Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, and his (2nd ?) wife Eliz

Moderator: MOD_nyhetsgrupper

Svar
John P. Ravilious

Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, and his (2nd ?) wife Eliz

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 19 aug 2007 04:07:07

Saturday, 18 August, 2007


Hello All,

There has been significant discussion in the past on and off
this list concerning the lands of Dalkeith and Abercorn, held by
a branch of the Graham family, and how these were acquired
(through inheritance or otherwise) by the Douglases of Dalkeith.
Much has been made of the records in the Registrum Honoris de
Morton, and what these do and do not tell us as to reasons for
the Douglas acquisition of these lands. Of particular note is
the issue of the acquisition by Sir William Douglas, the knight
of Liddesdale (murdered 1353), in 1341, and the subsequent
transfer of same to his favoured nephew, Sir James Douglas
(d. 1420) [1].

The account in Scots Peerage notes that Sir William had one
(known) wife named Elizabeth, who evidently was married after
the death of William to an Englishman, apparently of the Dacre
family [2]. It appears, however, that if Sir William Douglas
was married to a sister of Sir John de Graham as is usually
alleged - and if they were married in 1341 (consistent with the
transfer of Kilbucho referred to above) - then his widow
Elizabeth was a 2nd wife.

A record is given in Bliss' calendar of Papal letters of
several indults to certain individuals to choose their own
confessors in order to obtain plenary remission of their sins
at the hour of death. One in particular, dated at Avignon,
10 Kal. July (22 June) 1350, was granted to " William de
Douglas, knight, lord of the valley of Lydal, of the diocese
of Glasgow " [3].

Such indults are found granted to either married couples, or
to single individuals (whether widow, widower or never married).
It is evident from this, whatever Sir William's prior status may
have been, that he was in fact not married at the date this
indult was requested (sometime shortly before 22 June 1350). If
Elizabeth was the one and only wife of Sir William Douglas of
Liddesdale (as stated in Scots Peerage), and the mother of his
heir Mary de Douglas (wife successively of Reginald Mure and of
Sir Thomas de Erskine), this marriage occurred after the 1350
indult, and at least 9 years after the transfer of the lands of
Dalkeith & c. by Sir John de Graham to Sir William Douglas in
1341. Further, we know that Agnes de Graham, identified as a
sister of Sir John de Graham, was married to Sir John de Douglas
(younger brother of Sir William) some time prior to 1344, and
likely well before 1340 [4].

If Sir William was in fact married say 1341 to a sister of
Sir John de Graham, it is evident that this wife had died before
June 1350. Sir William subsequently married a lady of unknown
parentage named Elizabeth, who was married to him for a period
of 3 years or less before being widowed at the time of his murder
in 1353, and subsequently remarried. This may help to explain
the 1351 entail by Sir William de Douglas of the lands of
Dalkeith & c. to his nephew Sir James de Douglas: probably, he
(William) had no issue by his first (Graham) wife, and wished
to have the lands of Dalkeith pass to his nephew, who was also
the nephew of Sir John de Graham of Dalkeith.

Cheers,

John *



NOTES

[1] Reg. Honoris de Morton II:41-42, no. 55, in particular
records the grant by John de Graham of Dalkeith of his
lands in barony of Kilbucho to William Douglas of Kincavil,
between 22 May and 11 August 1341 (date of confirmation
of same by King David II, Reg. Honoris de Morton II:42,
no. 56).


[2] SP VI:342, sub Morton:

' Sir William Douglas is said to have married a daughter of Sir
John Graham of Dalkeith, but no corroborative evidence of the
statement has been found, unless the acquisition of the lands of
Dalkeith, Kilbucho, and others may be taken as proof. William's
only known wife was the lady named Elizabeth, with whom, as the
widow of Sir William, King Edward III. [of England] negotiated
as to the delivery of the castle of Hermitage to him, and her
marriage with an Englishman. '


[3] W. H. Bliss, B.C.L. and C. Johnson, M.A., Calendar of
Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain
and Ireland: Papal Letters (London: for the Public Record
Office, 1897; reprinted 1971, Kraus-Thomson, Liechtenstein),
Vol. III (A.D. 1342-1362), p. 369.


[4] Dispensation dated at Avignon, 12 Oct 1344 [Bliss, ibid.,
III:165]:

" 1344.
4 Id. Oct. To the bishop of St. Andrews. Faculty to
Avignon. grant dispensation to John de Duglas, knight,
(f. 140d.) and Agnes de Grame to intermarry, they having
lived together and had offspring, notwithstanding
the assertion made that Agnes was aunt of a woman
with whom John had cohabited, Agnes being
ignorant of the said impediment. A penance is to
be enjoined on John, and two chaplaincies of 10
marks each are to be founded within two years.
Their past and future offspring is to be
declared legitimate.
[Cal. Pet. i.79; Theiner, 282.] "

As to her identification as a sister of Sir John de Graham,
see J. Ravilious, <SP Addition: Agnes Graham, wife of Sir
John Douglas (d. ca. 1350)>, SGM, 9 Nov 2005.



* John P. Ravilious

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, and his (2nd ?) wife

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 20 aug 2007 08:30:31

Thank you for this interesting addition to the picture of Sir
William. I find this a most curious connundrums. At the moment I am
most persuaded by the fact that Sir William took over the Graham
properties by act of parliament. If it were by inheritance this would
not have been necessary. Sir William was the chief of the Liddesdale
Douglases, his heir was his nephew Sir James. Sir James did marry a
Graham, and very likely she was an heiress, at least in her issue. We
see Sir William here looking after the estates of the family of his
nephew's wife. Is it jumping too much to conclusions to suggest that
perhaps he was in a way acting as tutor to Sir James. If so why: two
possible suggestions come to mind; either Sir William was power-crazed
and as chief of the family wanted the lands for himself, despite
everything; or Sir James was not competent and so needed a tutor
(trustee) even after he came of age. Because the situation was so
unusual, there needed to be an act of parliament in either case.
However this is mere conjecture.

For comparison consider the Good Sir James Douglas. He was, we
believe, married, but we don't know to whom and he left no legitimate
heirs. Sir Archibald, 3rd Earl was his illegitimate son. So if a
wife produces no children, there is a good chance that she just won't
be recorded.

For another comparison, consider James Earl of Arran born in ca 1543.
He was in 1562 or so imprisoned for idiocy and died as late as 1609,
still unmarried and without known issue. (He had been proposed as
husband for both Queen Elizabeth of England earlier and for Mary Queen
of Scots in 1562.) During all this time either his father James 2nd
Earl and Duke of Chattelherault (d 1575), or his brother John,
Commendator of Arbroath, created Marquis of Hamilton in 1599, managed
the family affairs, except for a brief period when James Stewart of
Bothwellmuir intruded himself through political interest as Earl.
Here we see what I wonder might not have been a fairly similar
situation some 200 years later, with what might have been a fairly
similar solution.

John P. Ravilious

Re: Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, and his (2nd ?) wife

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 20 aug 2007 12:26:25

Monday, 20 August, 2007


Dear Alex,

Thanks for your reply from this morning, and the points you
raised. In fact, there are several things yet unknown about the
Graham-Douglas relationship: given the relative paucity of
Scots records thanks to Cromwell and the like, we have to give
thanks to those who saved what there is (e.g. Reg. Honoris de
Morton, and the Papal Letters).

Two particular items I should mention. You stated in your
post in part, "Sir William was the chief of the Liddesdale
Douglases, his heir was his nephew Sir James. Sir James did
marry a Graham, and very likely she was an heiress, at least in
her issue. " I note exceptions to the foregoing, as follow:

1. Sir William de Douglas' heir at his death was his
daughter Mary. Married (1st) to Reginald Mure, and
(2nd) to Sir Thomas Erskine, she died sometime between
29 Nov 1365 (date of dispensation for her marriage to
Erskine) and 30 June 1367, the date of the trial by
combat between Sir Thomas de Erskine and Sir James
de Douglas of Dalkeith, her cousin and claimant as
heir to her lands. See SP VI:342, sub _Douglas, Earl
of Morton_ .

2. Sir James, nephew of Sir William de Douglas, was not
married to a Graham. That was in fact his mother,
Agnes de Graham (wife of Sir John de Douglas, younger
brother of the Knight of Liddesdale). Agnes, wife of
Sir James Douglas of Dalkeith (d. 1420) was Agnes
Dunbar, sister of George Dunbar, Earl of March, and
onetime paramour of David II, King of Scots. See
among other sources, Scots Peerage sub _Douglas, Earl
of Morton_ (as noted above), and Leo van de Pas'
fine 'Genealogics' website, where Sir James
Douglas is shown under ID# I00006206.

I have not examined as to whether Sir James Douglas was 'of
age' at the time his uncle entailed the Dalkeith lands on him and
his issue: he may have been under age, but given his career I
think it safe to say he was not 'non compos mentis' (re: which,
see the unfortunate career of his eldest grandson, the father
of the first Earl of Morton). Nonetheless, it appears to me
that the entail of 1351 was similar to the 1368 entail by Patrick
of Dunbar, Earl of March and Moray, on his kinsman George
Dunbar. There was an heir (female) in each case, but the
landholder sought to keep the lands not given in maritagium
'in the family'. At Sir William Douglas' death, his daughter
Mary was either unmarried, or possibly married (or betrothed) to
her first husband Reginald Mure. It was clearly his intent that
the lands of Dalkeith & c. not pass to his own daughter, and into
the hands of either her future husband or his family.

Cheers,

John






On Aug 20, 3:30?am, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Thank you for this interesting addition to the picture of Sir
William. I find this a most curious connundrums. At the moment I am
most persuaded by the fact that Sir William took over the Graham
properties by act of parliament. If it were by inheritance this would
not have been necessary. Sir William was the chief of the Liddesdale
Douglases, his heir was his nephew Sir James. Sir James did marry a
Graham, and very likely she was an heiress, at least in her issue. We
see Sir William here looking after the estates of the family of his
nephew's wife. Is it jumping too much to conclusions to suggest that
perhaps he was in a way acting as tutor to Sir James. If so why: two
possible suggestions come to mind; either Sir William was power-crazed
and as chief of the family wanted the lands for himself, despite
everything; or Sir James was not competent and so needed a tutor
(trustee) even after he came of age. Because the situation was so
unusual, there needed to be an act of parliament in either case.
However this is mere conjecture.

For comparison consider the Good Sir James Douglas. He was, we
believe, married, but we don't know to whom and he left no legitimate
heirs. Sir Archibald, 3rd Earl was his illegitimate son. So if a
wife produces no children, there is a good chance that she just won't
be recorded.

For another comparison, consider James Earl of Arran born in ca 1543.
He was in 1562 or so imprisoned for idiocy and died as late as 1609,
still unmarried and without known issue. (He had been proposed as
husband for both Queen Elizabeth of England earlier and for Mary Queen
of Scots in 1562.) During all this time either his father James 2nd
Earl and Duke of Chattelherault (d 1575), or his brother John,
Commendator of Arbroath, created Marquis of Hamilton in 1599, managed
the family affairs, except for a brief period when James Stewart of
Bothwellmuir intruded himself through political interest as Earl.
Here we see what I wonder might not have been a fairly similar
situation some 200 years later, with what might have been a fairly
similar solution.

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, and his (2nd ?) wife

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 20 aug 2007 17:58:08

I am sorry. I wrote that answer from memory - how fallible!

It may be that my argument could be recast to match the REAL FACTS,
and would still be valid. I had forgotten that Mary was real; so many
of these descents are traditional rather than evidenced. If the
Dalkeith lands etc were taken by Sir William as it were for his
brother's wife, then evenmoreso would they not go to his daughter. In
fact Abercorn was not a bad prize in any case. Beautiful, lush, old
Romanesque church, rich soil and presumably valuable also for being so
near Edinburgh. Perhaps Sir William just thought that his brother
couldn't be trusted with it, or indeed was a control freak.

Sorry, I'll take more care next time.

John P. Ravilious

Re: Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, and his (2nd ?) wife

Legg inn av John P. Ravilious » 20 aug 2007 20:59:18

Dear Alex,

Fallibility - I thought that not permissible on this newsgroup!
It appears I was mistaken....... [1]

I believe the language of the 1351 entail is in Registrum Honoris
de Morton, and will take a look at this sometime later. However, the
naming of James, nephew of William of Liddesdale, as first in
inheriting under the terms of the entail had nothing to do with James'
father (Sir John de Douglas) being infirm or 'non compos mentis'. Sir
John de Douglas had been slain shortly before 25 Jan 1349/50 by Sir
David Barclay in 'Forgywood' - Sir David Barclay himself was later
murdered in revenge, in Aberdeen, 25 Jan 1349/50 [see SP I:223, which
cites Fordun].

Sir James de Douglas was the next male in succession after Sir
William at the time of the 1351 entail. As previously discussed,
however, he was not Sir William's heir at that time.

Cheers,

John



NOTES

[1] I had once sent in my application to the Order of Infallibility
and never heard back; I believe I used the wrong amount of postage.




On Aug 20, 12:58?pm, Alex Maxwell Findlater
<maxwellfindla...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I am sorry. I wrote that answer from memory - how fallible!

It may be that my argument could be recast to match the REAL FACTS,
and would still be valid. I had forgotten that Mary was real; so many
of these descents are traditional rather than evidenced. If the
Dalkeith lands etc were taken by Sir William as it were for his
brother's wife, then evenmoreso would they not go to his daughter. In
fact Abercorn was not a bad prize in any case. Beautiful, lush, old
Romanesque church, rich soil and presumably valuable also for being so
near Edinburgh. Perhaps Sir William just thought that his brother
couldn't be trusted with it, or indeed was a control freak.

Sorry, I'll take more care next time.

Alex Maxwell Findlater

Re: Sir William Douglas of Liddesdale, and his (2nd ?) wife

Legg inn av Alex Maxwell Findlater » 21 aug 2007 13:13:58

The tailzie is in Reg Hon Morton ii, No 70, dated at Peebles 3rd
November 1351. It is in terms that if he has no legitimate male
offspring, then to his nephew James, if he doesn't then to his brother
William and on through the brothers, to ensure that the inheritance
stays with a Douglas. There is no mention of the previous ownership
of the lands.

Svar

Gå tilbake til «soc.genealogy.medieval»