Dear Leo, James, et al.,
Seeking to set the record straight, I would like to point out
that the identification of Maud (Fitz Alan or Arundel) as a hitherto
unknown wife of Robert _the_ Bruce, King of Scots was not the theory
of, and certainly not claimed to have been confirmed by, Andrew
MacEwen. In the post copied below, from 2002, Doug Richardson
recounted details of a conversation with Andrew which shows he was
confirming the veracity of the known marriage to Isabel of Mar. This
also shows Andrew's cautious approach to this issue, in particular.
Andrew MacEwen is in fact a scholar, and a gentleman. His
generosity in sharing his knowledge, and his opinion, can be vouched
be several of this list (those associated with TG included).
Statements to the contrary can be made: they are not valid.
Cheers,
John
===================================
Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick
Dec 15 2002, 3:37 pm
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
From:
royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Date: 15 Dec 2002 12:37:45 -0800
Local: Sun, Dec 15 2002 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick
Dear Newsgroup ~
I just had a long discussion with Andrew MacEwen, of Maine, the
resident expert on all things Scottish. Andrew indicated he had a
copy of the book, Scottish Kings: a Revised Chronology of Scottish
History, by A.H. Dunbar, published in 1906, which source I mentioned
in passing in my previous post. He said Dunbar is quite good, as he
usually lists his sources for his statements.
Regarding the marriage of Robert de Brus and Isabel of Mar, which
Dunbar dates as having taken place c. 1295, he (Dunbar) gives several
sources. One is Fordun, a 14th Century chronicler. The other is a
chronicle found in the book, Book of Pluscarden, edited by Felix J.H.
Skene, published in two volumes in 1877 and 1880.
Fortunately, Andrew MacEwen had a copy of the Book of Pluscarden.
Volume 1 contains the Latin text of a 14th century chronicle which
Andrew did not identify. On page 128, it states in Latin that Robert
de Brus married (1st) Isabel, daughter of the Earl of Mar, by whom he
had a daughter, Marjorie. No mention is made of Robert de Brus'
marriage to Maud Fitz Alan. Robert de Brus is also stated to have
married (2nd) Elizabeth de Burgh.
Andrew imagines that similar statements will be found in Fordun, who
dates from the same time period. Whether these chroniclers both used
the same source as their authority for Robert de Brus' marriage to
Isabel of Mar is not known at this time.
Regardless, Andrew gives weight to the statement that Robert de Brus
married Isabel of Mar, as the chronicler notes that Robert de Brus'
sister, Christian, was married Isabel's brother, Gratney of Mar. This
would be a double alliance between the two families, which alliances
were quite common in this period. As a general rule, such alliances
were created when the children to be married were quite young. As
such, Robert de Brus could well have been married to Isabel of Mar
when he was 14 (c. 1288), not c. 1295 as usually thought was the case.
I asked Andrew if he accepted the chroniclers' accounts as being
reliable. He said they made some mistakes, but, on the whole, they
are thought to be trustworthy. Andrew felt the double alliance made
sense, as this was a common practice in the period.
Regarding Margery de Brus' birthdate of c. 1295/1296 (as estimated by
Barrow), Andrew thought Margery would not have been a young child when
she was caged by King Edward I. He said even King Edward I had his
limits of decency and cruelty. Rather, he thought Margery was more
than likely a young adult at this time. Barrow, on the other hand,
thought Margery was at best ten or eleven, which would make her still
a child. If Andrew's concept of English civility is correct, then
this would move Margery's birth back in time at least a couple of
years. If so, it would take Margery's birth out of the time period
her father was married to Maud Fitz Alan.
The upshot of this discussion is basically you have two 14th Century
Scottish chronicles, both of which mention Robert de Brus' marriage to
Isabel of Mar, as opposed to two contemporary records which mention
Robert de Brus' marriage to Maud Fitz Alan. The question is: Did
Robert de Brus have only one wife, or two?
Given Andrew's observation regarding the importance of the double
alliance between the Brus-Mar family, I'm inclined to believe that a
marriage to Isabel of Mar occured. However, if so, the marriage
predates the date (c. 1295) that historians have usually given to
Robert de Brus' marriage to Isabel of Mar. Likewise, if Marjorie is
Isabel's daughter, that means she was born earlier than 1295/6, which
is when the historians place her birth.
If Marjorie was born in say 1293, she would have been 13 when she was
caged by King Edward I. He held her in captivity until 1314, thereby
delaying the time a woman of this period would have married. After
her release in 1314, she was married the next year (1315) to Walter
Stewart. Marjorie's delayed marriage may well be why historians have
thought her parents' marriage took place in the mid-1290's, as opposed
to the early 1290's.
Andrew MacEwen cautioned being careful to identify which Robert de
Brus was lord of Annandale and Earl of Carrick in this period. He
felt it was entirely possible that Robert de Brus the Competitor
resigned the lordship of Annandale in 1292 to his grandson, Robert de
Brus (later Robert I, King of Scotland). He said this was an
extraordinary period in Scottish history. He said this action would
not surprise him at all.
Reviewing the above discussion, it is clear we have the "evidence" of
later date 14th century chronicles to weigh against contemporary
original documents. The chronicles mention a wife, Isabel, and no
wife, Maud. The contemporary records mention a wife, Maud, and no
wife, Isabel. In the normal scheme of things, the process of cross
evaluation between these two record sources should have been done by
historians long ago. Andrew MacEwen's feeling is that the chronicles
are usually trustworthy and that the double alliance mentioned in them
between the Brus and Mar families lends credence to the marriage of
Robert de Brus and Isabel of Mar. However, he readily accepts the
possibility that Robert de Brus may have had another wife, Maud Fitz
Alan, who has been overlooked by historians. Andrew is fully aware of
the extensive destruction of original Scottish records for this time
period. As such, there are some things for which we only have partial
knowledge.
Lastly, Andrew reminded me that Isabel of Mar's mother, Ellen (or
Helen), wife of Donald, Earl of Mar, was NOT the daughter of Llywelyn
ap Iowerth, Prince of North Wales, as commonly assumed. Earl Donald
was married to a daughter of Llywelyn but this was evidently an early
first marriage. Isabel's mother, Ellen (or Helen), was evidently a
much younger 2nd wife. I believe Andrew plans to publish an article
on this point some time in the future.
My thanks go to Andrew MacEwen for his useful comments and
observations and also for checking material in his personal library
for me. Andrew is a true gentleman and a scholar. Hats off to Mr.
MacEwen.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
On Nov 18, 12:29 am, "Leo van de Pas" <leovd...@netspeed.com.au>
wrote:
Dear Leo
Now that the blathering on this thread has gone quiet at last, I thought it might be useful to you to have a few misstated loose ends in posts from Douglas Richardson tidied up.
"Douglas Richardson" <royalances...@msn.com> wrote in messagenews:1194996254.169824.244720@e34g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
[Crossposted to soc.genealogy.medieval, soc.history.medieval,
alt.history.british, alt.talk.royalty]
For those of you not familiar with this particular research problem,
it is known that Maud Fitz Alan's sometime husband, Robert de Brus,
was Earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale in 1296. This is proven by
a warrant issued by King Edward I of England in that year. Likewise,
it is known that in 1292, three years prior to Maud's marriage to
Robert de Brus, that Robert de Brus, senior, resigned the earldom of
Carrick over to his son, Robert de Brus, junior (afterwards King
Robert I).
snip
What confuses the matter, however, is that it is known that Robert de
Brus, senior, continued to use the title Earl of Carrick AFTER he
resigned the earldom and its lands to his son. So technically you
have two men who conceivably could be called Earl of Carrick in the
records. Unfortunately, while charters have survived for the father,
none have survived for the son in this time period. Thus, is is
unknown if both men were styled Earl of Carrick in 1296, or only one.
It is not strictly accurate to say that Robert the elder (for convenience, Robert VI as in DNB) "resigned" the earldom of Carrick to his son Robert VII - rather, this had been inherited by the son from his mother, not by anyone's decision but in the course of nature when she died. Robert VII was still underage at the time, but Robert VI intended to leave Scotland - reportedly to avoid acknowledging John Balliol as king - and travel to Norway. There he arranged the marriage of his daughter Isabel to King Eric II, and it was probably in large part due to this that he kept using the title "earl of Carrick" along with his lower rank as lord of Annandale in the following years, as a courtesy to Eric and Isabel as much as to aggrandise himself, since kings at the end of the 13th century did not usually marry daughters of men below comital rank.
It is quite untrue to say that we don't know what title Robert VII used in 1296: he was earl of Carrick and we have his own word for it. There are anough documents from around this time to leave no doubt on the point, for instance the famous letter of 25 March 1296 from both Roberts together, along with Patrick, earl of March & Dunbar and Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus, where only the younger Robert used the title earl of Carrick, calling themselves "Robert de Brus le veil, e Robert de Brus le juuene comte de Carryk", or the letter from Earl John de Warenne to King Edward I in the early summer of 1297 referring to "le counte de Carricke" where this could mean only Robert VII. Scrabbling around online for modern extracts in English is not the way a professional historian should go about establishing precisely what is in primary documents - and in any case, these particular ones are published in books that any good library will be found to hold.
As for the idea that the marriage of Robert VI to Maud Fitzalan was somehow forgotten from the time of Joseph Bain's _Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland_, vol II, published in 1884, until Richardson stumbled onto this - that of course is preposterous. The same document was summarised in _Calendar of Chancery Warrants Preserved in the Public Record Office...AD 1244-1326_ published in 1927. Competent historians and genealogists know a lot of things that come as news to Richardson and, clearly, his consultant Andrew MacEwan, and they know where to look for countless more. They do not need to turn for poor advice to people whom they describe as "the resident expert in all things Scottish", and needless to say unctuous Obsessive-Compulsive formulations like that do not palm off accountability for errors anyway.