William Wallace's special friend
lostc...@yahoo.com
regard as that of a reputable genealogist, asserting that William
Wallace & a woman named Marion Braidfoot had at least one child, a
daughter. Does anyone know if there is any actual evidence for this?
Thanks in advance - Bronwen
Mississ...@gmail.com
The evidence, so to speak, comes from the works of Blind Harry, who
wrote a history of William Wallace over 150 years after the man's
death. He claims that Wallace had a daughter who married a squire and
produced a line of worthy men. What can be factually verified about
Wallace from source records would fill up one side of a sheet of
paper. The legend that grew up around him was a lot bigger than he
ever was.
M.Sjostrom
In November 2007, I wrote about this very same
issue...
Having then got no response, I am hoping for better
exchange of information under this thread.
.... descent from William Wallace the Guardian,
so-dubbed 'Braveheart'
---
It has come to my attention that,
according to ancient oral tradition, sir William
Wallace, allegedly of Elderslie, the Guardian of
Scotland, had a daughter (then probably by a liaison
not in wedlock). The Guardian William Wallace's
daughter is said to have married sir William Baillie,
of Hoprig. There is no known contemporary written
evidence to support this, but "the oral testimony
appears to have been well established from very early
times" which of course does not necessarily make it
true.
for example:
http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/wallace7.html
If this filiation is true, then the Guardian Wallace
has descent to the present day, through the Baillie of
Lamington:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00498966&tree=LEO
which brings us to the quicksand of Baillie-Lamington
lineage (with all those named William and more or less
easily confused with each other)
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00363076&tree=LEO
(which presentation as of today, I presume, is based
on the table in Stirnet genealogies, or same sources
as Stirnet used. There may be room for corrections, I
think, particularly as Stirnet page now seems to voice
some doubt about some details of the lineage there
presented.)
In 17th century, the Lamington lineage clears a bit,
and will lead to Barons Lamington of 19th century:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00498955&tree=LEO
- Being, however, presumably of a Maxwell agnatic
lineage and not of agnatic Baillies of the late
medieval mire of subsequent ones named William,
referred to in above.
Of course the Lamington lineage, as itself, is worthy
to be made clear, as part of Scots "gentry" of
attested
medieval heritage.
However, I think that many people will be interested
in this lineage particularly because of its alleged
descent from the Guardian William Wallace, 'the
Patriot' to some. Wherefore ensues the question to add
to and assess the evidence about the purported
daughter of William Wallace.
I have got to understand that, of her existence, there
is no real *contemporary* testimony...
___________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page.
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
M.Sjostrom
In November 2007, I happened to write here about this
very same issue...
---
for example:
http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-01/wallace7.html
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00130022&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=6
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00130022&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=6
(hmmm. Genealogics looks like to having lots better
and detailed info in 18th and 19th centuries, than in
roots)
M.Sjostrom
Some time ago, IIRC there has been some information in
the group that, because of lack of legitimate male
heirs, the Lamington position and the Baillie name
were taken over by descendants of Margaret, elder
daughter of one of last Baillies of the old lineage...
Consequently, there should have existed that new
cognatically-originated Baillie lineage, from Margaret
Baillie the heiress and her Dundrennan, Maxwell
lineage, husband.
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00042781&tree=LEO
(as Stirnet presumably had errors in this lineage,)
it would be relevant to know which specific lairds of
Lamington of the following listing actually are from
the Maxwell-originated new Baillie lineage, and how
they specifically descend from Margaret the
aforementioned:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00498960&tree=LEO
And, what specifically was the said Margaret's
ancestry in the old Baillie lineage - how does she and
her father connect to the earlier lineage?
* how does this
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00099486&tree=LEO
* descend from these?
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00498959&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
(Hope there would be some in the group, familiar
enough with results of Scots genealogies - such would
then also presumably help Leo to amend Genealogics to
have the Lamington lineage there as correct and more
complete.)
John P. Ravilious
During a too brief visit to the newsgroup this morning, I noted
the current thread. Among all the "facts" on record concerning
William Wallace, there is the long-standing association as a son of
(Malcolm ?) Wallace of Elderslie, with or without a daughter of
Crawford of Loudoun. A quick scan of the newsgroup archives indicates
there is no prior reference to this being challenged.
A. McGowan established in 1999 that Sir William Wallace was the
son of one Alan Wallace [1]. As Bruce McAndrew wrote in 'Scotland's
Historic Heraldry', there is a letter from the Guardians of Scotland
(Sir William Wallace and Sir Andrew Murray) to the Hanseatic cities of
Lubeck and Hamburg dated to fall 1297, which still bears the seal of
the Guardian, Sir William Wallace:
' The cast of the seal displays A bow and arrow and
the legend reads as [WILLELM]VS FILIVS ALANI WALAIS,
negating the usual story that his father was
Sir Malcolm Wallace of Elderslie. [2]
Should anyone have evidence placing this (or a contemporaneous)
Alan (le) Wallace into the Wallace pedigree, that would be of great
interest.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] A. McGowan, 'Seaching for William the Welshman', The Double
Tressure (1999) 22, 62 [reference courtesy of Bruce McAndrew].
[2] Bruce McAndrew, Scotland's Historic Heraldry (Woodbridge:
Boydell Press, 2006), pp. 104, 504.
On Mar 14, 7:34 pm, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Some time ago, IIRC there has been some information in
> the group that, because of lack of legitimate male
> heirs, the Lamington position and the Baillie name
> were taken over by descendants of Margaret, elder
> daughter of one of last Baillies of the old lineage...
>
> Consequently, there should have existed that new
> cognatically-originated Baillie lineage, from Margaret
> Baillie the heiress and her Dundrennan, Maxwell
> lineage, husband.http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00042781&tree=LEO
>
> (as Stirnet presumably had errors in this lineage,)
> it would be relevant to know which specific lairds of
> Lamington of the following listing actually are from
> the Maxwell-originated new Baillie lineage, and how
> they specifically descend from Margaret the
> aforementioned:http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00498960&tree=LEO
>
> And, what specifically was the said Margaret's
> ancestry in the old Baillie lineage - how does she and
> her father connect to the earlier lineage?
> * how does thishttp://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00099486&tree=LEO
> * descend from these?http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00498959&tree=LEO&paren...
M.Sjostrom
Speaking about an Alan Wallace, there seemingly
existed a kinsman (cousin, some sort) of that name,
who flourished until 1296.
(At least, according to Stirnet table:
http://www.stirnet.com/HTML/genie/british/ww/wallace01.htm
(yes, the page disappears in a couple of seconds...)
However, I do not know whether said Alan Wallace, of
Auchincruive, would suit to be the Guardian's father -
their ends appear too simultaneous to me. Perhaps the
real father should have deceased earlier...
The said Alan then had, according to these stories, a
son who married the widow of Robert Bruce, the jure
uxoris Earl of Carrick...
Observe that the very same Stirnet family tree follows
tightly the old and probably unreliable tradition,
claiming William Wallace as son of Malcolm, of
Elderslie, and his alleged Crawford wife.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
M.Sjostrom
questions about
Lineage of the family known as Baillie of Lamington
It looks generally like those various personages all
named 'sir William Baillie, (laird) of Lamington',
could best (if ever) be separated from each other by
mentioning the name of the wife :)
--
I got informed that:
1. knight William Baillie, 9th laird of Lamington,
married in early 1600s, Grizel Hamilton, of Baldony,
daughter of Claud Hamilton, of Baldony
2. that sir William Baillie who married Grizel
Hamilton, was actually born as William Maxwell, and
was son of Edward Maxwell, by Margaret (or Mary)
Baillie, heiress of Lamington, elder daughter of sir
William Baillie, 8th laird of Lamington, and his first
wife Margaret Maxwell, Dowager Countess of Angus.
By an Act of Scottish Parliament, etc, he succeeded
his maternal grandfather in the Lamington inheritance.
3. William Baillie, who firstly married Margaret
Maxwell the Dowager Countess, and did not manage to
leave his inheritance to his adulterously-born son,
was son of sir William Baillie, laird of Lamington,
Master of Royal Wardrobe to Mary, Queen of Scots, and
his wife Janet Hamilton, (illegitimate) daughter of
James Hamilton, 1st Earl of Arran.
4. Elizabeth Lindsay, of The Byres, was daughter of
John Lindsay, 3rd Baron of the Byres, presumably by
his wife, lady Marion Baillie, of Lamington.
5. The said Elizabeth Lindsay married sir William
Baillie, 6th laird of Lamington
6. that sir William Baillie who married bastard of the
earl of Arran, was son of Elizabeth Lindsay and her
husband whose name was sir William Baillie
7. that sir William Baillie whose wife was his cousin
Elizabeth Lindsay, was son of sir William Baillie, 5th
laird of Lamington, and his wife Marion Home, daughter
of a Comptroller of Scotland, sir Patrick Home, of
Polwarth
8. that sir William Baillie whose wife was Marion
Home, of Polwarth, was possibly son of Marion Seton,
but very likely was not son of Catherine Hamilton (who
instead could have been his paternal grandmother).
9. Marion Seton appears to have been mother of Marion
Baillie, from Lamington, who married John Lindsay, 3rd
Baron of The Byres.
--
It looks like IF all statements above hold water, the
puzzle of identically-named lairds William in
Lamington can be solved through 1450s-1650s... and the
family tree is obvious and easy - no need to spell it
out, more than the above listing already does spell.
Now I am asking whether anyone spots any genealogical
ERRORS in the above list. Incorrect filiation?
Incorrect numbering of lairds?
Please inform the list about any specific errors
spotted.
____________________________________________________________________________________
Looking for last minute shopping deals?
Find them fast with Yahoo! Search. http://tools.search.yahoo.com/newsearch/category.php?category=shopping
M.Sjostrom
M.Sjostrom
Guess this is a good place to also remind of results
of Alex Maxwell Findlater and Marlyn Lewis:
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/gen-medieval/2007-11/1194940523
http://archiver.rootsweb.com/th/read/gen-medieval/1998-11/0911797865
Master of Wardrobe - William, husband of former
countess - heiress Margaret - William, ? d 1615
M.Sjostrom
William Anderson, "The Scottish Nation: or the
Surnames, Families, Literature, Honours and
Biographical History of The People of Scotland", three
volumes in 1860s, pp 173-174 has lots to say about the
consecutive lineages of the Baillie of Lamington.
(Google Books seems to find it...)
M.Sjostrom
A.F.Murison, William Wallace: Guardian of Scotland, pp
53-54
reiterates and interprets the words of Blind Harry
sir Hugh de Bradfute, whose wife already was dead, and
whose eldest son had been killed by the English, had
daughter, Marion, age 18
wealth of tender emotion in love between William
Wallace and maiden Marion
Lanark Rising May 1297
* a daughter was born to Wallace and his young wife
married fiorstly a squire named Shaw
then (married and) had descendants with a Baliol, the
lineage holding wealthy lands of Lamington
M.Sjostrom
Baillie of Lamington lineage in late medieval
quagmire...
the old good (and occasionally imprecise or totally
confused) Peerage work tells:
Marion (or Marian) Seton, daughter of one sir John
Seton, married c1430 sir William Baillie, of
Lamington.
This sir William had a bunch of sons, known of the
mortally maimed tutor incident, started different
Baillie lineages:
1 Alexander Baillie, of Dunain
2 David Baillie, ancestor of the BAILLIEs OF
INNISHARGIE AND RINGDUFFERIN, Ireland
3 John Baillie, settled in the Isle of Anglesey
4 William Baillie, continuing the BAILLIEs of
Lamington
5 Margaret Baillie of Lamington; married by 1432 the
7th Earl of Sutherland
Three eldest sons killed their clergyman tutor and
fled abroad; later returned and eldest, Alexander,
fought Battle of Brechin 1452 under their 'maternal'
cousin the 1st Earl of Huntly
What should one make of that genealogy?
How can a marriage in c1430 produce a daughter who
herself married by 1432 ?
Is a portion, or all, of those kids, children of sir
William by some earlier wife, and not by Marion Seton?
Besides, I have learned that those aristocratic Scots
put their children to marry already in early teens, or
at the ae of 12, or something like.
It is certain that were the bride, Marion Seton,
something like 12 yo in c1430, the time of marriage
(or were her husband so young, like 12 yo, at the
time), then she certainly was producing kids at the
same year yet. In that case, her children would rather
start to get born in around 1440, or so.
If I think three boys, born (say) between 1431 and
1435, getting rid of a boring teacher in c1447 (boys
then being between 16 and 12 yo), fleeing abroad, and
returning by 1452, when eldest of boys would be around
20 yo when taking part in a battle, chronology looks
like nicely shoehorned... and fitting. Boys could be
kids of Marion Seton. But the future countess of
Sutherland, at least, should be their aunt or older
half-sister...
This presupposes that the c1430 marriage in no way was
a child wedding. Bride and groom must have been in
their (late) teens, if sons get born starting c1431,
and an elder son gets to battle in 1452.
But these sons may simply be brothers of Marion's
husband. It probably would not be first time when a
medieval story confuses a marriage in family in a
recent year as parents of boys who soon made havoc,
when they easily may have been bridegroom's younger
brothers...
Thus, I am looking forward if anyone happens to know
how clearly documentations points these tutor-killing
boys as sons of Marion Seton...
It has often intrigued me, why in this very generation
Lamington purportedly was not inherited by eldest son.
Could it actually be that it was inherited by the
eldest, and it is only some story and possibly his own
descendants, who have tried to describe Alexander of
Dunain as the eldest, when he may well have been a
younger son - certainly he did not succeed in the
barony of Lamington.
One possibility is of course that the classic peerage
work does not know its tail from its end, and has
simply listed all available personnel with same name
as children of one good couple...
M.Sjostrom
If I think three boys, born (say) between 1431 and
1435, getting rid of a boring teacher in c1447 (boys
then being between 16 and 12 yo), fleeing abroad, and
returning by 1452, when eldest of boys would be around
20 yo when taking part in a battle, chronology looks
like nicely shoehorned... and fitting. Boys could be
kids of Marion Seton. But the future countess of
Sutherland should be their aunt or older
half-sister...
One possibility is of course that the classic peerage
work does not know its tail from its end, and has
simply listed all available personnel with same name
as children of one good couple...
____________________________________________________________________________________
M.Sjostrom
On basis of recent collecting of more or less puzzling
pieces about this family's lineage,
tentative lineage from William Wallace the Guardian
through the Baillie of Lamington...
--
knight William Wallace, Guardian of Scotland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Wallace
son (probably) of Alan Wallace, mother according to
some tradition was Margaret Crauford, sister of laird
of Loudoun, Sheirff of Ayrshire
- according to non-contemporary tradition, bethrothed
with Marion Braidfoot (a historically unattested
person), daughter of Hugh de Bradfute - whose family
the tradition links with Lamington, Lanarkshire
* and by her had daughter:
(anonyma) Wallace (estimate, born c1297) - she is not
a historical person, as there is no near-contemporary
evidence about her existence. Her existence and
genealogical role has apparently first been
'documented' in tale of Blind Harry, 1400s. Lack of
contemporary evidence however does not mean that she
inevitably never existed... This is a question of
dismissing totally the Blind Harry tradition, or
giving its elements a benefit of doubt, or a credence
of oral tradition.
married firstly squire Shaw;
married secondly a man of the blood of the Baliol -
possibly Baliol of Hoprig, as the tradition wants us
to believe
* son of second marriage seemingly was, if oral
tradition is to be believed:
sir William Baillie, 1st laird of Lamington (attested
1346, 1357 and 1368 - estimates, born c1325, d after
1368)
* his son probably was:
William Baillie, of Hoprig [possibly 2nd laird of
Lamington] (fl 1295; estimate, born in 1350s);
married, according to some tradition, Isabella Seton
of the same Ilk (estimates, born in 1370s, perhaps
c1370), allegedly daughter of sir William de Seton, of
the same Ilk, and his wife Janet Fleming. If her
allocation to the chronological situation of a
daughter of that historical couple were untrue, then
her husband probably married and had children already
some years earlier...
* His son and heir was:
sir William Baillie, 3rd laird of Lamington (mentioned
1432, possibly died after 1466; estimate, born in
1390s, perhaps c1390)
Catherine Hamilton of Cadzow (estimate, born in
1390s), daughter of sir John Hamilton, 4th of Cadzow,
and his wife Janet Douglas (whose marriage was
contracted in 1388)
* their son was:
sir William Baillie, 4th laird of Lamington (mentioned
1484, 1485; d after 1485 - estimate, born c1418)
married (in c1430) Marion Seton (estimate, born
c1420), daughter of a John Seton. Sir John Seton, of
the same Ilk (almost the only eligible 'John Seton' of
the era), married in or bef 1392 his wife Catherine -
if Marion was their daughter, then she was a very late
child.
* their son or grandson was:
sir William Baillie, 5th laird of Lamington (mentioned
1492, d bef 1521; estimates, born between 1460 and
1470); married (before 1492) Marion Home of Polwarth
(estimate, born around 1470), daughter of Patrick
Home, of Polwarth, Comptroller of Scotland, and
probably ?his first wife.
* their son was:
sir William Baillie, 6th laird of Lamington (estimate,
born in 1490s); married Elizabeth Lindsay of the Byres
(estimate, born c1500), daughter of John Lindsay, 3rd
Lord of The Byres (died around 1500), presumably by
his wife Marion Baillie (of Lamington) [who could have
been born c1470].
* Their son was:
sir William Baillie, 7th laird of Lamington, Master of
Royal Wardrobe (born in or bef 1520, attested 1542)
married Jean Hamilton of Finnart (estimate, born in
1510s), illegitimate daughter of 1st Earl of Arran,
allegedly by his lover Mary Boyd.
* their son was:
sir William Baillie, 8th laird of Lamington (estimate:
born c1540, d after 1594, in late 1590s ?); married
firstly (c1559) Margaret Maxwell, Dowager Countess of
Angus (d bef or in 1594).
* their elder daughter was:
Margaret Baillie of Lamington, heiress (estimate: born
in 1560s, attested 1577, c1598, d after 1597, possibly
long after; ?after 1607?); married firstly her first
cousin Edward Maxwell (d 1596/8).
* their son was:
sir William (Maxwell) Baillie, 9th laird of Lamington
(estimate, born in 1580s, possibly d 1615).
* either his son was, or he himself married lady of
that name:
William Baillie, laird of Lamington (estimate, born
c1610); married Grizel Hamilton of Baldony (estimate,
born between 1605 and 1612), daughter of sir Claud
Hamilton, of Baldony
----
Has some 'Landed Gentry', 'Scots Peerage', or other
work their fuller genealogy?
Facts not consistent with the tentative sketch above?
Come on and shoot!
M.Sjostrom
----
____________________________________________________________________________________
wjhonson
> sir William Baillie, 1st laird of Lamington (attested
> 1346, 1357 and 1368 - estimates, born c1325, d after
> 1368)
> * his son probably was:
>
> William Baillie, of Hoprig [possibly 2nd laird of
> Lamington] (fl 1295; estimate, born in 1350s);
> married, according to some tradition, Isabella Seton
> of the same Ilk (estimates, born in 1370s, perhaps
> c1370), allegedly daughter of sir William de Seton, of
> the same Ilk, and his wife Janet Fleming. If her
> allocation to the chronological situation of a
> daughter of that historical couple were untrue, then
> her husband probably married and had children already
> some years earlier...
I don't think so.
*IF* and it's a big if, there really were William baillie of Hoprig
and possibly 2nd laird of Lamington who "fl 1295" then I'd suggest
that this is not the son, but rather the identical person with the one
granted a charter in 1368 if not his FATHER.
Fl 1295 is perhaps a typo for fl 1395 ?
Will
M.Sjostrom
well-spotted. It is a typo. Absolutely.
I have had no intention to write 1295 anywhere near
that.
Actually, if such things ever happened, in 1295
William Wallace, in his late teens or early twenties,
possibly was courting his Marion, and their (alleged)
grandson and great-grandson were not even gleams in
their eyes - there could possibly have been a female
gleam (the mythical daughter of Wallace) in their eyes
at that time.
Read it, 1395
("On 4 February 1395, 'Willielmus Baillie de Hoprig'
received lands of Hyndshaw and Watston, from his
'cousin', John de Hamilton, Lord of Cadzow." - this
charter is a document I have never personally seen,
but I am trusting to a book which reports its
existence.)
By the way, 1295-1368 would be a fairly long stretch
of flourishing to one single man. Practically it would
mean he lived almost a hundred years old, in most
scenarios of what 'fl' means.
I think it would be more credible, knowing also ages
at death in those times, that he was in his twenties
in 1346, was well middle-aged in 1368 when his long
service (20 yrs and more) was rewarded with grant of
substantial lands, and lived on for a while enjoying
those properties, after which he passed away and well
before 1395 had left the next generation to deal with
mundane matters.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
M.Sjostrom
Actually, I am a bit cynical about the alleged descent
from William Wallace.
That is because afaik, no near-contemporary documents
of 1300s about the Baillie of Lamington (nor of
anybody) makes a claim of descent from Wallace.
The first apparent Baillie in Lamington, sir William
(fl 1346..68), who in 1368 received it from king David
II, has been mentioned in at least three documents.
That is quite a many, for a 1300s knight in Scotland.
On the other hand, a really leading personality of
1300s Scotland (such as a real magnate), would
probably get mentioned in even more preserved
near-contemporary documents.
Or, when the English captured the Baillie, had he been
Wallace's grandson, should someone at least somewhere
in documentation croaked about such family
background...
William Wallace had just recently, some fifty and so
years earlier, been alive, and was remembered as hero
in 1300s. Why would not his grandson, in 1346..68, get
mentioned as of Wallace's race, were he such?
If Wallace had a heir, the era was such that with some
likelihood (though not inevitably), such heir would
get to be a real magnate, something prominent within
the next decades and the century.
No near-contemporary sign of such.
(Wallace's heirs thus seemingly did not receive in
1300s, anything as visible as usual accolades of their
ancestor's accomplishments.)
If Wallace had descendants, I would expect (with some
likelihood, though not as inevitability) such a
descendant, in one's three documentary mentions, get
at least one mention as Wallace's "heir", grandson, or
something...
For example, the king making such grandson a baron
(which was a high thing in those days) or knight,
could well have mentioned something in a deed document
about the grandfather, the hero Wallace...
However, first historically traceable mentions of the
Baillie of Lamington as Wallace's descendants were
from 1470s, Blind Harry.
Dangerously fittingly, seen from the view of the
'Hundred-Years-After' of fibbing. You know, after
hundred years have lapsed from the time someone lived
or married or something, all those who know about it
firsthand or have known personally someone who was
there or should have been there, are deceased, and
falsifications can no longer be chaffed from truth by
asking contemporaries or those bound to know something
valid.
Besides, in old good days, people tended to have
learnt their ancestry back within the past hundred
years, and to have learnt names of their ancestors up
to great-great-grandparents, that four being a number
of generations *roughly* corresponding a hundred
years.
In almost all other genealogical fantasies, if they
are aiming at plausibility, the fabricated point in
the tree has been found to have been something like a
hundred years or more earlier than the real emerge of
such a pedigree...
1470s is safely something like 160 years after Wallace
got executed.
---
All that said, onomastics of the Baillie of Lamington
repeat all the time names such as William, Marion and
Margaret - they were common in Scotland of that era,
but they also were those of Wallace himself, the
alleged bride (Marion), and Wallace's putative mother
(Margaret).
lostc...@yahoo.com
> Actually, I am a bit cynical about the alleged descent
> from William Wallace.
>
> That is because afaik, no near-contemporary documents
> of 1300s about the Baillie of Lamington (nor of
> anybody) makes a claim of descent from Wallace.
I see your point & agree with you, but is it possible that it was more
of a liability than an honor at the time - particularly if the
Baillies were dependent on the good will of the English in some way?
At what point was Wallace widely perceived as a hero? And thank you,
by the way, for the considerable time you have put into answering my
question in the first place. Best, Bronwen