The fact is that there is not even any contemporary source that names
Elizabeth as daughter of Henry - just that several of her descendants
are called kin of Henry II and his. Thus any discussion of which mother
it might be is premature, and any identifications that you find are
groundless. It can be said with certainty, however, that it was not
Eadgyth/Matilda of Scotland, Henry's queen, by whom he had just one
child who survived to adulthood, 'Queen' Matilda.
taf
The name of the wife of Fergus is evidently unknown. Certainly, no
evidence has ever been advanced in support of that name in the
numerous discussion we have had on this list on the topic of the
identity of Fergus's wife, who was PROBABLY (but not certainly) an
illegitimate daughter of Henry I by an unknown mistress. The
evidence, which has been discussed here on quite a few occasions (for
which you should check the archives), is that sons and grandsons of
Fergus are called relatives of English kings in a number of sources,
and that Fergus's wife being an illegitimate daughter of Henry appears
to be the simplest explanation of this evidence.
Stewart Baldwin
Below please find a slightly revised copy of my recent post regarding
the matter of the identification of the unknown wife of Fergus, Lord
of Galloway. I believe this message answers your question as to the
identity of this lady.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
>From: Douglas Richardson (royala...@msn.com)
>Subject: Plantagenet kinsfolk: Galloway, Carrick, and Isle of Man
>View: Complete Thread (9 articles)
>Original Format
>Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
>Date: 2003-08-06 19:14:50 PST
>
>Dear Newsgroup:
>
In the course of surveying medieval records for the forthcoming book,
Plantagenet Ancestry, I've located several references to king's
kinsfolk which involve descendants of Fergus, Prince of Galloway (died
1161):
1. Uchtred Fitz Fergus of Galloway styled "kinsman" [consanguineum] of
King Henry II of England [Reference: W. Stubbs, Chronica Magistri
Rogeri de Houedene 2 (Rolls Ser. 51) (1869): 105].
2. Duncan, Earl of Carrick, styled "kinsman" by King John [Reference:
J. Bain, Cal. of Docs. Rel. Scotland 1 (1881): No. 480].
3. Reynold, King of Man, styled "kinsman" by King John [Reference: T.
Rymer, Foedera 1 Pt. 1 (1816): 91].
The above three parties, Uchtred Fitz Fergus, Earl Duncan, and King
Reynold, are respectively grandson, great-grandson, and great-grandson
of Fergus of Galloway (died 1161), by an unknown wife.
My own theory on the kinship behind these relationships is that Fergus
of Galloway's unknown wife was a daughter of Duncan, eldest son of
Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. This arrangement would give the
above three parties kinship to King Henry II of England in the 3rd
degree, and a kinship to King John in the 4th degree. It is also
possible that Fergus' wife was an illegitimate daughter of King Henry
I of England. Either way would provide the necessary links between
all of these parties.
There is no evidence that Fergus' wife was Elizabeth, illegitimate
daughter of King Henry I of England, as often alleged in print (see,
for example, G.W.S. Barrow Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm
of Scotland (1965): 36). The name of Fergus' wife is presently
unknown.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
E-mail: royala...@msn.com
©2003 Google
>Malcolm Canmore, King of Scotland. ...
This theory has, of course, been stated on a number of occasions in
this group before, and the problem is the same as it has been before,
i.e., there is no direct evidence to support this alternative. (The
fact that it is does not contradict the known evidence does not count
as supporting evidence.)
>... This arrangement would give the
>above three parties kinship to King Henry II of England in the 3rd
>degree, and a kinship to King John in the 4th degree. It is also
>possible that Fergus' wife was an illegitimate daughter of King Henry
>I of England. Either way would provide the necessary links between
>all of these parties.
Here, you make a point of describing the exact degree of the
relationships according to the Scottish theory that you favor, yet you
conveniently leave out the fact that the English theory favored by
practically everyone else would make the kinship one generation
closer, and therefore be a better fit to the evidence.
>There is no evidence that Fergus' wife was Elizabeth, illegitimate
>daughter of King Henry I of England, as often alleged in print (see,
>for example, G.W.S. Barrow Robert Bruce and the Community of the Realm
>of Scotland (1965): 36). The name of Fergus' wife is presently
>unknown.
It is true that no evidence has been produced regarding the name of
Fergus's wife. However, the wording of the first sentence in the
above paragraph, while technically true, is misleading, as there is
significant evidence that Fergus's wife was AN illegitimate daughter
of Henry I (of whatever name). That is because there is strong direct
evidence from a number of independent sources that Fergus's
descendants were related to the Englis royal family, whereas there is
NO known direct evidence that they were related to the Scottish royal
family. Although it cannot be regarded as proven with the available
evidence, the theory that Fergus's wife was an illegitimate daughter
of Henry I clearly fits the evidence better than the Scottish theory
or any alternate English connection (like the one dubious source that
makes her a daughter of William Rufus).
Stewart Baldwin
Lots of words are spend with regard to the identification of the
unknown wife of Fergus, Lord of Galloway.
Are there any suggestions on the parentage of Fergus, prince of
Galloway, himself? The name Uchtred for his son is still not
explained.
Hans Vogels
sba...@mindspring.com (Stewart Baldwin) wrote in message news:<3fa9d15d....@news.east.earthlink.net>...
If you can find it, try Richard Oram's paper, 'A Family Business?
Colonisation and Settlement in Twelfth- and Thirteenth-century
Galloway' in _Scottish Historical Review_ 72 (1993) pp 111-145. I
can't check this at present, but it should be held in some university
& other reference libraries in the Netherlands.
Peter Stewart
>Are there any suggestions on the parentage of Fergus, prince of
>Galloway, himself? The name Uchtred for his son is still not
>explained.
Fergus (with his Celtic name) and his sons Uchtred (English name) and
Gilbert (Norman name) do present an interesting onomastic mix.
Unfortunately, there is no good evidence for the origins of Fergus, so
trying to explain the names is pretty much guesswork. One attempt to
find a father for Fergus of Galloway which comes to mind (but which I
do not endorse) is the short note by M. Dominica Legge, "The Father of
Fergus of Galloway" in Scottish Historical Review 43 (1964), 86-7.
The source used is the "Roman de Fergus", a romance (as the title
suggests) written in or about the beginning of the thirteenth century,
in which the father of Fergus is named as a certain "Soumilloit". The
similarity between this name and the name "Somerled" (which had also
been pointed out before, as the author notes) is then used to suggest
that "Soumilloit" is based not on Somerled of Argyle, as others have
suggested, but on a Norse Somerled who died in 1164, who the author
then suggests may have been the father of Fergus. Not only is the
chronology for this suggestion shaky (since Fergus was most likely
born before 1100), but an alternate suggestion seems more likely:
Since the famous Somerled of Argyll married an illegitimate daughter
of Olaf of Man, who in turn was married to a daughter of Fergus, and
since writers of romance often juggle the characters to serve their
literary desires, it seems more likley that the author of the romance
borrowed Somerled's name to assign as the father of Fergus, and that
the romance is without value for the identity of the father of Fergus.
(Something like this would also appear to be the opinion of other
scholars to whom the author briefly alludes.)
Stewart Baldwin
I have now checked this article and find that Oram makes only a
passing reference to the origin of Fergus, on pp 118-9, writing "the
belief that Fergus was of Anglo-Norman stock cannot be credited".
Citations in the paper to studies that may elaborate on this are:
D Brooke, 'Fergus of Galloway: Miscellaneous notes for a revised
portrait', _Transactions of the Dumfries and Galloway Natural History
and Antiquarian Society_, 3rd series 66 (1991)
R D Oram, 'Fergus, Galloway and the Scots', _Galloway: Land and
Lordship_ edited by R D Oram & G P Stell (Edinburgh, 1991)
and his Ph D thesis, 'The Lordship of Galloway c.1000 to c.1250' (St
Andrews University, 1988).
He also remarks (p 116) that "When Fergus first appears as a charter
witness in 1136 he is accompanied by his son, Uhtred, who must have
been at least fifteen years old to have acted as a witness". He
accepts the marriage to a daughter of Henry I, suggesting a date
around 1120 for this and a political motive in compensating by the
alliance for the loss of Ranulf in the English north-west, when he
gave up the lordship of Carlisle to become earl of Chester.
Peter Stewart
I take that Scotland at that time had no clear onomastic traditions as
Fergus of Galloway and his sons did not name children after their
illustrious father in law/grandfather king Henry.
Or should we take a more carefull aproach in assuming that children of
that name did not live to adulthood. If so one could deduce that
Uchtred (born minimal 1121) would have been the oldest surviving son
of Fergus. This would lead us to R.D. Oram's suggested marriage year
of ca.1120. King Henry went to Normandy in 1116 and came back in 1120.
One might assume that in this period he had other things to do than
marrying off an illegitimate daughter to a unknown Northerner. If
Fergus was married to a bastard daughther of Henry and if Uchtred was
not his firstborn son then the marriage of Fergus would more likely
have taken place in 1116 or earlier.
The first appearance of Fergus in history is not on his own. He was
accompanied by his son Uchtred when King David I in 1136 granted land
in Perdeyc or Patrick to the Church of Glasgow when that church was
dedicated (R. Bodine, 2000/02/04).
Afterwards we see him as a courtier of David I.
One might ask why he did not witness the deed on his own merrit?
Who else were present at that moment?
Family members of King David I?
Was Fergus bonded by marriage to and his son Uchtred present as a
bloodrelative of the Scottish royal family?
In the same post I read that according to History of the Lands and
Their Owners in Galloway (1906, page 110-) Fergus was 42 years of age
in 1138. Is this a credible fact or an assumption?
Questions, questions, who has a plausible answer?
Hans Vogels
It should be noted that this is a very early period, and that few document
types that would normally be replied upon a century or two later exist, so one
is actually lucky to find someone mentioned in a charter. The same is the case
in England at this period.
If only a very small percentage of documents that originally pertained to an
individual survive, one must be very careful when drawing conclusions about how
to interpret an individual's status or creating a profile based on surviving
documents.
Paul
The same aplies to the Low Countries. Nevertheless in a similar case
ca.1106/7 when a widow of a lord granted something to the Church
relatives were present. A nobleman, known before and married twice,
with two sons was there to withness. Years later his eldest son
withnessed the emporal confirmation of the grant so one could come to
the conclusion that the nobleman was probably present as a relative by
marriage and his two young sons as bloodrelatives of the widow or of
the deceased lord.
This example sprang to mind when I noticed that in 1136 Uchtred the
son of Fergus was present alongside his father. I'm not familiar with
the full context of the charter or the others in which Fergus figures
as withness for King David I. Also I'm not aware of the context of the
other charters in which Uchtred figures. I'm not even involved as a
descendant but I'm just curious and thinking along for new angles of
insight.
My point was merely that it could be interesting to look at the full
context, all the persons named in the charters and the sequence of the
withnesses in the charters that mention Fergus and his sons. Was it
common at that time that a nobleman, a vassal of the king, was
accompanied by his son(s)? If not then it could be interesting to
think along the lines sketched.
I've noticed in the previous posts that there are lots of referances
to previous literature and opinions. Who wrote what and when. What
really important is are the basic facts in their full context in the
charters or deeds in original or transcipts and (near) contempory
writers.
Hans Vogels
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote in message news:<20031110155551...@mb-m20.aol.com>...