C.P. Addition: Eleanor, 1st wife of John Comyn [died 1308], Earl of Buchan

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

In his article on the Balliol family published in Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland in 1985, Dr. Geoffrey Stell identifies the sister of King John de Balliol as ?Eleanor, wife of John Comyn, of Badenoch.

On page 158, Dr. Stell states: "This identification is based on English record evidence of 1283 and 1284 relating to a John Comyn and his wife Eleanor, who were involved in judicial pleas in Yorkshire but at that time were staying in Galloway."

Unfortunately it appears this identification is incorrect. Recently I located a fine dated 1282, which involves Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and his wife, Elizabeth, and their son and heir, John Comyn. The fine makes it clear that it was John Comyn, son of Earl Alexander, whose wife was named Eleanor, not John Comyn of Badenoch.

A transcript of this fine was published many years ago in Trans. Leicestershire Arch. Society 15 (1927–28): 241. It may be viewed at the following weblink:

Go to page 241:
https://www.google.com/#q=%221266%2C+William+obtained+the+king%27s+pardon%22

The transcript reads as follows:

"Fine. Mich., 10 Edward I. 1282.

Between John Comyn and Eleanor his wife, plaintiffs, and Alexander Comyn, earl of Buchan, and Elisabeth, his wife, defendants of the manors of Whitwick, Markefeld, Bochardeston, Neuton (Unthank) Swanyngton, Southwode and Shepesheued. The defendants grant the premises to John and Eleanor, for term of the lives of the earl and Elisabeth, and to the joint issue of John and Eleanor, doing the service of half a knight's fee for all service. And if John have no issue by Eleanor, the manors will entirely remain after the deaths of the earl and Elisabeth, to the heirs of Elisabeth. And for this acknowledgement John and Eleanor gave the earl and Elisabeth one sore hawk." END OF QUOTE.

Dr. Stell's statement that John Comyn and his wife, Eleanor, were staying in Galloway in 1283 and 1284 can be readily explained by the fact that John Comyn's mother, Elizabeth, was co-heiress to Galloway.

Scots Peerage 2 (1905): 256–258 (sub Comyn, Earl of Buchan) and Complete Peerage 2 (1912): 375 (sub Buchan) both have a biography of John Comyn [died 1308], husband of Eleanor above. Both sources only mention John Comyn's later surviving wife, Isabel of Fife.

Scots Peerage, Vol. 2 may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE46624

As for the given name of the Balliol wife of the other John Comyn, of Badenoch, this issue was evidently discussed many years ago by Alexander Sinclair in his work, Heirs of the Royal House of Baliol, published in 1870, which source may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://archive.org/stream/heirsofroyalhous00bali#page/n0/mode/2up

In his Remarks section, pg. 6, Mr. Sinclair identifies John Comyn's wife as Mary de Balliol. His evidence appears to be an ancient Bowes MSS., which he says Robert Surtees, the eminent antiquarian and historian of Durham, considered good authority.

Mr. Surtees does in fact discuss the names of the sisters of King John de Balliol in his earlier book, History and Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham, Volume 4 (1840), pg. 57. This passage may be viewed in snippet view on Google Books at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IUM-AQAAIAAJ&dq=editions%3AtwWJV9y6xrgC&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=William+Lindsay

On page 57, he says the following:

"In him the chief male line of Baliol terminated; but the blood, and consequently the royal claims of Baliol, is evidently scattered through the three youngest sisters of John King of Scots, viz. 1. Eda, married to William Lindsay; Cecily, to John de Burgh, grandson of Hubert, Earl of Kent; and Mary, wife of John Lord Comyn of Badenoch (father of the Red Comyn) whom Bruce and Kirkpatrick of Closeburn slew at the altar of Dumfries church in 1306. Margaret, John Baliol's eldest sister, is strangely said in the Bowes MSS, to be 'married in Abrogines' and she stands in the blazon with a blank shield impaling Baliol." END OF QUOTE.

I haven't read the rest of Mr. Surtees' comments regarding the Bowes MSS., but I assume that Mr. Sinclair has correctly stated that Mr. Surtees believed that the Balliol pedigree in Bowes MSS. was of "good authority."

If correct, then it would appear that the wife of John Comyn, of Badenoch, was named Mary de Balliol.

Sincerely, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Alex Maxwell Findlater]

This is interesting and thank you.

The expression 'in Aborigines' I have not met before. The Lewis and Short dictionary gives the meaning as the primeval Romans, meaning, in classical times, the nation which descended from the Appenines and drove out the Siculi. In a medieval context I can only think that it refers to the Roman Church, meaning that she became a nun. I have not seen her name before.

Mary whom Surtees has married to John Comyn of Badenoch I have found somewhere (?CP) married to N de Multon; if correct it is not unusual for people to be married more than once at this period.

Cecily was married to a John de Burgh of Walkern & Wakely, I have read again somewhere. However, they had Devorguilla (d 1284), Margery and Hawise (d 1299) de Burgh. I noted all this before I was so seriously interested, so have no refs, for which I am sorry. It must come from one of the studies of Hubert de Burgh, earl of Kent, perhaps in the Ancestor, or by Round.

[John P. Ravilious]

Dear Doug,

It appears that the 1282 fine is a red herring. The lands in Leicestershire noted in the fine, while not covered in VCH as of yet, are evidently part of the Quincy share of the Leicester inheritance (you will find Botcheston and Newtown Unthank abt 2 miles W of Groby; Swannington and Whitwick, abt 10 miles NW). Note that the grant is for the joint issue of John Comyn and Eleanor, "And if John have no issue by Eleanor, the manors will entirely remain after the deaths of the earl and Elisabeth, to the heirs of Elisabeth". A strange limitation if John were Elisabeth's eldest son and heir, esp. if John were to have issue by a wife after Eleanor....?

Eleanor de Baliol's mother Dervorguilla was the Lady of Galloway, so for John Comyn and his wife Eleanor to have a 'base' in Galloway would not be surprising. Dervorguilla, half-sister of Elen of Galloway, was Elizabeth de Quincy's aunt (half-aunt actually), so that Eleanor de Baliol and Elizabeth de Quincy (Countess of Buchan) were first cousins. What the motivation for this grant of Leicestershire lands was we can only guess, but clearly Elizabeth was not granting away these lands without strings. It is clear that Eleanor was the individual closely connected to Elisabeth, not John Comyn.

The account in Surtees has sufficient inaccuracies to render it undesirable as support for this theory: in re: John Baliol's "three youngest sisters", the account on p. 57 states in part,

" Eda, married to William Lindsay; Cecily, to John de Burgh, grandson of Hubert, Earl of Kent; and Mary, wife of John Lord Comyn of Badenoch (father of the Red Comyn) whom Bruce and Kirkpatrick of Closeburn slew at the altar of Dumfries church in 1306. "

We know John de Burgh married Cecily, possibly the third of the sisters. The reading of the text seems to indicate the author thought John Comyn, husband of the Baliol sister, was he 'whom Bruce....slew' when in fact we know it was the son John Comyn ("the Red") who died at Dumfries in 1306. As to the existence of 'Margaret, John Baliol's eldest sister', I find these is no evidence. There were in fact only three sisters that can currently be: Ada was in fact the eldest sister, in re: see extended discussion of Ada's descendants as representatives (or claimants if you will) of the Baliol line to the present day.

Unless some other evidence is found, it seems the Bowes MSS. is flawed at least in regard to the Baliol family, and that Eleanor (not Mary) was the wife of John Comyn of Badenoch, not of John, later Earl of Buchan.

Cheers,


John

[Douglas Richardson]

My comments are interspersed below. DR

On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:04:56 AM UTC-7, John P. Ravilious wrote:
> It appears that the 1282 fine is a red herring.

Actually the red herring is Dr. Stell's misidentification of the John Comyn involved in the judicial pleas in Yorkshire dated 1283 and 1284. By his own statement, Dr. Stell says that this John Comyn and his wife, Eleanor, were then staying in Galloway.

Galloway is in far southwestern Scotland. During these years, one of the principal landowners in that district was Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, in right of his wife, Elizabeth de Quincy, one of the co-heirs of Galloway. It would make sense if their son was staying in Galloway in 1283 and 1284.

On the other hand, the other John Comyn, of Badenoch, had his principal seat in Inverness-shire, which is in northern Scotland. There would be no reason for him to be staying in Galloway in these years, as he had succeeded his father as lord of Badenoch many years previously.

<The lands in Leicestershire noted in the fine, while not covered in VCH as of <yet, are evidently part of the Quincy share of the Leicester inheritance (you <will find Botcheston and Newtown Unthank abt 2 miles W of Groby; Swannington <and Whitwick, abt 10 miles NW). Note that the grant is for the joint issue of <John Comyn and Eleanor, "And if John have no issue by Eleanor, the manors will <entirely remain after the deaths of the earl and Elisabeth, to the heirs of <Elisabeth". A strange limitation if John were Elisabeth's eldest son and <heir, esp. if John were to have issue by a wife after Eleanor....?

There is nothing inappropriate about the limitation of this fine. The settlement was clearly made for the marriage of Alexander and Elizabeth's son and heir, John Comyn, and his wife, Eleanor. The lands involved were part of Elizabeth's own inheritance. The abstract of the fine indicates that both John and Eleanor were to hold the manors for the lives of John's parents. If Eleanor died without issue, the manors apparently didn't automatically revert to John's parents. Rather, the manors were revert to Elizabeth's heirs, only if Eleanor died without issue and only if Alexander and Elizabeth were both deceased. If that happened, and, if John Comyn was still living, then he would inherit the manors as the eldest son and heir of Elizabeth. If not, the manors would go to the next heir. I see nothing unusual about this.

As it turns out, John Comyn, son and heir of Alexander and Elizabeth, in fact remained in possession of the manor of Whitwick, co. Leicestershire, which was included in the 1282 fine. In 1292, after his father's death but still during his mother's lifetime, he was granted a weekly market and yearly fair to be held at the manor of Whitwick, Leicestershire, as shown below:

WHITWICK 4436 3163. 1334 Subsidy £13.13.
M (Charter) Tues; gr 6 Jun 1292, by K Edw I to John Comyn, earl of Boghan [Buchan] (CChR, 1257–1300, p. 429). To be held at the manor.
F (Charter) vf+2, Nativity of John the Baptist (24 Jun); gr 6 Jun 1292, by K Edw I to John Comyn, earl of Boghan [Buchan] (CChR, 1257–1300, p. 429). To be held at the manor.

This record dated 1292 proves beyond any doubt that the John Comyn who was enfeoffed with the Leicestershire manors in 1282 was John Comyn, Earl of Buchan [died 1308], son and heir of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, and his wife, Elizabeth de Quincy. His marriage to Eleanor has been overlooked by every historian I have consulted, including Dr. Stell.

< Eleanor de Baliol's mother Dervorguilla was the Lady of Galloway, so for <John Comyn and his wife Eleanor to have a 'base' in Galloway would not be <surprising.

Actually there was no "Eleanor" de Balliol. As far as I know, the only record which names this Balliol daughter is the Bowes MSS. which calls her Mary.

Presumably on the basis of the Bowes MSS., she was identified as Mary de Balliol in no less than three English secondary works:

1. Hutchinson, Hist. & Antiqs. of the County Palatine of Durham 3 (1794): 232–233 (Baliol ped.).

2. Surtees, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 4 (1840): 57.

3. Sinclair, Heirs of the Royal House of Baliol (1870).

Besides the Bowes MSS., there is one other early account of the Balliol daughters in Sir Thomas Gray's Scalachronica, which unfortunately does not provide the name of John Comyn's wife. It is discussed in Hodgson, History of Northumberland Pt. 2 Vol. 2 (1832): 41–42 (Balliol ped.) as follows:

“Ridpath quotes the Scala Chronica that ‘John Balliol, king of Scots, had 3 sisters — the eld. was Margaret of Gillesland; the 2nd, the lady Coucy; and the 3rd was married to him [John Comyn] that Robert Bruce killed at Dumfries.’”

< The account in Surtees has sufficient inaccuracies to render it undesirable <as support for this theory: in re: John Baliol's "three youngest sisters", the <account on p. 57 states in part, " Eda, married to William Lindsay; Cecily, <to John de Burgh, grandson of Hubert, Earl of Kent; and Mary, wife of John <Lord Comyn of Badenoch (father of the Red Comyn) whom Bruce and Kirkpatrick <of Closeburn slew at the altar of Dumfries church in 1306. "

I disagree as to the reliability of the Bowes MSS. I don't see any problems with it. Bowes MSS. makes eight individual statements regarding the four Balliol daughters. Four statements with regard to their given names, and four with regard to their marriages. Six of these statements can be confirmed from other sources. The other two statements can not be confirmed by other sources, but that does not make them wrong.

< We know John de Burgh married Cecily, possibly the third of the sisters. The <reading of the text seems to indicate the author thought John Comyn, husband <of the Baliol sister, was he 'whom Bruce....slew' when in fact we know it was <the son John Comyn ("the Red") who died at Dumfries in 1306. As to the <existence of 'Margaret, John Baliol's eldest sister', I find these is no <evidence. There were in fact only three sisters that can currently be: Ada <was in fact the eldest sister, in re: see extended discussion of Ada's <descendants as representatives (or claimants if you will) of the Baliol line <to the present day.

Actually the eldest Balliol daughter was apparently named Margaret. She is named by BOTH the Bowes MSS. and Scalachronica. She appears to have died without issue. Since is styled "of Gillesland" by Scalachronica, some historians have suggested she might have been married to Thomas de Multon. I have no opinion on the matter. The three other Balliol daughters as stated by the Bowes MSS. were Ada, Cecily, and Mary.

<Unless some other evidence is found, it seems the Bowes MSS. is flawed at <least in regard to the Baliol family, and that Eleanor (not Mary) was the wife <of John Comyn of Badenoch, not of John, later Earl of Buchan.

I disagee with your statement that the Bowes MSS. is flawed. I've shown above that Eleanor was the name of the 1st wife of John Comyn, Earl of Buchan [died 1308]. Dr. Stell's statement withstanding, there was no Eleanor de Balliol.

For interest's sake, the following is a list of the 17th Century New World immigrants that descend from Alexander Comyn, Knt., of Buchan [died 1308], younger brother of John Comyn, Knt., Earl of Buchan [died 1308].

William Asfordby, Dorothy Beresford, William Bladen, Charles Calvert, William Crymes, Rowland Ellis, Anne Humphrey, Nathaniel Littleton, Thomas Lloyd, Oliver Manwaring, Elizabeth Marshall, John and Margaret Nelson, Philip & Thomas Nelson, Herbert Pelham, Edward Raynsford, Diana & Grey Skipwith, Mary Johanna Somerset, John Stockman, Samuel & William Torrey, John West, George Yate.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Thursday, January 9, 2014 9:39:44 AM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:

< Presumably on the basis of the Bowes MSS., the wife of John Comyn, of <Badenoch, is identified as Mary de Balliol in no less than three English <secondary works:

< 1. Hutchinson, Hist. & Antiqs. of the County Palatine of Durham 3 (1794): <232–233 (Baliol ped.).

< 2. Surtees, Hist. & Antiqs. of Durham 4 (1840): 57.

< 3. Sinclair, Heirs of the Royal House of Baliol (1870).

As a followup to my earlier post today, I should add that the wife of John Comyn, of Badenoch, is identified as Mary de Balliol in two other secondary works:

4. Banks, Baronies in Fee 1 (1844): 113–114 (sub Baliol), which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=NvQ7AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA113

5. Fordyce, History & Antiquities of the County Palatine of Durham 2 (1857): 7, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=SjhNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA7

I might note that Fordyce states without qualification that Margaret de Balliol, the eldest Balliol daughter, married "Thomas Lord Multon, of Gilsland."

The matter of Margaret de Balliol's alleged marriage to Thomas de Multon is elsewhere discussed in Walbran, Antiquities of Gainsford (1846): 148–150, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=KvkGAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA148

Walbran provides one slender piece of evidence in support of a Balliol-Multon marriage. He reports the following:

"It is a curious fact deserving of further enquiry, that when King Edward was at Girthou in Scotland, with the fleet in 1300, just after John Baliol was released from his captivity, he received from 'Dame Margaret Multon,' the sum of 16s. 4d. for the restitution of her liberty." END OF QUOTE.

This same record regarding Margaret de Multon's payment is published in two other sources:

Chalmers, Caledonia 1 (1807): 666, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sL8_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA666

Mackenzie, History of Galloway (1841): 213, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=bABQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA213

Lady Margaret de Multon involved in the record dated 1300 is surely Margaret, 3rd wife and surviving widow of Thomas de Multon, Knt. (died 1294), of Egremont, Cumberland, Fleet, Lutton, and Moulton, Lincolnshire. This woman is discussed by Complete Peerage, 9 (1936): 402–403 (sub Multon), where it is stated that Margaret is said to have been related to Thomas de Multon's 2nd wife, Isabel, in the 4th degree, and was possibly a Penington. No mention is made of her possibly being a Balliol.

I have no explanation as to why Lady Margaret de Multon was held in captivity of Scotland in 1300, unless she was the sister of John de Balliol, King of Scots, as suggested by Walbran. Needless to say, as Walbran said, this matter deserves "further enquiry."

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Alex ~

Thank you for your comments. Much appreciated.

I must confess that I'm baffled at the statement that Margaret de Balliol was "married in Abrogines." I have no idea what that means.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

There is a surviving seal of Margaret, widow of Thomas de Multon, dated 1314 which is referenced in the helpful online Discovery Catalogue, available at the following weblink:

http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/Details?uri=C5687536

Here is the description of the seal taken from the catalogue entry:

Reference: DL 25/2450

Description:

Name : Margaret wife of Thomas Moulton (de Multon'), deceased
Places : Sealed at Long Sutton, Lincolnshire; Property in Lutton, Lincolnshire / Long Sutton, Lincolnshire
Seal Design: Design: lion walking to left with a shield of arms (charge unidentifiable) above, Size: 20 mm, Shape: round, Colour: uncoloured, Legend: *S'MARGARETE:DE:MOVLTON, Personal
Material: Wax
Attachment: On tag
Seal Note: Impression: fair. Condition: complete.

Date: 1314 March 4
Held by: The National Archives, Kew

The above record proves that Margaret, widow of Thomas de Multon, was living 4 March 1314. This item would be an addition to the information on Margaret de Multon found in Complete Peerage 9 (1936): 402–403 (sub Multon).

I note that the archivist does not say that the shield of arms on her seal is indistinguishable. Only that it is unidentifiable.

Typically seals of this period would display the woman's husband's arms impaled with those of her own arms.

As such, if the arms on Margaret de Multon's seal can be identified, they should prove that Margaret was a Balliol or a Pennington.

Birch, Catalogue of Seals in the British Museum 2 (1892): 325 reports the seal of Margaret de Multon's husband, Sir Thomas de Multon, as follows:

Thomas de Moulton dated late 13th Cent. — To the right. In armour: hauberk of mail, surcoat, helmet with vizor down and fan plume, sword, shield of arms. Horse galloping, caparisoned and plumed. Arms: three bars, MOULTON. Legend: SIGILLVM THOME * DE * MOVLTON. Beaded borders.).

The Multon arms would be three bars.

The arms of John de Balliol, King of Scots, recorded in the Lord Marshal's Roll were Gules an orle argent [Online resource: http:// www.briantimms.net/era/lord_marshals/Lord_Marshal02/Lord%20Marshal2.htm.].

Thus, if Lady Margaret de Multon was truly a Balliol, her seal should display three bars impaling an orle.

[Doug Thompson]

Douglas

The seal of Margaret de Multon that you are referring to is free to download
from the National Archive site.

It is quite a good impression but the shield above the lion does not bear
any identifiable charges.

Doug Thompson

[Douglas Richardson]

Doug ~

Thank you for your good post.

I checked out the image of Margaret de Multon's seal available through the National Archives. You are correct that the image does not bear any identifiable charges.

It's odd that one can not make out the arms on a seal in such a well preserved condition. Possibly the original seal could be examined for a better look.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear James ~

If you think that John Comyn, of Badenoch, Inverness-shire, died 1302, had a wife named Eleanor, then you would be quite wrong.

The John Comyn with a wife, Eleanor, who was enfeoffed in 1282 with the manor of Whitwick, Leicestershire, and other properties, was without question John Comyn, afterwards Earl of Buchan, died 1308, son and heir of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, died 1290, and his wife, Elizabeth de Quincy.

This fact is proven by several contemporary records. Chief among them are two records, one being an inquisition post mortem, the other in a record in the Fine Rolls, both of which established that "seven years" before the death of Alexander Comyn, Earl of Buchan, in 1290, Earl Alexander enfeoffed John his son and heir "of the manor of Whytewyke and all his other lands in the counties of Leicester and Warwick, to be held of him by the service of half a knight's fee ... That the said John Comyn is son and next heir of Alexander, and is of the age of 30 years and upwards."

You can find this information in several published sources. The following references should suffice:

1. Bain, Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland 2 (1884): 102, available at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=gJbRAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA102

2. Trans. Leicestershire Arch. Soc. 15 (1927–28): 241.

https://www.google.com/#q=%221266%2C+William+obtained+the+king%27s+pardon%22

Go to page 241, 5th item on page.

3. Cal. of Fine Rolls, 1 (1911): 274, available at the following weblink:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE57691

4. Calendar of Inquisitions Post Mortem, 2 (1906): 460-461, available at the following weblink:

https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE104839

As I stated in my previous posts, there was no Eleanor de Balliol.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Here is an exact quote of the text of Scalachronica as recorded by Sir Thomas Gray, edited by Maxwell (1907): 13: It is slightly different that what I reported from another source earlier.

“This John de Balliol had three sisters; the first, Margaret, lady of Gilsland; the second was lady de Quenci; the third had John Comyn for husband, father of himm whom Robert Brus killed at Dumfries; and the said John de Balliol had but one son, named Edward.” END OF QUOTE.

The above can be seen at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=OM62AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA13

As we can see, the name of John Comyn's wife is not named in this text. I assume Quenci is a textual error for Coucy.

The first named Balliol sister, Margaret, is here styled "lady of Gilsland." She is thought to have married a Thomas de Multon. There were two contemporary Thomas de Multon's in this time period, one who held Gilsland and the other who held Egremont. The two men were near related to one another, and both would have been of the right rank to marry a Balliol woman.

Contemporaries must have easily confused the two men. Thomas de Multon of Gilsland died in 1293, and the name of his wife is unknown. Sir Thomas de Multon, of Egremont, died 1294, and was survived by a third wife, Margaret. I presume she was the Lady Margaret de Multon who was released by captivity in Scotland by King Edward I in 1300.

I have no explanation as to why Margaret, widow of Sir Thomas de Multon, of Egremont, would be a prisoner in Scotland in 1300, unless she was King John de Balliol's sister.

As for Margaret de Multon's seal held by the National Archives, the arms on the shield appear to be blank to me. However, a shield with the arms of Balliol could easily be mistaken for a blank shield. The Balliol arms were a simple orle, which basically was a colored edge around a coat of arms. Unless the orle was clearly marked on the shield of arms, the shield might be mistaken as blank or not distinct.

Here is a weblink which shows the original family arms of King John de Balliol. The simple Balliol arms are in the lower right:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:John_Balliol.jpg

The orle is the red border around shield.

Lastly, Scalachronica as quoted above makes it clear that King John de Balliol had only one son, Edward de Balliol. King John is often falsely claimed to have had a second son, Henry de Balliol. As pointed out to me some years ago by Andrew MacEwen, there is no evidence that the king had a son named Henry.

Sadly, once the error about Henry de Balliol managed to get in print, it has been repeated again and again by historians and genealogists. That is why original sources are always our best guide to the facts about medieval families.

[Peter Howarth]

Sir Thomas Gray wrote Scalachronica in an idiosyncratic version of Anglo-Norman French. The actual text reads:

"Qi Johan de Baillof auoit .iij. sores, la primer Margaret, la dame de Gillisland, la second fust dame de Counsy, la tierce auoit Johan de Comyn a marry, pier cely qi Robert Bruis tua a Donfres. Et si nauoit le dit Johan de Baillof fors vn fitz qi out a noun Edward."

Sir Thomas Gray, _Scalachronica: 1272-1363_, ed. and trans. Andy King, Surtees Society, Woodbridge: Boydell Press, 2005, p 34

We can see that Gray refers to the second sister as lady of Coucy.

The illustration of John Balliol's arms was unfortunately painted by someone who lived two and a half centuries later and who knew little about heraldry. What he has painted is called a bordure. In Balliol's time an orle was called a 'false escutcheon' or an 'escutcheon voided', i.e. an escutcheon with the middle cut away. It looks like a ribbon following the shape of the shield but well inside the edge. An excellent example of an orle can be seen on John Balliol's own Great Seal, illustrated at
http://reed.dur.ac.uk/xtf/view?docId=ead/dcd/dcdmseal.xml#SRS number 3081.
The shield on the king's right has the Balliol orle and the one on his left (a lion rampant queue fourchy) is Galloway, the arms of his mother Dervorguilla's family through whom John made his claim to the throne.

As this seal, and other Balliol seals demonstrate, an orle is as clearly distinguishable as any other charge.

The arms of Multon of Gilsland were probably very different from those of Egremont. The latter was argent, three bars gules.[1] Thomas I of Gilsland (d.1271) bore the same arms but with a black label.[2] He was married to Maud de Vaux, lady of Gilsland. Although I cannot find evidence for her arms, other members of the Vaux family bore chequered arms. So did two of Maud's sons, Henry of Isel (checky or and gules)[3] and James of Seavington (checky or and sable).[4] There is no evidence for the arms of her eldest son Thomas II (d.1293), nor for his son Thomas III (d.1295). But Thomas IV (d.1314 s.p.m.) bore checky or and gules.[5]
[1] equestrian seal: late 13th c., Birch 6245; Glover’s Roll (c.1253) B 157
[2] Glover’s Roll (c.1253) B 158
[3] St George’s Roll (c.1285) E 346, Charles’s Roll (c.1285) F 326
[4] Segar’s Roll (c.1285) G 184
[5] Parliamentary Roll (c.1312) N 657

I would therefore expect Margaret, lady of Gilsland, to have been married to someone with chequered arms.

Peter Howarth

[Alex Maxwell Findlater]

An orle is not a border. It is an escutcheon voided, so there are three
lines, as it were, 'concentric', the outer edge of the shield, then the outer edge of the orle and then the inner of the orle.