 20, 1291/2]
4.1 Isabel Ryhill [Dec. 6, 1277 - ca. July 12, 1309]
+ John Fitz Hugh [Died Aug. 14, 1305]
Notes:
1. Constance de Flamville:
Calendar of Documents pertaining to Scotland preserved in her majestys public
Record office, London edited by Joseph Bain, Vol. I 1108-1272, H.M. General
Register House 1881, Edinburgh:
#2281. Nov. 26, 1261.
Northumberland:---The king has taken the homage of Robert Bataile, son and
heir of Constance de Flamville lately deceased for the lands that she held in
capite, and has delivered him the lands. William de Latymer the king's escheator
ultra Trent is commanded on taking security for 4s.6d. to give Robert seisin.
[Tower of London] [ Originalia, 46 Henry III, m.2]
#653. 1199-1216.
Essoins de malo veniendi in the octaves of St. Hilary.
Northumberland:---Constance wife of William Bataylle versus John Fitz Simon in a plea to hear her
trial by Yedonus de Swouegheton, in fifteen days from Easter. The same day is
given to William in banco. [Coram Rege Rolls, John 'incert' no. 60 m.1]
2. Constance Bataille:
Calendar of Documents Pertaining to Scotland in her majestys public record
office, London edited by Joseph Bain, Vol. 1 1108-1272, H.M. General Register
House, Edinburgh, 1881:
#2538. June 25, 1269.
[M. 2 dorso] Northumberland:---Pleas before Gilbert de Preston and other
justices itinerant at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the morrow of St. John [the] Baptist.
The assize recognises whether Gilbert de Humfarville unjustly disseized
William de Duglas and Custancia his wife of their freehold in Faudon; viz., a
messuage and 3 carucates and 5 acres of land. Gilbert merely says that at one time
he took the tenement, by the precept of lord Edward, as William was accused of
having been against the king and said lord Edward in the late disturbance in
the kingdom. That afterwards he restored seizin to William by the lord
Edward's precept, viz., about the Feast of St. Michael in the king's 51st year, and
has never since interfered with said tenement, and claims nothing but the
service due him from said manor. William and Custancia say that after Gilbert had
seisin of the tenement by lord Edward's precept, he [William] went to the
king's court and showed both to the king and lord Edward that he had never joined
the disturbance against them, and placed himself on a jury out of the county,
by whom the matter was tried. So the king himself by his writ enjoined the
Sheriff of the county to give seisin to William; which the Sheriff did accordingly
as they say, about the 'Gule of Autumn' in the aforesaid year. And they were
in peaceful seisin for eight days until Gilbert unjustly disseised them and
burned the houses on the tenement. And they place themselves on the assize. The
jurors say on oath, that at one time William was charged with having been
against the king and lord Edward in the late troubles, and was afterwards cleared
thereof by an inquisition held by the king's precept. And the Sheriff of the
county was directed by the king's writ to give William and Custancia seisin,
which he did accordingly, and after they were seised Gilbert sent his men and
ejected them from their holding, and while it was in his possession their houses
were burned. And the jury find that he disseised them unjustly as the writ
says. The judgment of the court is that William and Custancia shall recover
seisin by view of the jurors; and Gilbert is in amercement. damages, besides the
combustion, 90 marks; whereof 20 marks. Damages of the above combustion £20; to
the judgment for damages of the combustion. (some explanatory words seem
wanting).
M.3.
William Duglas was summoned to answer to Gylemin de Wollouere in a plea to
show cause why he deforced him of 30s. of rent in Faundon which William Batayle
demised to him for a term not yet expired. During which term the said William
Batayl sold the rent to William de Duglas, by reason whereof the latter
ejected Gylemin therefrom. And further that whereas the said William Batayle had
demised the said rent to the plaintiff at the Feast of the Purification of the
Blessed Mary in the king's 48th year, for the term of six years. The said
William Batayle, at the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Rood next thereafter,
sold the same to the said William de Duglas, whereon the latter ejected the
Plaintiff within the aforesaid term, from said rent, to his damages as he says, to
the extent of £20. William comes and defends. Afterwards he gives a mark for
leave to agree, It is agreed that Gylemin remits his claim for 5 1/2 marks
given to him by William. [Assize Roll, Northumberland, 53 Henry III].
#2047. April 24, 1256.
William de Duglasse acknowledged that he had granted by charter to William
his son for his homage and service, a carucate of land in Warentham, and 40
acres of land in same vill, by two charters, as more fully therein; and John de
Haulton and Johanna de Faudon shall remain guardians of said William and his
land, as he is under age. [ Assize Roll,
Northumberland, 40 Henry III, m. 2 dorso].
3. Willelma Douglas:
Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties public
record office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307, edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh,
1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the Martyr 1303, by
the king's command in presence of Magnus de Strathearne and Nicholas de
Benbathe, viceregents of the earl of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de
Achenlek, Hugh de Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John son
of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of Adam, Laurence son
of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors; who say that Sir John Comyn,
grandfather of the present Sir John Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William
de Galbrathe in frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward
or relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said Sir William
gave it to his son William in frank marriage with Lady Willelma, daughter of the
late Sir William de Duglas; which 'said Williams' begot four daughters,
coheiresses Johanna the mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the
demesne should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at Candelmas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in possession of the
tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was
held of the late Sir John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the
king's gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The seals of
Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only appended, as the others have
no seals. The inquisition is enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only,
as the seal of Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
Regards,
MichaelAnne Guido
Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, Vol. IX, Edward III, London, 1916:
Pages 317-319:
417. Henry, son and heir of John son of Henry, or John Fitz Henry.
Writ after the death of the said Henry, who died a minor in the king's
wardship, 4 November, 23 Edward III.
Inq. taken at York, Thursday after the octave of Easter, 24 Edward III.
Ingelton. Two parts of two parts of the manor (extent given), including rents
in Yarlesbergh, Souterskales and Bentham. The residue of the manor Joan, late
the wife of Henry son of John, and Cecily late the wife of John son of Henry
hold in dower of the inheritance of the said heir. The whole manor is held of
Henry son of Hugh by knight's service and by service of rendering £10 yearly
and 17s. yearly for fines of the wapentake of Youcros, and 22s. yearly for
'Burton Male.' The custody of the premises during minority was committed to
William del Wode. Decrease in value owing to the pestilence.
No other lands &c. in the said county came to the king's hand by reason of
the minority of the said heir.
He died on 12 October last. Beatrice daughter of Henry son of John, aunt of
the deceased, married to Thomas de Fencotes, aged 26 years and more, is his
heir.
Writ, 4 November, 23 Edward III.
Northumberland. Inq. taken at Whytyngeham, 1 February, 24 Edward III.
By reason of the minority of the said heir, the following lands &c. were
taken into the king's hand ex officio by Robert Bertram, late escheator of the
county.
Whityngeham, Throunton and Barton. Two parts of a moiety of the manor of
Whityngeham and of the hamlets of Throunton and Barton, which are parcel thereof
(extents given), including rents in Glanton, held of the king in chief by
service of two parts of a moiety of half a mark yearly by the hands of the sheriff,
because the manor and town of Whityngeham and the hamlets of Throunton and
Barton are held of the king in chief by service of a hawk or half a mark yearly
only, as appears by a charter of Henry [II], king of England, made to Roger de
Flamenvilla in these words:
H. Rex Anglorum et Dux Normannorum et Aquitanorum et Comes Andegavorum,
archiepiscopis episcopis abbatibus comitibus boronibus justiciis vicecomitibus
ministris et omnibus fidelibus suis Francis et Anglis, salutem. Sciatis me dedisse
et presenti carta confirmasse Rogero de Flamenvilla totam terram que fuit
Huchtredi filii Gamel in Withingch' et Trowentona et Bartona et Glantadona, ipsi
et heredibus suis, ad tenendam de me et de heredibus meis quietam ab omni
servicio excepto uno espervario inde michi reddendo per annum. Quare volo et
firmiter precipio quod ipse Rogerus et heredes sui post eum totam terram illam
habeant et teneant de me et heredibus meis bene et in pace libere et quiete
integre plenarie et honorifice per prenominatum servicium cum omnibus pertinentiis
et libertatibus et liberis consuetudinibus suis. Testibus F[rogerio] episcopo
Sagiensi, Hugone de Creissi, Goscelino Castell' fratre Regine, Ayd. Argentom
(sic).
King John on 30 March in his first year, confirmed the said charter to
William son of Roger de Flamenvilla. (the text here given is the same as that in
Rotuli Chartarum, p. 42b, with the addition of the following witnesses:----Robert
de Ros, Richard de Reveriis, William de Cantilupo and Robert de Vancy.)
Nedderton in Cokedale. Two parts of a moiety of the town, held of William
Heroun by service of two parts of a penny yearly.
Great Rihill in Cokedale. Two parts of a moiety of the town, held of the heir
of Richard fitz Rauf by service of two parts of a penny yearly.
Little Rihill. Two parts of a toft and of 40 acres land held of the
inheritance of Henry de Rihill by service of two parts of a pair of gloves yearly or
two parts of 2d.
Alburwyk. A cottage held of Alan de Belyngeham by service of a rose yearly.
No other lands &c. are held of the aforesaid inheritance in this county.
He died on Monday after the octave of St. Michael last. Beatrice fitz Henry,
his aunt, aged 24 years and more, is his heir. She married Thomas de Fencotes,
knight.
C. Edw. III. File 104. (19.)
Roger de Flamville left a son William and four daughters, Constance, Alice,
Maud and Christiana.
1. Roger de Flamville
1.1 William de Flamville
1.2 Maud de Flamville
1.3 Christiana de Flamville
1.4 Constance de Flamville [died bef. Nov. 26, 1261]
+William de Bataille
2.1 Robert de Bataille
2.2 Constance de Bataille
+ Sir William Douglas [1200-1274]
3.1 Sir William Douglas [1235 - bef. Jan. 24, 1298]
+ Elizabeth Stewart [1244-1289]
4.1 Sir James Douglas [1286- Aug. 25, 1330]
4.2 Willelma Douglas [died Dec. 25, 1302]
+ William Galbraith
+ Eleanor de Louvaine [aft. March 5, 1326]
4.1 Sir Archibald Douglas [1290-July 19, 1333]
4.2 Hugh Douglas
1.5 Alice de Flamville
+Michael Ryhill
2.1 Thomas Ryhill [Died ca. March 15, 1266/7]
3.1 Michael Ryhill [Died ca. March 20, 1291/2]
4.1 Isabel Ryhill [Dec. 6, 1277 - ca. July 12, 1309]
+ John Fitz Hugh [Died Aug. 14, 1305]
Notes:
1. Constance de Flamville:
Calendar of Documents pertaining to Scotland preserved in her majestys public
Record office, London edited by Joseph Bain, Vol. I 1108-1272, H.M. General
Register House 1881, Edinburgh:
#2281. Nov. 26, 1261.
Northumberland:---The king has taken the homage of Robert Bataile, son and
heir of Constance de Flamville lately deceased for the lands that she held in
capite, and has delivered him the lands. William de Latymer the king's escheator
ultra Trent is commanded on taking security for 4s.6d. to give Robert seisin.
[Tower of London] [ Originalia, 46 Henry III, m.2]
#653. 1199-1216.
Essoins de malo veniendi in the octaves of St. Hilary.
Northumberland:---Constance wife of William Bataylle versus John Fitz Simon in a plea to hear her
trial by Yedonus de Swouegheton, in fifteen days from Easter. The same day is
given to William in banco. [Coram Rege Rolls, John 'incert' no. 60 m.1]
2. Constance Bataille:
Calendar of Documents Pertaining to Scotland in her majestys public record
office, London edited by Joseph Bain, Vol. 1 1108-1272, H.M. General Register
House, Edinburgh, 1881:
#2538. June 25, 1269.
[M. 2 dorso] Northumberland:---Pleas before Gilbert de Preston and other
justices itinerant at Newcastle-upon-Tyne, on the morrow of St. John [the] Baptist.
The assize recognises whether Gilbert de Humfarville unjustly disseized
William de Duglas and Custancia his wife of their freehold in Faudon; viz., a
messuage and 3 carucates and 5 acres of land. Gilbert merely says that at one time
he took the tenement, by the precept of lord Edward, as William was accused of
having been against the king and said lord Edward in the late disturbance in
the kingdom. That afterwards he restored seizin to William by the lord
Edward's precept, viz., about the Feast of St. Michael in the king's 51st year, and
has never since interfered with said tenement, and claims nothing but the
service due him from said manor. William and Custancia say that after Gilbert had
seisin of the tenement by lord Edward's precept, he [William] went to the
king's court and showed both to the king and lord Edward that he had never joined
the disturbance against them, and placed himself on a jury out of the county,
by whom the matter was tried. So the king himself by his writ enjoined the
Sheriff of the county to give seisin to William; which the Sheriff did accordingly
as they say, about the 'Gule of Autumn' in the aforesaid year. And they were
in peaceful seisin for eight days until Gilbert unjustly disseised them and
burned the houses on the tenement. And they place themselves on the assize. The
jurors say on oath, that at one time William was charged with having been
against the king and lord Edward in the late troubles, and was afterwards cleared
thereof by an inquisition held by the king's precept. And the Sheriff of the
county was directed by the king's writ to give William and Custancia seisin,
which he did accordingly, and after they were seised Gilbert sent his men and
ejected them from their holding, and while it was in his possession their houses
were burned. And the jury find that he disseised them unjustly as the writ
says. The judgment of the court is that William and Custancia shall recover
seisin by view of the jurors; and Gilbert is in amercement. damages, besides the
combustion, 90 marks; whereof 20 marks. Damages of the above combustion £20; to
the judgment for damages of the combustion. (some explanatory words seem
wanting).
M.3.
William Duglas was summoned to answer to Gylemin de Wollouere in a plea to
show cause why he deforced him of 30s. of rent in Faundon which William Batayle
demised to him for a term not yet expired. During which term the said William
Batayl sold the rent to William de Duglas, by reason whereof the latter
ejected Gylemin therefrom. And further that whereas the said William Batayle had
demised the said rent to the plaintiff at the Feast of the Purification of the
Blessed Mary in the king's 48th year, for the term of six years. The said
William Batayle, at the Feast of the Invention of the Holy Rood next thereafter,
sold the same to the said William de Duglas, whereon the latter ejected the
Plaintiff within the aforesaid term, from said rent, to his damages as he says, to
the extent of £20. William comes and defends. Afterwards he gives a mark for
leave to agree, It is agreed that Gylemin remits his claim for 5 1/2 marks
given to him by William. [Assize Roll, Northumberland, 53 Henry III].
#2047. April 24, 1256.
William de Duglasse acknowledged that he had granted by charter to William
his son for his homage and service, a carucate of land in Warentham, and 40
acres of land in same vill, by two charters, as more fully therein; and John de
Haulton and Johanna de Faudon shall remain guardians of said William and his
land, as he is under age. [ Assize Roll,
Northumberland, 40 Henry III, m. 2 dorso].
3. Willelma Douglas:
Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties public
record office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307, edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh,
1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the Martyr 1303, by
the king's command in presence of Magnus de Strathearne and Nicholas de
Benbathe, viceregents of the earl of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de
Achenlek, Hugh de Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John son
of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of Adam, Laurence son
of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors; who say that Sir John Comyn,
grandfather of the present Sir John Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William
de Galbrathe in frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward
or relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said Sir William
gave it to his son William in frank marriage with Lady Willelma, daughter of the
late Sir William de Duglas; which 'said Williams' begot four daughters,
coheiresses Johanna the mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the
demesne should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at Candelmas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in possession of the
tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was
held of the late Sir John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the
king's gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The seals of
Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only appended, as the others have
no seals. The inquisition is enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only,
as the seal of Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
Regards,
MichaelAnne Guido
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
Sunday, 16 January, 2005
Dear MichaelAnne,
Many thanks for this detailed post. In addition to setting
forth the ancestry of Beatrice " fitz Henry ", you have provided
an interesting connection between the Fitz Hugh and Douglas
families through their common descent from Roger de Flamville.
As to the connection you show between the Douglas family and
that of Galbraith, this actually leads to a very interesting line
of descent. One document you provided a complete transcription
for was an inquisition concerning the lands of Dalserf, dated
Dec. 30, 1303 [1]. Specifically, this shows that one Johanna
(de) Galbraith, daughter of William de Galbraith and Willelma de
Douglas, was married to a 'Bernard de Cathe'. This in fact is a
gentleman better known as Bernard de Keith, identified by Andrew
B. W. MacEwen as the younger brother of Sir William de Keith
(d. ca. 1293) and ancestor of the Keiths of Galston.
The descents via Bernard de Keith and Joan de Galbraith
appear as follows:
1) Sarah ' filia = William Comyn = 2) Marjory of
Roberti' I E of Buchan I Buchan
I V
I
Richard Comyn of Badenoch d.ca. 1245
I____
I
Sir John Comyn of Badenoch
_____I_______________________
I I
William mac = NN Comyn John Comyn of Badenoch
Arthur de I = Eleanor de Baliol
Galbraith I_____ I
d. aft 1253 I V
I
Sir William = Willelma de Douglas
de Galbraith I d. 1302
_______I_____________________________
I I I I
Bernard de = Joan de Galbraith sisters/coheirs
Keith, of I d. 1301
Galston I
___________I___________
I I
Bernard Sir William Keith of Galston
k. at Stirling, 1336
____I
I
Sir William Keith of Galston
I
I
1) Sir David = Janet Keith = 2) Alexander Stewart
de Hamilton I heiress I dvp 1402
d bef Nov 1388 I d aft 1406 I laird of Galston dju
I I
V V
from whom, HAMILTON from whom, STEWART of Darnley
(Dukes/Marquesses/etc) (Earls of Lennox/Kings of Scots/etc)
I will post a more detailed pedigree later, but the above
illustrates the newly identified descent of the Stewart and
Hamilton families, via Keith of Galston, from the Douglas,
Galbraiths and Comyns.
Many thanks for this fine addition!
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland Preserved in Her
Majesties Public Record Office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307,
edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh, 1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the
Martyr 1303, by the king's command in presence of Magnus de
Strathearne and Nicholas de Benbathe, viceregents of the earl
of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de Achenlek, Hugh de
Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John
son of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of
Adam, Laurence son of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors;
who say that Sir John Comyn, grandfather of the present Sir John
Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William de Galbrathe in
frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward or
relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said
Sir William gave it to his son William in frank marriage with
Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas; which
'said Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the
mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne
should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at
Candelmas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in
possession of the tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's
Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was held of the late Sir
John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the king's
gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The
seals of Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only
appended, as the others have no seals. The inquisition is
enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only, as the seal of
Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
Dear MichaelAnne,
Many thanks for this detailed post. In addition to setting
forth the ancestry of Beatrice " fitz Henry ", you have provided
an interesting connection between the Fitz Hugh and Douglas
families through their common descent from Roger de Flamville.
As to the connection you show between the Douglas family and
that of Galbraith, this actually leads to a very interesting line
of descent. One document you provided a complete transcription
for was an inquisition concerning the lands of Dalserf, dated
Dec. 30, 1303 [1]. Specifically, this shows that one Johanna
(de) Galbraith, daughter of William de Galbraith and Willelma de
Douglas, was married to a 'Bernard de Cathe'. This in fact is a
gentleman better known as Bernard de Keith, identified by Andrew
B. W. MacEwen as the younger brother of Sir William de Keith
(d. ca. 1293) and ancestor of the Keiths of Galston.
The descents via Bernard de Keith and Joan de Galbraith
appear as follows:
1) Sarah ' filia = William Comyn = 2) Marjory of
Roberti' I E of Buchan I Buchan
I V
I
Richard Comyn of Badenoch d.ca. 1245
I____
I
Sir John Comyn of Badenoch
_____I_______________________
I I
William mac = NN Comyn John Comyn of Badenoch
Arthur de I = Eleanor de Baliol
Galbraith I_____ I
d. aft 1253 I V
I
Sir William = Willelma de Douglas
de Galbraith I d. 1302
_______I_____________________________
I I I I
Bernard de = Joan de Galbraith sisters/coheirs
Keith, of I d. 1301
Galston I
___________I___________
I I
Bernard Sir William Keith of Galston
k. at Stirling, 1336
____I
I
Sir William Keith of Galston
I
I
1) Sir David = Janet Keith = 2) Alexander Stewart
de Hamilton I heiress I dvp 1402
d bef Nov 1388 I d aft 1406 I laird of Galston dju
I I
V V
from whom, HAMILTON from whom, STEWART of Darnley
(Dukes/Marquesses/etc) (Earls of Lennox/Kings of Scots/etc)
I will post a more detailed pedigree later, but the above
illustrates the newly identified descent of the Stewart and
Hamilton families, via Keith of Galston, from the Douglas,
Galbraiths and Comyns.
Many thanks for this fine addition!
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland Preserved in Her
Majesties Public Record Office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307,
edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh, 1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the
Martyr 1303, by the king's command in presence of Magnus de
Strathearne and Nicholas de Benbathe, viceregents of the earl
of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de Achenlek, Hugh de
Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John
son of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of
Adam, Laurence son of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors;
who say that Sir John Comyn, grandfather of the present Sir John
Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William de Galbrathe in
frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward or
relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said
Sir William gave it to his son William in frank marriage with
Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas; which
'said Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the
mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne
should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at
Candelmas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in
possession of the tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's
Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was held of the late Sir
John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the king's
gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The
seals of Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only
appended, as the others have no seals. The inquisition is
enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only, as the seal of
Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
This is not new. I've been researching the Galbraiths for years
now. The abstract you cite I have had posted on the Clan
Kincaid web site for several years now
(http://www.alphalink.com.au/~kincaid/scotrec.htm).
The Galston connection to Bernard de Keith seems speculative
but Sir William Keith of Galston certainly acquired Galbraith lands
through an heiress. A couple of years ago I posted to this
group that my research at the time led me to believe that Sir
William Keith of Galston or his heir left "two heiresses" of which
one share ended up with the Hamiltons of Cadzow and the other with
the Campbells (later the Campbells of Auchenhowie). See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1043724719.
Best wishes!
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
At 08:56 PM 16/01/2005, Therav3@aol.com wrote:
now. The abstract you cite I have had posted on the Clan
Kincaid web site for several years now
(http://www.alphalink.com.au/~kincaid/scotrec.htm).
The Galston connection to Bernard de Keith seems speculative
but Sir William Keith of Galston certainly acquired Galbraith lands
through an heiress. A couple of years ago I posted to this
group that my research at the time led me to believe that Sir
William Keith of Galston or his heir left "two heiresses" of which
one share ended up with the Hamiltons of Cadzow and the other with
the Campbells (later the Campbells of Auchenhowie). See
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/GE ... 1043724719.
Best wishes!
Peter A. Kincaid
Fredericton, NB, Canada
At 08:56 PM 16/01/2005, Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Sunday, 16 January, 2005
Dear MichaelAnne,
Many thanks for this detailed post. In addition to setting
forth the ancestry of Beatrice " fitz Henry ", you have provided
an interesting connection between the Fitz Hugh and Douglas
families through their common descent from Roger de Flamville.
As to the connection you show between the Douglas family and
that of Galbraith, this actually leads to a very interesting line
of descent. One document you provided a complete transcription
for was an inquisition concerning the lands of Dalserf, dated
Dec. 30, 1303 [1]. Specifically, this shows that one Johanna
(de) Galbraith, daughter of William de Galbraith and Willelma de
Douglas, was married to a 'Bernard de Cathe'. This in fact is a
gentleman better known as Bernard de Keith, identified by Andrew
B. W. MacEwen as the younger brother of Sir William de Keith
(d. ca. 1293) and ancestor of the Keiths of Galston.
The descents via Bernard de Keith and Joan de Galbraith
appear as follows:
1) Sarah ' filia = William Comyn = 2) Marjory of
Roberti' I E of Buchan I Buchan
I V
I
Richard Comyn of Badenoch d.ca. 1245
I____
I
Sir John Comyn of Badenoch
_____I_______________________
I I
William mac = NN Comyn John Comyn of Badenoch
Arthur de I = Eleanor de Baliol
Galbraith I_____ I
d. aft 1253 I V
I
Sir William = Willelma de Douglas
de Galbraith I d. 1302
_______I_____________________________
I I I I
Bernard de = Joan de Galbraith sisters/coheirs
Keith, of I d. 1301
Galston I
___________I___________
I I
Bernard Sir William Keith of Galston
k. at Stirling, 1336
____I
I
Sir William Keith of Galston
I
I
1) Sir David = Janet Keith = 2) Alexander Stewart
de Hamilton I heiress I dvp 1402
d bef Nov 1388 I d aft 1406 I laird of Galston dju
I I
V V
from whom, HAMILTON from whom, STEWART of Darnley
(Dukes/Marquesses/etc) (Earls of Lennox/Kings of Scots/etc)
I will post a more detailed pedigree later, but the above
illustrates the newly identified descent of the Stewart and
Hamilton families, via Keith of Galston, from the Douglas,
Galbraiths and Comyns.
Many thanks for this fine addition!
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland Preserved in Her
Majesties Public Record Office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307,
edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh, 1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the
Martyr 1303, by the king's command in presence of Magnus de
Strathearne and Nicholas de Benbathe, viceregents of the earl
of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de Achenlek, Hugh de
Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John
son of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of
Adam, Laurence son of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors;
who say that Sir John Comyn, grandfather of the present Sir John
Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William de Galbrathe in
frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward or
relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said
Sir William gave it to his son William in frank marriage with
Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas; which
'said Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the
mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne
should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at
Candelmas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in
possession of the tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's
Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was held of the late Sir
John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the king's
gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The
seals of Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only
appended, as the others have no seals. The inquisition is
enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only, as the seal of
Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
Sunday, 16 January, 2005
Dear Peter,
To be sure, the Keith of Galston - Hamilton/Stewart
connection is not new; likewise, the 1303 document from Bain's.
I've not seen the overall link, from Comyn via Galbraith to Janet
Keith and her descendants, in another source, so I felt it
worthwhile to post it to the list. (Why, 600 years +/-, it's
hard to argue the 'newness' anyway.)
I looked back in the archives, and see where the exchange on
families from the Lennox occurred (I see we had exchanged views
in that thread, in 2003). The families of that Earldom are of
interest to me as well, as the back-and-forth of family
relationships between those of the Lennox and those in Carrick
have created a number of ancestral links (Livingston of Kilsyth,
Bruce of Airth, and of course Stewart/Stuart of Darnley).
Good luck with the ancestral hunt; hope it's not too nippy
up there in NB.
Cheers,
John
Dear Peter,
To be sure, the Keith of Galston - Hamilton/Stewart
connection is not new; likewise, the 1303 document from Bain's.
I've not seen the overall link, from Comyn via Galbraith to Janet
Keith and her descendants, in another source, so I felt it
worthwhile to post it to the list. (Why, 600 years +/-, it's
hard to argue the 'newness' anyway.)
I looked back in the archives, and see where the exchange on
families from the Lennox occurred (I see we had exchanged views
in that thread, in 2003). The families of that Earldom are of
interest to me as well, as the back-and-forth of family
relationships between those of the Lennox and those in Carrick
have created a number of ancestral links (Livingston of Kilsyth,
Bruce of Airth, and of course Stewart/Stuart of Darnley).
Good luck with the ancestral hunt; hope it's not too nippy
up there in NB.
Cheers,
John
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
In message of 17 Jan, Therav3@aol.com wrote:
This is an interesting new light on this bit of Hamilton, and Stewart,
ancestry.
To date, though, I have taken my script from The Scots Peers,
principally the Hamilton and Marischal articles. Going backwards in
time we have:
Janet Keith, dau and sole heir of Sir William Keith of Galston. SP
IV, 345 (her marriage to Alex Stewart is on p. 145 of the same
volume) and SP VI, 29.
Sir William Keith of Galston, killed at Stirling 1336, ambassador to
England. SP VI, 29.
Robert (?) Keith, third son. SP VI, 29.
John de Keith, Marischal and of Keith, d. bef.1270. He is said to have
married Margaret Comyn who may have been dau. of William earl of
Buchan. SP VI, 28-29.
SP gives some references in the footnotes. Why is it that SP has it so
very different to the above account?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Many thanks for this detailed post. In addition to setting
forth the ancestry of Beatrice " fitz Henry ", you have provided
an interesting connection between the Fitz Hugh and Douglas
families through their common descent from Roger de Flamville.
As to the connection you show between the Douglas family and
that of Galbraith, this actually leads to a very interesting line
of descent. One document you provided a complete transcription
for was an inquisition concerning the lands of Dalserf, dated
Dec. 30, 1303 [1]. Specifically, this shows that one Johanna
(de) Galbraith, daughter of William de Galbraith and Willelma de
Douglas, was married to a 'Bernard de Cathe'. This in fact is a
gentleman better known as Bernard de Keith, identified by Andrew
B. W. MacEwen as the younger brother of Sir William de Keith
(d. ca. 1293) and ancestor of the Keiths of Galston.
The descents via Bernard de Keith and Joan de Galbraith
appear as follows:
1) Sarah ' filia = William Comyn = 2) Marjory of
Roberti' I E of Buchan I Buchan
I V
I
Richard Comyn of Badenoch d.ca. 1245
I____
I
Sir John Comyn of Badenoch
_____I_______________________
I I
William mac = NN Comyn John Comyn of Badenoch
Arthur de I = Eleanor de Baliol
Galbraith I_____ I
d. aft 1253 I V
I
Sir William = Willelma de Douglas
de Galbraith I d. 1302
_______I_____________________________
I I I I
Bernard de = Joan de Galbraith sisters/coheirs
Keith, of I d. 1301
Galston I
___________I___________
I I
Bernard Sir William Keith of Galston
k. at Stirling, 1336
____I
I
Sir William Keith of Galston
I
I
1) Sir David = Janet Keith = 2) Alexander Stewart
de Hamilton I heiress I dvp 1402
d bef Nov 1388 I d aft 1406 I laird of Galston dju
I I
V V
from whom, HAMILTON from whom, STEWART of Darnley
(Dukes/Marquesses/etc) (Earls of Lennox/Kings of Scots/etc)
I will post a more detailed pedigree later, but the above
illustrates the newly identified descent of the Stewart and
Hamilton families, via Keith of Galston, from the Douglas,
Galbraiths and Comyns.
Many thanks for this fine addition!
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland Preserved in Her
Majesties Public Record Office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307,
edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh, 1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the
Martyr 1303, by the king's command in presence of Magnus de
Strathearne and Nicholas de Benbathe, viceregents of the earl
of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de Achenlek, Hugh de
Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John
son of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of
Adam, Laurence son of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors;
who say that Sir John Comyn, grandfather of the present Sir John
Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William de Galbrathe in
frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward or
relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said
Sir William gave it to his son William in frank marriage with
Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas; which
'said Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the
mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne
should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at
Candelmas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in
possession of the tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's
Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was held of the late Sir
John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the king's
gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The
seals of Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only
appended, as the others have no seals. The inquisition is
enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only, as the seal of
Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
This is an interesting new light on this bit of Hamilton, and Stewart,
ancestry.
To date, though, I have taken my script from The Scots Peers,
principally the Hamilton and Marischal articles. Going backwards in
time we have:
Janet Keith, dau and sole heir of Sir William Keith of Galston. SP
IV, 345 (her marriage to Alex Stewart is on p. 145 of the same
volume) and SP VI, 29.
Sir William Keith of Galston, killed at Stirling 1336, ambassador to
England. SP VI, 29.
Robert (?) Keith, third son. SP VI, 29.
John de Keith, Marischal and of Keith, d. bef.1270. He is said to have
married Margaret Comyn who may have been dau. of William earl of
Buchan. SP VI, 28-29.
SP gives some references in the footnotes. Why is it that SP has it so
very different to the above account?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
Monday, 17 January, 2005
Dear Tim,
I agree that, in general, the account for any Scots family in SP
is superior to any published before, and likely many since. At the
same time, some (perhaps many) of the accounts in SP have portions
which have been worked on little since Sir Robert Douglas or before;
additional records have been analyzed which were not used, or known to
exist, prior to say 1900-1910; and the relevant chronology has provided
a means for determining that earlier accounts are either incomplete or
in error.
The basic problem with the account in SP, as you cite above:
1) Sir William Keith of Galston was slain at Stirling in 1336
[SP].
2) Janet Keith, heiress of Galston, was married 1st to Sir David
de Hamilton of Cadzow. Sir
David succeeded his father ca. 1375-1378. An exact date as to
his marriage to Janet Keith
is not known, but we known Sir David was alive in 1381, and
that he died sometime before
Nov. 1388 [G. Hamilton, House of Hamilton, p. 5, cites Frasers
of Pitorth, p. 120].
3) Janet Keith married 2ndly Alexander Stewart, son and heir of
Sir Alexander Stewart of
Darnley. The earliest possible date this marriage could have
occurred is 1381, and the
earliest possible date for legitimate issue of this marriage to
have been born is 1382. Janet's
eldest son by this marriage, Sir John Stewart, succeeded his
grandfather Sir Alexander
Stewart in Darnley and Cruikston by 1406, when he witnessed a
grant by his mother Janet
to his half-brother Andrew Hamilton of lands at Galston ( in
her widowhood, she granted lands
in Galston to her son Andrew Hamilton in a charter dated 11 Dec
1406. Witnesses included
' Willielmus de Hamyltoun, filius meus, Miles; et Joannes
Senescallus, filius meus, dominus
de Cruickston ' [Andrew Stuart, p. 102]).
4) After Sir John Stewart, Janet Keith had additional issue by
Alexander Stewart: these included
sons Robert and James, for whom a grant of part of the £5 lands
in Newton was made in
1399 [Andrew Stuart, pp. 102, 104]. I also show Janet Stewart,
subsequently wife of Thomas
Somerville of Cambusnethan, as a daughter of this marriage. If
there were only these three
addtional children of Alexander Stewart and Janet Keith, and if
their son John Stewart was
born as early as 1382, it seems reasonable to assume these
births occurred over a period
of no earlier than 1383, and no later than 1385/1386.
This would then place Janet Keith as having issue by Alexander
Stewart in 1385/1386, and possibly later.
The account in SP would have Janet Keith being born in 1336 (the
year her father was slain at Stirling), and very likely before. If
correct, then, Janet Keith was bearing children (her 4th at least by
Alexander Stewart, after 6 by David Hamilton) at an age of somewhere
between 50 and 60 years.
I believe that Andrew MacEwen has found documentation that
supports there being a 2nd Sir William Keith of Galston, son of the Sir
William slain in 1336, who was father of Janet Keith. The chronology
in SP, as documented above, is flawed, and supports there being an
intervening generation between Sir Willam (d. 1336) and Janet Keith (d.
after 11 Dec 1406).
Andrew MacEwen's analysis of the earlier generations of the
Keiths of Galston, incl. the passage of the Galbraith lands to this
family, is what has found the derivation in SP (Robert vs. Bernard) to
be in error.
Cheers,
John
Dear Tim,
I agree that, in general, the account for any Scots family in SP
is superior to any published before, and likely many since. At the
same time, some (perhaps many) of the accounts in SP have portions
which have been worked on little since Sir Robert Douglas or before;
additional records have been analyzed which were not used, or known to
exist, prior to say 1900-1910; and the relevant chronology has provided
a means for determining that earlier accounts are either incomplete or
in error.
The basic problem with the account in SP, as you cite above:
1) Sir William Keith of Galston was slain at Stirling in 1336
[SP].
2) Janet Keith, heiress of Galston, was married 1st to Sir David
de Hamilton of Cadzow. Sir
David succeeded his father ca. 1375-1378. An exact date as to
his marriage to Janet Keith
is not known, but we known Sir David was alive in 1381, and
that he died sometime before
Nov. 1388 [G. Hamilton, House of Hamilton, p. 5, cites Frasers
of Pitorth, p. 120].
3) Janet Keith married 2ndly Alexander Stewart, son and heir of
Sir Alexander Stewart of
Darnley. The earliest possible date this marriage could have
occurred is 1381, and the
earliest possible date for legitimate issue of this marriage to
have been born is 1382. Janet's
eldest son by this marriage, Sir John Stewart, succeeded his
grandfather Sir Alexander
Stewart in Darnley and Cruikston by 1406, when he witnessed a
grant by his mother Janet
to his half-brother Andrew Hamilton of lands at Galston ( in
her widowhood, she granted lands
in Galston to her son Andrew Hamilton in a charter dated 11 Dec
1406. Witnesses included
' Willielmus de Hamyltoun, filius meus, Miles; et Joannes
Senescallus, filius meus, dominus
de Cruickston ' [Andrew Stuart, p. 102]).
4) After Sir John Stewart, Janet Keith had additional issue by
Alexander Stewart: these included
sons Robert and James, for whom a grant of part of the £5 lands
in Newton was made in
1399 [Andrew Stuart, pp. 102, 104]. I also show Janet Stewart,
subsequently wife of Thomas
Somerville of Cambusnethan, as a daughter of this marriage. If
there were only these three
addtional children of Alexander Stewart and Janet Keith, and if
their son John Stewart was
born as early as 1382, it seems reasonable to assume these
births occurred over a period
of no earlier than 1383, and no later than 1385/1386.
This would then place Janet Keith as having issue by Alexander
Stewart in 1385/1386, and possibly later.
The account in SP would have Janet Keith being born in 1336 (the
year her father was slain at Stirling), and very likely before. If
correct, then, Janet Keith was bearing children (her 4th at least by
Alexander Stewart, after 6 by David Hamilton) at an age of somewhere
between 50 and 60 years.
I believe that Andrew MacEwen has found documentation that
supports there being a 2nd Sir William Keith of Galston, son of the Sir
William slain in 1336, who was father of Janet Keith. The chronology
in SP, as documented above, is flawed, and supports there being an
intervening generation between Sir Willam (d. 1336) and Janet Keith (d.
after 11 Dec 1406).
Andrew MacEwen's analysis of the earlier generations of the
Keiths of Galston, incl. the passage of the Galbraith lands to this
family, is what has found the derivation in SP (Robert vs. Bernard) to
be in error.
Cheers,
John
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
In message of 17 Jan, therav3@aol.com wrote:
Many thanks for all this. Once we have disputes, the need is then for
evidence. I hope that one day Andrew MacEwen's findings will see the
light of day so that we can decide whether we agree with him or not.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
I agree that, in general, the account for any Scots family in SP
is superior to any published before, and likely many since. At the
same time, some (perhaps many) of the accounts in SP have portions
which have been worked on little since Sir Robert Douglas or before;
additional records have been analyzed which were not used, or known to
exist, prior to say 1900-1910; and the relevant chronology has provided
a means for determining that earlier accounts are either incomplete or
in error.
The basic problem with the account in SP, as you cite above:
1) Sir William Keith of Galston was slain at Stirling in 1336
[SP].
2) Janet Keith, heiress of Galston, was married 1st to Sir David
de Hamilton of Cadzow. Sir
David succeeded his father ca. 1375-1378. An exact date as to
his marriage to Janet Keith
is not known, but we known Sir David was alive in 1381, and
that he died sometime before
Nov. 1388 [G. Hamilton, House of Hamilton, p. 5, cites Frasers
of Pitorth, p. 120].
3) Janet Keith married 2ndly Alexander Stewart, son and heir of
Sir Alexander Stewart of
Darnley. The earliest possible date this marriage could have
occurred is 1381, and the
earliest possible date for legitimate issue of this marriage to
have been born is 1382. Janet's
eldest son by this marriage, Sir John Stewart, succeeded his
grandfather Sir Alexander
Stewart in Darnley and Cruikston by 1406, when he witnessed a
grant by his mother Janet
to his half-brother Andrew Hamilton of lands at Galston ( in
her widowhood, she granted lands
in Galston to her son Andrew Hamilton in a charter dated 11 Dec
1406. Witnesses included
' Willielmus de Hamyltoun, filius meus, Miles; et Joannes
Senescallus, filius meus, dominus
de Cruickston ' [Andrew Stuart, p. 102]).
4) After Sir John Stewart, Janet Keith had additional issue by
Alexander Stewart: these included
sons Robert and James, for whom a grant of part of the £5 lands
in Newton was made in
1399 [Andrew Stuart, pp. 102, 104]. I also show Janet Stewart,
subsequently wife of Thomas
Somerville of Cambusnethan, as a daughter of this marriage. If
there were only these three
addtional children of Alexander Stewart and Janet Keith, and if
their son John Stewart was
born as early as 1382, it seems reasonable to assume these
births occurred over a period
of no earlier than 1383, and no later than 1385/1386.
This would then place Janet Keith as having issue by Alexander
Stewart in 1385/1386, and possibly later.
The account in SP would have Janet Keith being born in 1336 (the
year her father was slain at Stirling), and very likely before. If
correct, then, Janet Keith was bearing children (her 4th at least by
Alexander Stewart, after 6 by David Hamilton) at an age of somewhere
between 50 and 60 years.
I believe that Andrew MacEwen has found documentation that
supports there being a 2nd Sir William Keith of Galston, son of the Sir
William slain in 1336, who was father of Janet Keith. The chronology
in SP, as documented above, is flawed, and supports there being an
intervening generation between Sir Willam (d. 1336) and Janet Keith (d.
after 11 Dec 1406).
Andrew MacEwen's analysis of the earlier generations of the
Keiths of Galston, incl. the passage of the Galbraith lands to this
family, is what has found the derivation in SP (Robert vs. Bernard) to
be in error.
Many thanks for all this. Once we have disputes, the need is then for
evidence. I hope that one day Andrew MacEwen's findings will see the
light of day so that we can decide whether we agree with him or not.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
Monday, 17 January, 2005
Dear Will,
The earlier generations of the Stewarts of Darnley have been
problematic for some time, but (as I believe Messrs. Thompson and
Hansen can testify) Andrew MacEwen has been helpful in resolving this
problem area as well as others.
A slight correction to your presentation (with one earlier
generation added on for accuracy's sake) gives the pedigree as follows:
0 Sir Alan Stewart, slain at Halidon Hill, 19 Jul 1333
1 Sir Alexander Stewart, laird of Darnley (succeeded his elder brother
Walter ca.
1377), d. aft 1401 (possibly 1404) + Joanna
2 Alexander Stewart, laird of Galston (de jure uxoris), dvp ca 1402
+ Janet Keith, heir of her father Sir William Keith and widow of
Sir David
Hamilton
3 Sir John Stewart, laird of Darnley, Seigneur of Aubigny d 12 Feb
1428/29 + Lady
Elizabeth of Lennox d/o Duncan Earl of Lennox
4 Alan Stewart, laird of Darnley, 2nd Seigneur of Aubigny d 20 Sept
1438 + Catherine
Seton
5 John Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 11 Sep 1495 + Margaret Montgomerie
6 Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 9 Sep 1513 Flodden + Elizabeth
Hamilton
7 John Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 4 Sep 1526 + Lady Elizabeth Stewart
8 Matthew Stuart, Earl of Lennox d 4 Sep 1571 murdered at Stirling +
Lady Margaret
Douglas
9 Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley + Mary "Queen of Scots"
A minor note, Alan Stewart of Darnley (#4 above) was not a knight.
He also did not die in battle, but was murdered near Linlithgow
(Scotland) on 20 Sept 1438.
The major issue, as noted above, is that Alexander Stewart (#2)
died in his father's lifetime; did NOT succeed to Darnley; and was the
2nd husband of Janet Keith.
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers,
John
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
findings will see the light of day so that we can decide whether we
agree with him or not."
tried to use Leo's fabulous http://www.genealogics.org site to create the
linkage.
person?
Dear Will,
The earlier generations of the Stewarts of Darnley have been
problematic for some time, but (as I believe Messrs. Thompson and
Hansen can testify) Andrew MacEwen has been helpful in resolving this
problem area as well as others.
A slight correction to your presentation (with one earlier
generation added on for accuracy's sake) gives the pedigree as follows:
0 Sir Alan Stewart, slain at Halidon Hill, 19 Jul 1333
1 Sir Alexander Stewart, laird of Darnley (succeeded his elder brother
Walter ca.
1377), d. aft 1401 (possibly 1404) + Joanna
2 Alexander Stewart, laird of Galston (de jure uxoris), dvp ca 1402
+ Janet Keith, heir of her father Sir William Keith and widow of
Sir David
Hamilton
3 Sir John Stewart, laird of Darnley, Seigneur of Aubigny d 12 Feb
1428/29 + Lady
Elizabeth of Lennox d/o Duncan Earl of Lennox
4 Alan Stewart, laird of Darnley, 2nd Seigneur of Aubigny d 20 Sept
1438 + Catherine
Seton
5 John Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 11 Sep 1495 + Margaret Montgomerie
6 Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 9 Sep 1513 Flodden + Elizabeth
Hamilton
7 John Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 4 Sep 1526 + Lady Elizabeth Stewart
8 Matthew Stuart, Earl of Lennox d 4 Sep 1571 murdered at Stirling +
Lady Margaret
Douglas
9 Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley + Mary "Queen of Scots"
A minor note, Alan Stewart of Darnley (#4 above) was not a knight.
He also did not die in battle, but was murdered near Linlithgow
(Scotland) on 20 Sept 1438.
The major issue, as noted above, is that Alexander Stewart (#2)
died in his father's lifetime; did NOT succeed to Darnley; and was the
2nd husband of Janet Keith.
Hope this is helpful.
Cheers,
John
WJhon...@aol.com wrote:
Tim wrote: "Many thanks for all this. Once we have disputes, the
need is then for evidence. I hope that one day Andrew MacEwen's
findings will see the light of day so that we can decide whether we
agree with him or not."
But you would have to agree that it makes more sense that a woman
born no later than 1336 wouldn't be having children in 1386 ?
I have another question on this line. The descent presented so far
only alludes to the future Stewarts of Darnley off this line. So I
tried to use Leo's fabulous http://www.genealogics.org site to create the
linkage.
The Alexander Stewart here called Lord of Galston, is there
apparently called Lord of Darnley, married to Janet Keith.
The line from this couple to Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley then goes
like this:
1 Alexander Stewart, Lord Galston + Janet Keith
2 Alexander Stewart of Darnley d bef 5 May 1404 + NN
3 Sir John Stewart, Seigneur of Aubigny d 12 Feb 1429 + Lady
Elizabeth of Lennox d/o Duncan Earl of Lennox
4 Sir Alan Stewart, 2nd Seigneur of Aubigny d 1439 battle + Catherine
Seton
5 John Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 11 Sep 1495 + Margaret Montgomerie
6 Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 9 Sep 1513 Flodden + Elizabeth
Hamilton
7 John Stewart, Earl of Lennox d 4 Sep 1526 + Lady Elizabeth Stewart
8 Matthew Stuart, Earl of Lennox d 4 Sep 1571 murdered at Stirling +
Lady Margaret Douglas
9 Henry Stuart, Lord Darnley + Mary "Queen of Scots"
It's the early part of this line that looks possibly suspicious. I'm
not sure. It's possible that the first two Alexander's are the same
person?
Thanks
Will
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
In message of 17 Jan, WJhonson@aol.com wrote:
Assuming that the dates given have some documentary basis, then indeed
Janet/Jonet could not have been born in 1336. So who was her father?
And who was her grandfather? Etc. I would like to see some
documentation on this and am eagerly looking forward to its publication
in a place where I can access it.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Tim wrote: "Many thanks for all this. Once we have disputes, the
need is then for evidence. I hope that one day Andrew MacEwen's
findings will see the light of day so that we can decide whether we
agree with him or not."
But you would have to agree that it makes more sense that a woman
born no later than 1336 wouldn't be having children in 1386 ?
Assuming that the dates given have some documentary basis, then indeed
Janet/Jonet could not have been born in 1336. So who was her father?
And who was her grandfather? Etc. I would like to see some
documentation on this and am eagerly looking forward to its publication
in a place where I can access it.
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
I am not sure what Andrew MacEwen is putting together.
However, I have encountered one point regarding heirs
of Bernard de Keith and Johanna Galbraith (for that
matter Johanna siblings as well) that is troubling me.
There is nothing to suggest that Johanna's mother
was illegitimate. Thus, how could she left any
surviving descendants if Archibald 'the Grim' Douglas
was to succeed to the Douglas estates. Regardless of
the so called entail, her brother Sir William 'le Hardi'
Douglas ultimately left only illegitimate descendants.
Surely a challenge to the vast Douglas estates would have
been made by the legitimate descendants of Johanna
Douglas and her sisters.
The Carrick/Ayr connections to the Lennox is quite
fascinating. No wonder William Wallace took refuge
in the Lennox. I've been researching a number of
the connections as well.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 01:18 AM 17/01/2005, Therav3@aol.com wrote:
However, I have encountered one point regarding heirs
of Bernard de Keith and Johanna Galbraith (for that
matter Johanna siblings as well) that is troubling me.
There is nothing to suggest that Johanna's mother
was illegitimate. Thus, how could she left any
surviving descendants if Archibald 'the Grim' Douglas
was to succeed to the Douglas estates. Regardless of
the so called entail, her brother Sir William 'le Hardi'
Douglas ultimately left only illegitimate descendants.
Surely a challenge to the vast Douglas estates would have
been made by the legitimate descendants of Johanna
Douglas and her sisters.
The Carrick/Ayr connections to the Lennox is quite
fascinating. No wonder William Wallace took refuge
in the Lennox. I've been researching a number of
the connections as well.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 01:18 AM 17/01/2005, Therav3@aol.com wrote:
Sunday, 16 January, 2005
Dear Peter,
To be sure, the Keith of Galston - Hamilton/Stewart
connection is not new; likewise, the 1303 document from Bain's.
I've not seen the overall link, from Comyn via Galbraith to Janet
Keith and her descendants, in another source, so I felt it
worthwhile to post it to the list. (Why, 600 years +/-, it's
hard to argue the 'newness' anyway.)
I looked back in the archives, and see where the exchange on
families from the Lennox occurred (I see we had exchanged views
in that thread, in 2003). The families of that Earldom are of
interest to me as well, as the back-and-forth of family
relationships between those of the Lennox and those in Carrick
have created a number of ancestral links (Livingston of Kilsyth,
Bruce of Airth, and of course Stewart/Stuart of Darnley).
Good luck with the ancestral hunt; hope it's not too nippy
up there in NB.
Cheers,
John
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
2) Janet Keith, heiress of Galston, was married 1st to Sir David
de Hamilton of Cadzow. Sir
David succeeded his father ca. 1375-1378. An exact date as to
his marriage to Janet Keith
is not known, but we known Sir David was alive in 1381, and
that he died sometime before
Nov. 1388 [G. Hamilton, House of Hamilton, p. 5, cites Frasers
of Pitorth, p. 120].
In the 11 October 1381 confirmation, John de Hamilton was noted
as the son and heir of David de Hamilton and Janet de Keith (filio
nostro et herede) [Fraser, William. The Stirlings of Keir: And Their
Family Papers. Edinburgh, 1858. 202-204]. Thus, they were married
by at least by 1367. It was likely somewhere about this time as Sir John
Hamilton of Cadzow entered into a marriage contract with Jacoba Douglas,
daughter of Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith on 1 November 1388
[NAS, GD150/55].
Best wishes!
Peter
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
Dear Peter,
In answer to your question about the succession of Archibald Douglas as 3rd
Earl of Douglas the heirs of Willelma Douglas would have had no claim to the
title or the lands.
The 1st Earl of Douglas was William Douglas the son of Archibald Douglas, son
of William 'le Hardi' Douglas by his second wife Eleanor de Louvaine. He
married Margaret de Mar. He also had an illegitimate son George Douglas, by
Margaret, Countess of Angus, who came into his mother's lands. Upon the death of
William Douglas the title passed to his son James Douglas who also died without
legitimate issue and then because of the entail prepared in 1332 the title
devolved upon Archibald Douglas, the illegitimate son of Sir James Douglas. The
title and the attached lands never belonged to William 'le Hardi' Douglas but
to his grandson William Douglas so Willelma Douglas' heirs had no claim to it.
Willelma Douglas held Dalserf in dower as it is stated in the in following
inquisition that was cited previously, and Dalserf passed to the Keith family
from the Galbraith family.
Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties public
record office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307, edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh,
1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the Martyr 1303, by
the king's command in presence of Magnus de Strathearne and Nicholas de
Benbathe, viceregents of the earl of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de
Achenlek, Hugh de Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John son
of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of Adam, Laurence son
of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors; who say that Sir John Comyn,
grandfather of the present Sir John Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William
de Galbrathe in frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward
or relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said Sir William
gave it to his son William in frank marriage with Lady Willelma, daughter of the
late Sir William de Duglas; which 'said Williams' begot four daughters,
coheiresses Johanna the mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the
demesne should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at Candlemas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in possession of the
tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was
held of the late Sir John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the
king's gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The seals of
Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only appended, as the others have
no seals. The inquisition is enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only,
as the seal of Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
Regards,
MichaelAnne Guido
In answer to your question about the succession of Archibald Douglas as 3rd
Earl of Douglas the heirs of Willelma Douglas would have had no claim to the
title or the lands.
The 1st Earl of Douglas was William Douglas the son of Archibald Douglas, son
of William 'le Hardi' Douglas by his second wife Eleanor de Louvaine. He
married Margaret de Mar. He also had an illegitimate son George Douglas, by
Margaret, Countess of Angus, who came into his mother's lands. Upon the death of
William Douglas the title passed to his son James Douglas who also died without
legitimate issue and then because of the entail prepared in 1332 the title
devolved upon Archibald Douglas, the illegitimate son of Sir James Douglas. The
title and the attached lands never belonged to William 'le Hardi' Douglas but
to his grandson William Douglas so Willelma Douglas' heirs had no claim to it.
Willelma Douglas held Dalserf in dower as it is stated in the in following
inquisition that was cited previously, and Dalserf passed to the Keith family
from the Galbraith family.
Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties public
record office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307, edited by Joseph Bain, Edinburgh,
1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the Martyr 1303, by
the king's command in presence of Magnus de Strathearne and Nicholas de
Benbathe, viceregents of the earl of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick de
Achenlek, Hugh de Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William Casse, John son
of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of Adam, Laurence son
of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors; who say that Sir John Comyn,
grandfather of the present Sir John Comyn, gave the land of Dalserfe to Sir William
de Galbrathe in frank marriage with his daughter. It is held neither by ward
or relief, nor any other service till the third heir. The said Sir William
gave it to his son William in frank marriage with Lady Willelma, daughter of the
late Sir William de Duglas; which 'said Williams' begot four daughters,
coheiresses Johanna the mother of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the
demesne should belong, and was at the king's peace at her death at Candlemas 1301.
Her mother Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in possession of the
tenement, within the Feast of the Lord's Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was
held of the late Sir John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by the
king's gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The seals of
Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only appended, as the others have
no seals. The inquisition is enclosed under Nicholas de Benhathe's seal only,
as the seal of Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R. Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals
lost; 3 tags remain.
Regards,
MichaelAnne Guido
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Scots heiresses (was Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Rober
In message of 18 Jan, ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:
<snip of excellent information on the Douglases and the Keiths>
This is a further example to me of a difference between Scots and
English practices. In England heiresses were given equal shares of
their father's holdings. But in Scotland, the eldest daughter seems to
be treated like an eldest son: she gets the whole of the estate.
Similarly with titles, which seem to be inherited by the eldest heiress
and not go into abeyance between all the heiresses.
Can anyone confirm that this was Scots practice? And give more
information?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
<snip of excellent information on the Douglases and the Keiths>
It is held neither by ward or relief, nor any other service till the third
heir. The said Sir William gave it to his son William in frank marriage with
Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas; which 'said
Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the mother of Bernard
de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne should belong, and was at the
king's peace at her death at Candlemas 1301.
This is a further example to me of a difference between Scots and
English practices. In England heiresses were given equal shares of
their father's holdings. But in Scotland, the eldest daughter seems to
be treated like an eldest son: she gets the whole of the estate.
Similarly with titles, which seem to be inherited by the eldest heiress
and not go into abeyance between all the heiresses.
Can anyone confirm that this was Scots practice? And give more
information?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Scots heiresses (was Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of R
Wrong. The daughters had equal shares. The oldest daughter is
named because she had right to the demesne.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 04:39 AM 18/01/2005, you wrote:
named because she had right to the demesne.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 04:39 AM 18/01/2005, you wrote:
In message of 18 Jan, ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:
snip of excellent information on the Douglases and the Keiths
It is held neither by ward or relief, nor any other service till the third
heir. The said Sir William gave it to his son William in frank marriage
with
Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas; which 'said
Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the mother of Bernard
de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne should belong, and was at the
king's peace at her death at Candlemas 1301.
This is a further example to me of a difference between Scots and
English practices. In England heiresses were given equal shares of
their father's holdings. But in Scotland, the eldest daughter seems to
be treated like an eldest son: she gets the whole of the estate.
Similarly with titles, which seem to be inherited by the eldest heiress
and not go into abeyance between all the heiresses.
Can anyone confirm that this was Scots practice? And give more
information?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Tim Powys-Lybbe
Re: Scots heiresses (was Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of R
In message of 18 Jan, 7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca ("Peter A. Kincaid") wrote:
But is this not different to English practice where all daughters were
equal?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Wrong. The daughters had equal shares. The oldest daughter is
named because she had right to the demesne.
But is this not different to English practice where all daughters were
equal?
At 04:39 AM 18/01/2005, you wrote:
In message of 18 Jan, ClaudiusI0@aol.com wrote:
snip of excellent information on the Douglases and the Keiths
It is held neither by ward or relief, nor any other service till the third
heir. The said Sir William gave it to his son William in frank marriage
with
Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas; which 'said
Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the mother of Bernard
de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne should belong, and was at the
king's peace at her death at Candlemas 1301.
This is a further example to me of a difference between Scots and
English practices. In England heiresses were given equal shares of
their father's holdings. But in Scotland, the eldest daughter seems to
be treated like an eldest son: she gets the whole of the estate.
Similarly with titles, which seem to be inherited by the eldest heiress
and not go into abeyance between all the heiresses.
Can anyone confirm that this was Scots practice? And give more
information?
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe tim@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
I am not talking about the title Earl of Douglas. I am talking of
the estate of her father and brothers (both knights). You would
have me believe that they were small land owners? Yet she
was married to a grandson of Sir John Comyn of Badenoch
and a nephew to a claimant to the throne of Scotland. The
Comyns were the most powerful family in Scotland.
Sir William Keith of Galston was alive in 1332 when the
entail was made. If he was the grandson of Lady Willelma
Douglas then this would have removed any claim he would
have had to the Douglas estates.
The lands of Dalserf were not a perpetual grant but only to
the third heir. They did not pass to the Keiths. They only
had a temporary 1/4 interest in the lands. The lands in the end
became the possession of the Hamiltons of Cadzow due to
the forfeiture of the Comyns (the superior) by Robert the Bruce.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 10:58 PM 17/01/2005, you wrote:
the estate of her father and brothers (both knights). You would
have me believe that they were small land owners? Yet she
was married to a grandson of Sir John Comyn of Badenoch
and a nephew to a claimant to the throne of Scotland. The
Comyns were the most powerful family in Scotland.
Sir William Keith of Galston was alive in 1332 when the
entail was made. If he was the grandson of Lady Willelma
Douglas then this would have removed any claim he would
have had to the Douglas estates.
The lands of Dalserf were not a perpetual grant but only to
the third heir. They did not pass to the Keiths. They only
had a temporary 1/4 interest in the lands. The lands in the end
became the possession of the Hamiltons of Cadzow due to
the forfeiture of the Comyns (the superior) by Robert the Bruce.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 10:58 PM 17/01/2005, you wrote:
Dear Peter,
In answer to your question about the succession of Archibald Douglas as
3rd Earl of Douglas the heirs of Willelma Douglas would have had no claim
to the title or the lands.
The 1st Earl of Douglas was William Douglas the son of Archibald Douglas,
son of William 'le Hardi' Douglas by his second wife Eleanor de Louvaine.
He married Margaret de Mar. He also had an illegitimate son George
Douglas, by Margaret, Countess of Angus, who came into his mother's
lands. Upon the death of William Douglas the title passed to his son
James Douglas who also died without legitimate issue and then because of
the entail prepared in 1332 the title devolved upon Archibald Douglas, the
illegitimate son of Sir James Douglas. The title and the attached lands
never belonged to William 'le Hardi' Douglas but to his grandson William
Douglas so Willelma Douglas' heirs had no claim to it.
Willelma Douglas held Dalserf in dower as it is stated in the in following
inquisition that was cited previously, and Dalserf passed to the Keith
family from the Galbraith family.
Calendar of documents relating to Scotland preserved in Her Majesties
public record office, London, Vol. II 1272-1307, edited by Joseph Bain,
Edinburgh, 1884:
#1420. Dec. 30, 1303.
Inquisition at Lanark on Monday the morrow of St. Thomas the Martyr 1303,
by the king's command in presence of Magnus de Strathearne and Nicholas de
Benbathe, viceregents of the earl of Carrick Sheriff of Lanark, by Patrick
de Achenlek, Hugh de Galbrathe, Adam the Black, Adam of Doean, William
Casse, John son of the widow, Willaim Culle, Adam the Miller, David son of
Adam, Laurence son of William, John Littil, John Cabok jurors; who say
that Sir John Comyn, grandfather of the present Sir John Comyn, gave the
land of Dalserfe to Sir William de Galbrathe in frank marriage with his
daughter. It is held neither by ward or relief, nor any other service till
the third heir. The said Sir William gave it to his son William in frank
marriage with Lady Willelma, daughter of the late Sir William de Duglas;
which 'said Williams' begot four daughters, coheiresses Johanna the mother
of Bernard de Cathe, was the eldest; to whom the demesne should belong,
and was at the king's peace at her death at Candlemas 1301. Her mother
Lady Willelma died after her daughter, in possession of the tenement,
within the Feast of the Lord's Nativity 1302. They say that Dalserf was
held of the late Sir John Comyn, and now of Sir Robert the Constable by
the king's gift. The fourth part pays yearly £3 0s. 4d. in all issues. The
seals of Patrick de Achinlek and Hugh de Galbrathe are only appended, as
the others have no seals. The inquisition is enclosed under Nicholas de
Benhathe's seal only, as the seal of Magnus is lost. [Exchequer T.R.
Miscellanea, No. 46/14]. Seals lost; 3 tags remain.
Regards,
MichaelAnne Guido
-
Gjest
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
Dear Peter,
The Comyn lands were lost in Scotland. The English lands of the Douglas
family were lost during the Scottish Wars. Faudon Manor in Northumberland was the
largest Douglas possession in England and was taken into the king's hand and
given to the Umfraville family. This was because of an old claim the
Umfraville family had against the Bataille family over this manor. When William
Douglas married Constance Bataille, Faudon manor passed to the Douglas family
along with the feud over it. When William 'le Hardi' Douglas was imprisoned in
the Tower of London, Faudon manor was confiscated by the king. Eleanor Douglas
pleaded with Edward I for the return of this manor between 1303-1305 to no
avail. The manor continued in possession of the Umfraville's for another 150
years. All the lands the Douglases held in the border lands of Scotland were
also given to English lords. The lands in Scotland were redistributed based
on loyalty to the Bruce and later the Stewarts and many were in ruins on both
sides of the border because of the war.
What lands are you speaking of that should have passed to the heirs of
Willelma Douglas? Faudon Manor was gone. The Scottish lands were redistributed.
Where is the inheritance?
Regards,
MichaelAnne
The Comyn lands were lost in Scotland. The English lands of the Douglas
family were lost during the Scottish Wars. Faudon Manor in Northumberland was the
largest Douglas possession in England and was taken into the king's hand and
given to the Umfraville family. This was because of an old claim the
Umfraville family had against the Bataille family over this manor. When William
Douglas married Constance Bataille, Faudon manor passed to the Douglas family
along with the feud over it. When William 'le Hardi' Douglas was imprisoned in
the Tower of London, Faudon manor was confiscated by the king. Eleanor Douglas
pleaded with Edward I for the return of this manor between 1303-1305 to no
avail. The manor continued in possession of the Umfraville's for another 150
years. All the lands the Douglases held in the border lands of Scotland were
also given to English lords. The lands in Scotland were redistributed based
on loyalty to the Bruce and later the Stewarts and many were in ruins on both
sides of the border because of the war.
What lands are you speaking of that should have passed to the heirs of
Willelma Douglas? Faudon Manor was gone. The Scottish lands were redistributed.
Where is the inheritance?
Regards,
MichaelAnne
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Scots heiresses (was Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of R
At 08:22 AM 18/01/2005, you wrote:
You have a point in this. What I asserted that you were
incorrect about was that the eldest got the whole estate as
a eldest son would. Each daughter had a equal monetary
share. The twist is that the principal stronghold could not
be divided but the eldest daughter had right to it. As far as
the remaining estate were concerned each daughter had
an equal share in it. In practise these share would be
traded so that each daughter ended up with whole share.
However, this did not always happen and you see fractional
shares in the property carry forward for a number of years.
The prominent "de Erth" (ie. Airth) estate went on in shares
(there were originally 7 daughters) for over a hundred years
with some of the shares being further divided amongst other
heiresses.
Best wishes!
Peter
In message of 18 Jan, 7kincaid@nb.sympatico.ca ("Peter A. Kincaid") wrote:
Wrong. The daughters had equal shares. The oldest daughter is
named because she had right to the demesne.
But is this not different to English practice where all daughters were
equal?
You have a point in this. What I asserted that you were
incorrect about was that the eldest got the whole estate as
a eldest son would. Each daughter had a equal monetary
share. The twist is that the principal stronghold could not
be divided but the eldest daughter had right to it. As far as
the remaining estate were concerned each daughter had
an equal share in it. In practise these share would be
traded so that each daughter ended up with whole share.
However, this did not always happen and you see fractional
shares in the property carry forward for a number of years.
The prominent "de Erth" (ie. Airth) estate went on in shares
(there were originally 7 daughters) for over a hundred years
with some of the shares being further divided amongst other
heiresses.
Best wishes!
Peter
-
Peter A. Kincaid
Re: Ancestry of Beatrice, wife of Robert Hauley - Part Two
I am hindered a bit in that I am having trouble locating some
of my notes. However, based on what I have on hand I am
first concerned by your potential suggestion that William 'le
Hardi' was nothing but a supreme Scottish patriot. He was
one of the first of the notables to die for the cause. His English
lands were forfeited and even his Scottish lands when "the
English" (ie. Edward I) were in control of Scotland. A big
part of the rise of his son, James 'the Good', was that King Edward
rebuked him, because of his father, when he tried to regain
at least some part of his inheritance.
You seem to imply that what was lost by the Scottish patriots
while under Edward I was not regained when Robert the
Bruce ascended. On the other hand James 'the Good'
Douglas was one of the biggest winners under Bruce. William
Fraser notes in his book on the Douglas family that James
'the Good' was restored to Faudon in 1329. Prior to
the Independence Wars, the Lords of Douglas ruled over
pretty well all of Douglasdale. In referring to William Fraser's
book he further notes that William 'le Hardi' also obtained, in
addition to the manor of Faudon, lands in the counties of
Wigtown, Berwick, Ayr, Dumfries, Fife and Edinburgh; possibly
through his marriage to Eleanor of Lovain.
I have not gone through the process of researching out the
chain of title for each of the lands held by the Lords of Douglas.
Without this being done there are limitations on what one
can conclude about the family succession. However, this
does not prevent one from one raising the question. At the
very least we know that the Lords of Douglas held Douglasdale.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 11:10 AM 18/01/2005, you wrote:
of my notes. However, based on what I have on hand I am
first concerned by your potential suggestion that William 'le
Hardi' was nothing but a supreme Scottish patriot. He was
one of the first of the notables to die for the cause. His English
lands were forfeited and even his Scottish lands when "the
English" (ie. Edward I) were in control of Scotland. A big
part of the rise of his son, James 'the Good', was that King Edward
rebuked him, because of his father, when he tried to regain
at least some part of his inheritance.
You seem to imply that what was lost by the Scottish patriots
while under Edward I was not regained when Robert the
Bruce ascended. On the other hand James 'the Good'
Douglas was one of the biggest winners under Bruce. William
Fraser notes in his book on the Douglas family that James
'the Good' was restored to Faudon in 1329. Prior to
the Independence Wars, the Lords of Douglas ruled over
pretty well all of Douglasdale. In referring to William Fraser's
book he further notes that William 'le Hardi' also obtained, in
addition to the manor of Faudon, lands in the counties of
Wigtown, Berwick, Ayr, Dumfries, Fife and Edinburgh; possibly
through his marriage to Eleanor of Lovain.
I have not gone through the process of researching out the
chain of title for each of the lands held by the Lords of Douglas.
Without this being done there are limitations on what one
can conclude about the family succession. However, this
does not prevent one from one raising the question. At the
very least we know that the Lords of Douglas held Douglasdale.
Best wishes!
Peter
At 11:10 AM 18/01/2005, you wrote:
Dear Peter,
The Comyn lands were lost in Scotland. The English lands of the Douglas
family were lost during the Scottish Wars. Faudon Manor in Northumberland
was the largest Douglas possession in England and was taken into the
king's hand and given to the Umfraville family. This was because of an old
claim the Umfraville family had against the Bataille family over this
manor. When William Douglas married Constance Bataille, Faudon manor
passed to the Douglas family along with the feud over it. When William 'le
Hardi' Douglas was imprisoned in the Tower of London, Faudon manor was
confiscated by the king. Eleanor Douglas pleaded with Edward I for the
return of this manor between 1303-1305 to no avail. The manor continued
in possession of the Umfraville's for another 150 years. All the lands
the Douglases held in the border lands of Scotland were also given to
English lords. The lands in Scotland were redistributed based on loyalty
to the Bruce and later the Stewarts and many were in ruins on both sides
of the border because of the war.
What lands are you speaking of that should have passed to the heirs of
Willelma Douglas? Faudon Manor was gone. The Scottish lands were
redistributed. Where is the inheritance?
Regards,
MichaelAnne