Borthwick
M.Sjostrom
---
some years back, John promised to present his file of Borthwick pedigree here. I have not been able to find such, however, in the group archives.
Hopefully John would be kind enough to send those now.
----------------------
Here's my (partial or incomplete) construction of what probably that pedigree had as its basic blocks:
firstly, a link to Stirnet (where there's one possible version of the pedigree):
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/bb4fz/borthwick1.htm
---
then, a construct using Genealogics material:
knight William Borthwick (b est 1340s; dc 1414), possibly this guy:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00322655&tree=LEO
* his heir was his son knight William Borthwick the younger
* generational considerations support that Margaret Borthwick m1 Abernethy m2 the master of Dalkeith, was one of his daughters
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00046213&tree=LEO
as could also have been Janet, who anyway is marked with a question mark in some genealogies
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00117022&tree=LEO
--
knight William Borthwick [the younger] (b est 1380s; dc 1429)
married (dispensation 1411) Bethoc Sinclair of Orkney
children included: William the 1st Lord, and Janet Borthwick (b est 1420) m1 laird Dalkeith m2 George Crichton, earl of Caithness
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00060604&tree=LEO
--
William Borthwick, 1st Lord (b aft 1411; yet 1467 ?)
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00117458&tree=LEO
there has been a supposition that his wife (or mother, but that seems fairly impossible) would have been a Hay, and heiress of the fort of Locherworth renamed Borthwick castle
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00117457&tree=LEO
but such supposition may just be a mistaken attempt to explain the conveyance of that property to the Borthwicks, a conveyance which could actually have been a purchase or (in those unruly times) a transfer by an overlord.
the 1st Lord's children appear to have included: William the 2nd Lord, Margaret m John Maxwell of Calderwood, and Agnes m Archibald Dundas the sheriff of Linlithgow
--
William Borthwick, 2nd Lord (b est 1430s; d bef 1484);
married (1458 ?) Marion Hopringle.
Children included: William the 3rd Lord, Agnes m David Kennedy earl of Cassillis, Catherine m William Cunynghame earl of Glencairn, Margaret m knight Oliver Sinclair the laird of Rosslyn
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00065054&tree=LEO
(these daughters seemingly married in 1480s)
--
William Borthwick, 3rd Lord (b est 1460; d 20 May 1503);
he is of perfect age to have married in 1491.
Children included: William the 4th Lord.
--
William Borthwick, 4th Lord (b est 1490s; who probably was one and same individual both before and after Flodden 1513, not slain at Flodden; but d 1543)
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00344742&tree=LEO
married (1491?) Margaret Hay of Yester (had she not been wife of the previous-generation Lord).
his marriage should have taken place in c 1510s.
* anyway his children included:
the eldest son, (William) Master of Borthwick, d vp
Thomas d vp
yr son: John Borthwick, 5th Lord
daughters included: Catherine m Crichton, of Fendraught
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00434909&tree=LEO
--------------------
hope these gleanings get feedback, so the pedigree could be amended properly.
wjhonson
dispensation dated 15 Dec 1507 to marry Margaret Stewart, daughter of
Matthew Stewart Earl of Lennox.
And before we decide this was a *second* marriage for William, his
parents Cuthbert Cunningham and Marion Douglas have a contract to
marry dated 24 Jun 1492.
So Katherine Borthwick must either lose this husband, or lose her
parents.
Will Johnson
M.Sjostrom
I agree.
Catherine Borthwick, m Cunynghame earl of Glencairn, must have been born of the marriage (seemingly in 1491) of the 3rd Lord William Borthwick and his wife, Margaret Hay of Yester, daughter of John lord of Yester and his wife Elizabeth.
I am increasingly aware that the *numbering* of 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th lords Borthwick may have been in some literature *unstable*: same person getting two different numbers alternating in different places....
The creation of this peerage is in mists of history, and some may suggest that the father (d seemingly in 1429) of the 1st Lord actually already could have been a Lord of Parliament, thus the 1st Lord, and so forth.
Some -now I realize careless- secondary sources have tried to make Catherine Borthwick, countess of Glencairn, as sister of Agnes Borthwick, countess of Cassillis;
but this apparently cannot hold water - that Agnes should have been that Catherine's paternal aunt.
Also, some secondary sources -mistakenly- have tried to make Janet Borthwick m1 laird of Dalkeith the 1st Lord m2 High Admiral Crichton earl of Caithness; as sister of Margaret Borthwick m1 Abernethy, m2 the master of Dalkeith, seemingly son of Janet's first husband. However that Margaret should have been that Janet's paternal aunt (and thusly their Dalkeith husbandry's generations are funny and exceptional). The 'young' master of Dalkeith in the question, marrying the aunt, married in 1410s or (early) 1420s, died in c1425 at latest, having been born probably in 1380s or 1390 and was seemingly somewhat younger than his wife. His father, the old laird of Dalkeith, Lord of Parliament, who died in around 1440, *should* (but for the presence of king David II in his mother's life...) have been born already in 1360s, and been very elderly when (presumably in 1430s) marrying his last (Borthwick) wife who was seemingly born in a marriage which started in 1411.
The young woman was young enough still in 1440s when marrying admiral Chrichton.
William 4th Lord Borthwick, looks to me to be a gentleman who was born c1492, and when there was in 1513 a great scarcity of mature noblemen in Scotland (so many just got slain at Flodden) he became at the approximate age of 20 years, appointed as castellan of an important fortress. Benefiting from deaths of earlier generation at Flodden - but not himself dying there, nor did his father die there.
His father, the 3rd Lord, seemingly deceased years before Flodden.
And Margaret Hay of Yester (m 1491) should have been the 4th Lord's mother, not his wife. If they are together in some source, deed or something; it should mean son-mother case, not husband-wife.
Who was the 4th Lord's (bc 1492; dc 1543) correct wife (married presumably in 1510s) ????
What makes the SP and the CP about filiations of these ladies mentioned above ???
And, do the biographies of SP and CP about 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th Lords, as well as of 1st Lord's father and grandfather, fit to the birth estimates and death datings I postulated to them in my lists above ??
M.Sjostrom
------
in 2003, a certain enthusiastic poster, under rubric:
More Scottish Kinsfolk: King James II's kinsman, William Borthwick
sent a message asking as follows:
Douglas Richardson
Katso profiilia
Lisäasetukset 9 marras 2003, 06:41
Uutisryhmät: soc.genealogy.medieval
Lähettäjä: royalances...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
Päivämäärä: 8 Nov 2003 20:41:10 -0800
Paikallinen: Su 9 marras 2003 06:41
Aihe: More Scottish Kinsfolk: King James II's kinsman, William Borthwick
Dear Newsgroup ~
The medieval storehouse of records, Foedera, includes an important
record dated 1459 which King James II of Scotland refers to William
Borthwick, Lord Borthwick, as his "kinsman" (dilecti consanguinei
nostri) [Reference: T. Rymer, Foedera, 11 (1727): 435]. This record
can be viewed on the gallica website at the following web address:
I've checked Complete Peerage's account of the Borthwick family and am
unable to determine how King James II of Scotland and William
Borthwick were related. If anyone knows the exact nature of the
kinship, I'd appreciate it if they would post what particulars they
have here on the newsgroup.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
-----------------------------------
------------
how about this lineage:
Robert Bruce, jure uxoris earl of Carrick/Charraig, m countess Marjorie, heiress of Charraig;
one of their daughters (and thus her lineage) was:
Matilda Bruce, countess of Ross - Marjorie of Ross, countess of Strathern, Orkney and Caithness - countess Isabella de Strathern, heiress of Orkney - Henry I de Sinclair, jarl of Orkney - Bethoc Sinclair, wife of the knight Borthwick - William, 1st Lord Borthwick (possibly died c1458) - William, 2nd Lord Borthwick (b in c1430s, who in 1459 was envoy to England).
James II's ancestry does not seem to promise any closer kinship, does it???
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00000501&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=6
Jared & Christina Olar
Jared & Christina Olar
From: "Jared & Christina Olar" <ardg...@comcast.net>
To: <qs...@yahoo.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 01, 2009 9:40 AM
Subject: Re: Borthwick
> Yes, the Borthwick pedigree and consequently the number of the Lords
> Borthwick is definitely "unstable." Scots Peerage gives only the most
> tentative account, since the records show a succession of Williams that
> are difficult to tell apart from generation to generation.
>
> Jared L. Olar
M.Sjostrom
certain clergy sons of the elder knight William Borthwick are mentioned as kinsmen of Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany, governor of Scotland.
However, all biological kin of the Duke himself, would have been similarly kin to a personage technically yet more elevated, namely the kings of scots, the duke's elder brother and nephew.
If a prominent rekative was mentioned, that should have been the highest personage, I think. This in my view argues for the kinship (specifically with the duke and presumably not with the king) to be relatives via the Duke's marriage - because that is the only way how the duke should be 'closer'.
assuming that the kinship thusly mentioned, does not mean the simple remote kinship which was between the Stewarts and all other scottish higher nobility,
because known children and grandchildren of that knight William Borthwick married very close biological relatives of the said Duke of Albany himself, such as
* married one of Duke's own grandsons descending from the duke's first (Moneteadhaich) marriage
* married grandchildren and great-grandchildren of the Duke's brother, king Robert III.
Therefore, that knight William Borthwick should not himself be close biological kin with the Duke.
Also it should mean that the wife of Borthwick cannot have been the duke's daughter, I think. Besides, no record of such daughter....
Alternatives thusly seem to be:
1) the biological kinswoman of the Duke of Albany who was mother of those clergy sons, if she was the Duke's close kin, was not mother of all the knight Borthwick's children - particularly not mother of Margaret Borthwick nor of Elizia Borthwick, who seemingly were eldest daughters, b est 1380.
2) the kinship could come from the Duke's second wife, Muriella de Keeth. If the Borthwick wife, the mother of all those children, were a sister of Muriel Keith, her sons would possibly be mentioned as the Duke's nephews.
M.Sjostrom
the early 1400s strife between the Hay of Yester and the Borthwick:
Borthwick family acquired a large part of Locherworth from their neighbour William Hay who was resentful of this, and then also jealous of the new fortified castle his neighbour had built (the fortification licence in 1430; a charter under the great seal, of date June 2, 1430, obtained a license from James the First, to build a castle on the spot called the Mote of Lochwarret or Locherworth).
It is said that the Borthwick had bought PART of that land from knight William Hay.
Lord Borthwick erected a stately castle on the spot indicated, and, under the name of Borthwick castle, it became the chief residence of the family, giving its name to the parish in which it is situated. “Like many other baronial residences in Scotland, he built this magnificent pile upon the very verge of his own property.
The usual reason for choosing such a situation was hinted by a northern baron, to whom a friend objected this circumstance as a defect, at least an inconvenience: ‘We’ll brizz yont’ (Anglicé, press forward,) was the baron’s answer; which expressed the policy of the powerful in settling their residence upon the extremity of their domains, as giving pretext and opportunity for making acquisitions at the expense of their neighbours.
The Locherworth had been long the ancestral land of that branch of the Hays - already before the Hay received Yester via their Giffard marriage.
William de Haya, from whom Sir William Borthwick had acquired a part of Locherworth, is said to have looked with envy upon the splendid castle of his neighbour and to have vented his spleen by building a mill upon the lands of Little Locherworth, immediately beneath the knoll on which the fortress was situated, declaring that the lord of Borthwick, in all his pride, should never be out of the hearing of the clack of his neighbour’s mill. The mill, accordingly, still exists, as a property independent of the castle.”
Having a feud against each other, the Hay and the Borthwick aligned to opposing parties in the first half of 1400s Scottish politics:
the Hay allied obviously with the Red Douglases, earls of Angus.
the Borthwick were obviously allies of the Black Douglases, earls of Douglas, lords of Galloway.
In 1430s..1450s I think, these culminated to even warfare.
Now, we face the possibility that
the young Borthwick in 1430 (William Borthwick, later to be created 1st Lord Borthwick, sat as such in the Lords in Parliament 1455..1457)
actually were paternal nephew of Elizia Borthwick, wife and mother of the pertinent de Hays of Yester:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00027000&tree=LEO&displayoption=all&generations=3
knight William Hay, of Yester and Locherworth, died already before Lord Borthwick's era, but being possibly in strife against the younger knight William Borthwick, husband of Bethoc de Sinclair.
The first Lord Borthwick in turn appears to have been possibly in strife against his supposed cousins, for example knight David Hay, of Yester.
so, a strife ensued from a land transaction.
DESPITE of the fact that in that early generation, the protagonists were brothers-in-law. [a land purchase, could have been facilitated by the relation that the seller was married with sister of purchaser. inheritance it was not in that pattern.]
And in next generations, protagonists were cousins.
any marriage with the Hays in this later generation is neither supportable, nor actually useful.
The conveyance of the part of Locherworth land from Hay to Borthwick appears to have been purchase.
And, the first Lord Borthwick would not have been allowed to marry a close cousin.
-----------
tidbit from Electric Scotland, applied:
The first Lord Borthwick seems to have been cupbearer to William St. Clair, jarl and prince of Orkney, founder of Roslin chapel, who maintained his court at Rosslyn castle with regal magnificence.
They would have been first cousins, the Borthwick's mother being Bethoc Sinclair (supposedly dowager countess of Avondale), who was paternal aunt of William of Orkney.
Douglas Richardson
Three references which show kinship between the Borthwick family and
the royal house of Scotland are as follows:
1. McGurk, Cal. of Papal Letters to Scotland of Benedict XIII of
Avignon, 1394–1419 (Scottish Hist. Soc. 4th ser. 13) (1976): 158
(George de Boethwyk [Borthwick], canon of Aberdeen styled “kinsman” of
Robert, duke of Albany in 1406).
2. McGurk, Cal. of Papal Letters to Scotland of Benedict XIII of
Avignon, 1394–1419 (Scottish Hist. Soc. 4th ser. 13) (1976): 246 (John
de Borthwyke, clerk, St. Andrews diocese, student in arts, aged 18,
son of Sir William de Borthwyke styled “kinsman” of Robert, duke of
Albany, governor of Scotland in 1411).
3. Rymer, Fœdera 11 (1727): 435 (William Borthwick, Lord Borthwick
[Willielmi Domini Borthwik], styled “kinsman” by King James II of
Scotland in 1459).
The above reference may be viewed at the following weblink:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-93490&M=chemindefer
Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany, was the son of King Robert II of
Scotland. King James II was grand-nephew of Robert Stewart, Duke of
Albany. If the same route of kinship to the Borthwick family was
alluded to by both Duke Robert and King James II, it would suggest
that George and John de Borthwick were rather closely related to Duke
Robert. I say that because in England kinship to the king was
acknowledged if the kinship was within five degrees of kinship on at
least one side. If the same is true in Scotland, and if the same
route of kinship was implied by King James II as was Duke Robert, it
would mean that Duke Robert of Albany would have stood within at least
three degrees of kinship to George and John de Borthwick. In other
words, they were near related.
In any case, the kinship would not have come through either Margaret
Graham or Muriel Keith, the two wives of Robert, Duke of Albany, as
suggested by our enthusiastic fellow poster.
Douglas Richardson
Another possible clue to the extended ancestry of the Borthwick family
is a charter issued by a member of the Douglas family which I found
just now in a snippet view on Google Books. The source is Freedom and
Authority (2000), pg. 261:
http://books.google.com/books?id=14pnAAAAMAAJ&q=Borthwick+kinsman&dq=Borthwick+kinsman&pgis=1
In this charter, Sir William Borthwick is listed among various kinsmen
of the grantor of the charter, a certain Douglas.
The charter would presumably date from before 1408, as the charter is
witnessed by Sir William Douglas, of Nithsdale. This would
presumably be Sir William de Douglas, of Nithsdale, who died c.1392,
or his son, Sir William de Douglas, who died c.1408.
Without seeing the actual article, it is not possible for certain to
know the grantor of this charter. But I assume the grantor is
Archibald de Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas, who died in 1424. Perhaps
a common link in his ancestry would help explain the kinship between
the Scottish royal family and the Borthwick family.
M.Sjostrom
I see that our enthusiastic poster, Douggie, chooses to ignore the point that if a person (such as, those young clergymen Borthwick) were close relatives of both the King and some Duke, the kinship to the King would highly likely to be mentioned - ahead of or in place of kinship to the duke.
M.Sjostrom
The lineage of the Borthwick in 1300s comes obviously from knightly class - no sign of princely descent.
a knight William Borthwick took part in the Black Douglas' errand to the Holy Land, which got to sidetracked to Spain, where they managed to get slain on the battle of teba, on 25 August 1330. Among the retinue was also knight William de Sinclair, heir of Rosslyn.
>From the composition of the retinue of knight Black Douglas, we see that they (including Borthwick) were family friends of the Douglases, a pattern which held for the next 100 years: the sinclair and the borthwick appear as Black-Douglas minions to 1440s or so. Of course ot should be presumed that they were kinsmen of Black Douglas already from the beginning.
And that knight William Borthwick's son, knight Thomas Borthwick, then presumably was the one who married a daughter of the slain heir of Rosslyn, both spouses being children of those fellow crusaders to Iberia.
Knight Thomas and his wife (presumably the Sinclair lady...) had that son
who became the elder knight William Borthwick, of Catcune
- presumably, he was baptized as namesake of both grandfathers, the Sinclair grandfather too having been William.
- nothing is specifically known of his wife.
- His (younger) sons were those two whose (close) kinship with Duke Robert of Albany is much talked here. George was born c1387, John c1393, as counted from the mentions of their ages in those.
It is obvious to me that the Duke of Albany (and the king either, for that matter) were unable to descend from the known ones, knight William Borthwick (fl 1330) and his comrade-in-arms in Spain, knight William de Sinclair (1330), grandfathers of this knight William Borthwick.
That's because the Duke's (himself born in c1340) all grandparents are known by name. No room for a direct descent of the duke from either of these crusaders.
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00006071&tree=LEO&display=standard
Which leaves the boys' maternal side as an obvious source for close kinship.
still, it is not excluded that some paternal root of the boys from before year 1300 could be reason for that kinship - but it is NOT then *close* one. For example, if some aunt of Elizabeth Mure had been a foremother of the Borthwicks, it means just that they descend from the Duke's great-aunt, and would be second cousins and probably removed in addition....
----
As to royalty's *earlier* kinship with the Black Douglases, I have to remind that two children of king Robert III (who was full brotrher of the Duke of Albany) actually married children of Archibald Douglas 'the Grim', Lord of Galloway, 3rd Earl of Douglas.
They were David of Scotland, Duke of Rothesay, m Marjorie de Douglas of Galloway;
and the 4th earl Archibald Douglas, Duke of Touraine, m Margaret of Scotland.
The ancestries of those espousings are as follows:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00006100&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=6
Their dispensations would have shown, had there existed a closer kinship with the royal family (and Duke of Albany himself) than the obvious one in descent from high seneschal Alexander, 4th Stewart.
So, did such then-needed dispensations show actual dispensing, and any closer degree of kinship? I think not...
Therefore, the Black Douglases of that generation were simply kin to the royals in fifth degree, which is a nice connection but not particularly close - next to everybody in scots high nobility shared such a kinship with royals.
[In the generation of James II, it does not suffice to explain practically anything. Already the common ancestry of Annandale and Charraig would explain as well THAT 1459 mention.]
So, to mingle the Black Douglas guy into the equation of being a crucial in that, is somewhow in my view just wishful thinking.
M.Sjostrom
connections between the Douglas and the Borthwick:
Borthwicks clearly started as supporters of the Douglases.
This is, as one of signals, marked by marriage alliances.
For example, Janet Borthwick (who and whose Douglas son are attested in 1st Lord Borthwick's action in Parliament in 1450s regarding the lands of Morton, as his sister and nephew)
was in 1330s given to second wife to the elderly baron James Douglas, 1st Lord of Dalkeith, the head of a minor and remote branch of the Douglases, but a Douglas clansman anyway.
The ancestry of this then-young William Douglas of Dalkeith, laird of Morton, and his mother Janet Borthwick, daughter of knight william Borthwick the younger and his wife countess Bethoc de Sinclair,
is as follows:
* paternal:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00498082&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
* maternal:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00021552&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
This shows again another sign of the long-time alliance, almost vassalship, of Borthwicks under the Douglas clan.
And, it's practically inevitable that these Douglases and Borthwicks were related by blood already somewhat earlier. The Scots had these alliances customarily as that some common family roots were necessary.
Jared & Christina Olar
enlightening facts and evidence to consider in this question. I hope the
tone of the discussion won't be lowered, though. There is a real
possibility here of reconstructing the Borthwick family and sorting out all
of these Williams, and I'm following the dialogue with anticipation.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message
M.Sjostrom
The attested 1459 mention of kinship between king James II and Lord Borthwick can, like I posted some day ago, be explained by their common descent from the Bruces of Annandale and the Charraig mormaers.
However, to Lord Borthwick, that descent comes maternally via countess Bethoc de Sinclair (b est in early 1390s, flourished 1411, d probably in early 1460s) whose Borthwick marriage took place in c1411.
That does not explain why brothers of Bethoc's husband were kinsmen of the Duke of Albany. Bethoc herself was such a kinswoman, but her brother-in-laws were not via her, naturally.
-------
Because a sister and some nieces & nephews of those clergymen Borthwick married very close family members of the Duke of Albany (there were several such marriages), and in dispensations such a close relationship is not indicated, those clergymen Borthwick CANNOT be very close biological relatives of their 'kinsman' the Duke, except if they do not share the same mother as their such sisters.
Douggie, our enthusiastic fellow poster who has a deserved reputation for making eager puddles, has not, unfortunately though perhaps unsurprisingly, been able to give any reason why the Duke's relation could not have been per one of his marriages. That denial tastes just a denial.
Has our enthusiastic fellow poster Douggie actually checked the latin texts of those two early 1400s records ?
Douglas Richardson
< As to royalty's *earlier* kinship with the Black Douglases, I have
to remind that two children of king Robert III (who was full brotrher
of the Duke of Albany) actually married children of Archibald Douglas
'the Grim', Lord of Galloway, 3rd Earl of Douglas.
< They were David of Scotland, Duke of Rothesay, m Marjorie de Douglas
of Galloway;
< and the 4th earl Archibald Douglas, Duke of Touraine, m Margaret of
Scotland.
< The ancestries of those espousings are as follows:http://
genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00006100&tree=LEO&paren...
< Their dispensations would have shown, had there existed a closer
kinship with the royal family (and Duke of Albany himself) than the
obvious one in descent from high seneschal Alexander, 4th Stewart.
< So, did such then-needed dispensations show actual dispensing, and
any closer degree of kinship? I think not...
Someone can be styled "king's kinsman" (or if you prefer duke's
kinsman) and still be outside of the prohibited 4th degree of
consanguinity. Acknowledged kinships can be far afield.
DR
Douglas Richardson
> The attested 1459 mention of kinship between king James II and Lord Borthwick can, like I posted some day ago, be explained by their common descent from the Bruces of Annandale and the Charraig mormaers.
If either side of the alleged kinship is outside the 5th degree of
kindred, then our fellow poster is probably barking up the wrong
tree. If both sides are outside the 5th degree, our fellow poster is
almost certainly wrong.
DR
M.Sjostrom
Duggie uttered:
"Someone can be styled "king's kinsman" (or if you prefer duke's
kinsman) and still be outside of the prohibited 4th degree of
consanguinity. Acknowledged kinships can be far afield."
* first, I think you are now discarding the entire context.
IF the young clergymen Borthwick were styled as someone's kinsmen ON basis of relatively remote kinship, then (a) kinship with the living King would be one which would have been the proudest thing, presumably more than a duke's (b) in those situations, actually boasters mentioned from whom (a deceased illustrious ancestor) in the history they directly descend from
* secondly, if the Duke was such a very remote kinsman, it grows the likelihood that they would be styled as kin of someone much closer.
We know that they were second cousins of the Prince and Jarl of Orkney, for example.
However, these two young men (born between 1386-1394) were explicitly styled as kinsmen of the Duke of Albany. Which implies that he was their most prominent, relatively close relative. Probably as close or closer than the second cousin, earl of Orkney (who wasn't mentioned in those records).
* I have repeatedly mentioned that the Borthwick practically had to be some old kin with the Douglases. And the Douglases were some remote kin with royals.
* It's inevitable that any knight-class noble family of the year 1400 Scotland, had some remote kinship with the Stewarts. As compiler of genealogies (such as, how many had Plantagenet ancestry in England...), yuo should be aware that no knightly family managed to isolate itself forever from some (remote) blood tie with a potentate family who married generally in homeland. [and we know that plenty of third-class transatlantic passengers had it, when 500 years had passed from Plantagenets coming to England]
THE CONTEXT:
Why were they not styled as kinsmen of the King ?
Why were they not styled as kinsmen of their second cousin, the Jarl of Orkney ?
What made Robert, Duke of Albany, that much more prominent and closer to them?
M.Sjostrom
----
Douglas Richardson uttered. "Acknowledged kinships can be far afield." (than 4th degree)
Douglas Richardson sputtered: "If either side of the alleged kinship is outside the 5th degree of kindred, then ... probably barking up the wrong tree. If both sides are outside the 5th degree, ... almost certainly wrong."
----
These two pronouncements look like to contradict each other.
---
Besides, it looks again like the situation itself has been discarded by our enthusiastic fellow poster:
In this very matter, anything which is within 5th or 6th degree on Robert III's side from king James II, would by necessity be within forbidden 4th degree when counting his great-uncle the Duke's generation.
This simply comes from James II being two degrees down from the Duke.
Douglas Richardson
I've encountered yet another reference to kinship between the Scottish
royal family and the Borthwick family.
The book, Tracts Illustrative of the Traditionary & Hist. Antiqs. of
Scotland (1836), pages 7-8 includes a charter of King James II of
Scotland dated 1453 in which he names George [Crichton], Earl of
Caithness, as his "kinsman' [consanguineo] and also Janet [Borthwick]
wife of George as his "kinswoman" [consanguineae]. This charter may
be viewed at the following weblinks:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ebcuAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tracts+Illustrative+of+the+Traditionary#PPA7,M1
http://books.google.com/books?id=ebcuAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Tracts+Illustrative+of+the+Traditionary#PPA8,M1
Curiously, this charter is mentioned by Scots Peerage, 2 (1905):
328-329 (sub Caithness), but no mention is made of the king's kinship
to either George Crichton or his wife, Janet Borthwick. See the
following weblink for Scots Peerage:
