First wife of Murdoch, Duke of Albany

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

Joan Douglas was the first wife of Murdoch, Duke of Albany. Is her ancestry known? I have seen suggestions that she was a legitimate daughter of Archibald, 3rd Earl of Douglas, but am not convinced (no evidence). Thanks!

[celticp...@gmail.com]

In answer to your question, Murdach (or Murdoch) Stewart, Knt., 2nd Duke of Albany, Earl of Fife and Menteith [died 1425], married (1st) c.1388 Joan de Douglas, daughter of Archibald de Douglas (nicknamed “the Grim”), 3rd Earl of Douglas, by Joan, daughter and heiress of Thomas de Moray, Knt., of Bothwell.

There are two pieces of evidence which prove Joan de Douglas' parentage:

1. Fraser, Douglas Book 1 (1885): 443, endnote 2 (James de Douglas, lord of Balvany, styled “brother” [i.e., brother-in-law] by Murdach, Duke of Albany in charters dated 1423 and 1424).

2. Fraser, Douglas Book 3 (1885): 54–56 (Archibald de Douglas, 4th Earl of Douglas, lord of Galloway and Annandale, styled “brother” [i.e., brother-in-law] [fratris] by Murdach, Duke of Albany, Governor of Scotland in confirmation charter dated 1421).

For extensive details regarding Murdach Stewart, Duke of Albany, and his family, please see my book, Royal Ancestry (5 volume set), published in 2013.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

Many thanks, Mr. Richardson! One question: does Royal Ancestry supersede or supplement your two previous multi-volume works, Plantagenet Ancestry and Magna Charta Ancestry?

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

But I do have one question. Isn't Joan Moray the widow, rather daughter, of Sir Thomas de Moray of Bothwell? Scots Peerage, III, pp. 161-2 cites a papal dispensation of 1362 for the marriage of Archibald Douglas and Joan, in which it states she is the "relicte" of Thomas, who had died in London in 1361. I tracked down SP's cited source, Vetera Monumenta (https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_20XwMW0Y7PcC#page/n361/mode/2up) and it does indeed say that in the dispensation. Has new evidence emerged?

[celticp...@gmail.com]

On Thursday, March 1, 2018 at 7:15:00 PM UTC-7, riemorese...@gmail.com wrote:

< But I do have one question. Isn't Joan Moray the widow, rather daughter, of Sir < Thomas de Moray of Bothwell? Scots Peerage, III, pp. 161-2 cites a papal
< dispensation of 1362 for the marriage of Archibald Douglas and Joan, in which it < states she is the "relicte" of Thomas, who had died in London in 1361. I tracked < down SP's cited source, Vetera Monumenta
< (https://archive.org/stream/bub_gb_20XwMW0Y7PcC#page/n361/mode/2up) and it does < indeed say that in the dispensation. Has new evidence emerged?

You are surely correct. Burnett, Exchequer Rolls of Scotland 4 (1880): lv discusses this very issue. Mr. Burnett (who I trust) states that Archibald de Douglas's wife, Joan, was the widow of Thomas de Moray, and cites the dispensation record for their marriage published in Vetera Monumenta which you have referenced. He adds: "By whatever means that lady became inheritrix of Bothwell, genealogists are in error in making her daughter of Sir Thomas Moray."

See the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ke4_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PR55

However, I do have one caveat. Dispensed marriages did not always take place and they could contain inaccurate information. If the projected marriage between Archibald de Douglas and widow Joan of Moray did not take place, it is always possible that he turned around and married her daughter. If such a daughter existed, I assume she would be the heiress of the barony of Bothwell. Otherwise it is odd that Thomas de Moray's land holding at Bothwell should have transferred to his widow's new husband. Under normal circumstances, if Thomas de Moray had no issue, Bothwell should have fallen to his nearest heirs.

For the time being, I recommend you accept Barnett's position on the matter.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

The matter of the identity of Archibald de Douglas' wife, Joan, is further discussed in an interesting article on the Moray family published in Transactions of the Gaelic Society of Inverness 25 (1901–3): 1–18.

On pages 17-18, the author states that Thomas de Moray [of Bothwell] "married Joanna de Moray, who became heiress of Drumsargard after the death of her brother, John, the only son of Maurice de Moray of Drumsargard, Earl of Stratherne. Sir Thomas had no issue by his wife Joanna, and after his death from the plague in 1361, his relict married, by dispensation 23rd July 1361, Archibald, afterwards third Earl of Douglas, to whom she brought the vast estates of the House of Bothwell. This fact alone seems to prove that the next heirs of family were so remote that they were ousted from their inheritance by the grasping Douglases. At any rate, as will be seen, those Morays who claim to represent the illustrious line of Bothwell, in our own day, cannot produce the necessary proofs." END OF QUOTE.

You can find the entire article on the Moray family at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=SLofAZS-3DQC&pg=PA17

[celticp...@gmail.com]

There is a helpful Douglas family genealogical database available at the following weblink:

http://www.douglashistory.co.uk/famgen/

The account of Joan of Moray, wife of Thomas of Moray, Knt., of Bothwell, and Archibald de Douglas, Knt. (nicknamed "the Grim"), 3rd Earl of Douglas on this website can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://www.douglashistory.co.uk/famgen/getperson.php?personID=I44693&tree=tree1

The 1361 dispensation for the marriage of Sir Archibald de Douglas and Joan of Moray indicates that they were related in the 4th degree in both consanguinity and affinity. This means that Archibald de Douglas was a third cousin to both Joan de Moray and her former husband, Sir Thomas de Moray, of Bothwell.

The Douglas genealogical database indicates that all three parties were descended from Walter, 3rd High Steward of Scotland [died 1246]. Presuming the database has its facts correctly stated, then Archibald de Douglas was a third cousin to both Joan de Moray and her former husband, Thomas de Moray, just as stated in the dispensation.

Lastly, there are charters of both Joan de Moray and her mother, Joan de Menteith, Countess of Strathearn, published in Anderson, The Calendar of the Laing Charters (1899): 97–98. They may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=yale.39002089544416;view=1up;seq=109

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

Thanks for the website. I wonder why it is, when people go the amazing effort to produce such a database that they are do not watch for obvious errors. The basic relationships here are sound. But consider:
1. Archibald "the Grim"'s birth year is given as "about 1346." That would be 16 years after his father died. No wonder he was grim!
2. His wife's birth year is given as "about 1350," fully four years after her father died at Neville's Cross.
3. With her being born "about 1350," she was a widow at 11.
4. Sir William Douglas of Nithisdale is shown as her son. He was, in fact, an illegitimate son of the third earl.
Someday, perhaps, there will be a royalty/peerage project that meets academic standards -- like the Henry Project, but on a larger scale. This would be the "gold standard" for researchers. Connect to a person listed in it, and the rest would be accurate (subject, of course, to inevitable changes resulting from new research and discoveries). Indeed, it might be possible to register documented descents to the present into the database, meeting very high standards of evidence.
I will also check out the charters.
Best wishes, Jim Thompson

[John P. Ravilious]

On Friday, March 2, 2018 at 4:21:33 PM UTC-5, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

Good morning Doug, Jim, et al.,

A most interesting discussion. This is undoubtedly one of those instances where the evidence provided by a dispensation has led to a logical, but erroneous, determination that Joan Murray, daughter of the Earl of Strathearn and widow of Thomas Murray of Bothwell, was the wife of Archibald 'the Grim', 3rd Earl of Douglas.

The late Andrew MacEwen noted the 1371 charter of King Robert II to Archibald concerning the destination of the Murray lands in the event his wife Joan died without issue - " in casu quo Johannam de Moravia, uxorem suam contigerit, absque haerede de corporibus eorundem procreato " (RMS I (1814 ed.), pp.87-88, no. 305). Andrew's interpretation was that there was as yet no issue of the marriage; this was part (not all) of his argument that Archibald's wife was Joan, daughter and heiress of Thomas Murray of Bothwell by his wife Joan Murray (heiress of Drumsargard). A discussion of the elder Joan Murray's lack of issue in 1371 (she likely being aged about 35, perhaps more, at the time) may have taken place before this hypothesis was put forward.

Also the article published by Dr. Bruce McAndrew on the matter in 2010 should be consulted by those interested (Heraldic investigations anent early Murray genealogy, PSAS 140 (2010), pp. 145-164). McAndrew makes a good case from the evidence, especially the heraldic representations created in the chapel erected at Bothwell by Archibald the Grim, that support the position that Douglas' wife was Joan, daughter (not widow) of Thomas Murray of Bothwell (cf. pp. 154-159).

There were many instances which you (Doug) alluded to of dispensations not matching the actual marriages that took place - in particular John Stewart of Darnley and his wife Margaret Montgomery (1460, vs. dispensation for her aunt in 1438) for one, and Colin 'Iongantach' Campbell and his wife Mary or Mariota Campbell for another (1372, following death of his son John who was dispensed to marry Mary first) for another. There is certainly no reason to take the 1362 dispensation as solid evidence of Joan Murray's identity.

~ Note also, as you (Jim) noted, the Douglas website is interesting yet loaded with errors. Thomas Murray of Bothwell was not the son of Christian Bruce as shown, but rather a full brother of John Murray; and while Thomas Murray was undoubtedly a Stewart descendant, it had nothing to do with Neil, Earl of Carrick's wife whose name was Isabel and whose parentage is as yet unproven. "Margaret Stewart" his wife is from Scots Peerage, and is unfortunately without documentary support.

Cheers,

John

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Jim and John ~

Since my last posts, I've had a chance to review a few more resources regarding the questioned marriage of Sir Archibald de Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas, and his wife, Joan of Moray.

It appears that two reputable Scottish historians, Mr. Bain and Mr. Burnett, as well as Scots Peerage and Complete Peerage, have all taken the position that Sir Archibald de Douglas married Joan de Moray, widow of Sir Thomas de Moray, of Bothwell. This position is based on the 1361 dispensation for this marriage published by Teiner, which dispensation clearly indicates the identity of Sir Archibald's wife.

On the other hand, the unexplained passage of the barony of Bothwell held by Sir Thomas de Moray to the Earls of Douglas has continued to be a bone of contention. Under normal circumstances, the passage of the barony would follow the typical laws of inheritance. As such, two more recent historians, Andrew MacEwen and Bruce McAndrew, have adopted the position that Sir Archibald de Douglas must have married a hitherto unknown person, Joan, alleged daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas de Moray, of Bothwell, not her widowed mother. As heiress to her father's lands, the barony of Bothwell would have passed without contention to the Earls of Douglas.

One argument made against the MacEwen-McAndrew position is that Thomas de Moray is that Sir Thomas de Moray died too young to have had a child by his wife, Joan de Moray (she born 1339-1346). However, given that Thomas de Moray served as a plenipotentiary for King David's ransom in 1358 and that he was a knight at his death in 1361, it seems entirely possible that Sir Thomas de Moray could have been survived by an infant daughter, Joan, at his death.

One argument made for the Bain-Burnett position is that the reason the barony of Bothwell passed to the Douglas family is because the lawful heirs of Sir Thomas de Moray were too distantly related to Sir Thomas and that they were unable to prove their claim to the barony of Bothwell. In the absence of provable heirs, the Douglas family simply acceded to the Moray lands, rather than the Crown. This argument seems to be rather weak to me as there is no evidence that anyone other than the Douglas family ever claimed the barony of Bothwell following the death of Sir Thomas de Moray. Moreover, in the absence of near heirs, the barony of Bothwell should have escheated to the crown.

I haven't read Mr. McAndrew's comments regarding the heraldic evidence of the Douglas-Moray marriage, but my guess is that his comments have possibly overplayed the implications of such evidence.

What is the deciding factor? I suspect chronology might be useful in providing a solution in this case. I typically employ a rule of thumb of 85 years for three generations. Sir Archibald Douglas and his wife, Joan of Moray, had one known grandson, Robert Stewart, of Fife, who was born say 1389. He commenced witnessing charters for his paternal grandfather in 1404. Robert Stewart was dispensed to marry in 1414, but the marriage did not take place. Had the marriage taken place, we might assume that a child of that marriage would have been born c.1420. Subtracting 85 years from 1420 should give is a rough estimate of the birth date of Robert Stewart's grandmother, Joan of Moray, wife of Sir Archibald de Douglas. Making this calculation gives an approximate birthdate of 1335 for Joan de Moray. This date suggests that Joan of Moray was the widow not the daughter of Sir Thomas de Moray.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 6:18:21 AM UTC-7, John P. Ravilious wrote:

< A most interesting discussion. This is undoubtedly one of those
< instances where the evidence provided by a dispensation has led to a logical, < but erroneous, determination that Joan Murray, daughter of the Earl of
< Strathearn and widow of Thomas Murray of Bothwell, was the wife of Archibald
< 'the Grim', 3rd Earl of Douglas.

< The late Andrew MacEwen noted the 1371 charter of King Robert II to Archibald < concerning the destination of the Murray lands in the event his wife Joan died < without issue - " in casu quo Johannam de Moravia, uxorem suam contigerit,
< absque haerede de corporibus eorundem procreato " (RMS I (1814 ed.), pp.87-88, < no. 305). Andrew's interpretation was that there was as yet no issue of the
< marriage; this was part (not all) of his argument that Archibald's wife was
< Joan, daughter and heiress of Thomas Murray of Bothwell by his wife Joan
< Murray (heiress of Drumsargard). A discussion of the elder Joan Murray's lack < of issue in 1371 (she likely being aged about 35, perhaps more, at the time)
< may have taken place before this hypothesis was put forward.

< Also the article published by Dr. Bruce McAndrew on the matter in 2010
< should be consulted by those interested (Heraldic investigations anent early
< Murray genealogy, PSAS 140 (2010), pp. 145-164). McAndrew makes a good case
< from the evidence, especially the heraldic representations created in the
< chapel erected at Bothwell by Archibald the Grim, that support the position
< that Douglas' wife was Joan, daughter (not widow) of Thomas Murray of Bothwell < (cf. pp. 154-159).

< There were many instances which you (Doug) alluded to of dispensations not < matching the actual marriages that took place < in particular John Stewart of < Darnley and his wife Margaret Montgomery (1460, vs. dispensation for her aunt < in 1438) for one, and Colin 'Iongantach' Campbell and his wife Mary or Mariota < Campbell for another (1372, following death of his son John who was dispensed < to marry Mary first) for another. There is certainly no reason to take the

[John Higgins]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 5:18:21 AM UTC-8, John P. Ravilious wrote:

>
> The late Andrew MacEwen noted the 1371 charter of King Robert II to Archibald concerning the destination of the Murray lands in the event his wife Joan died without issue - " in casu quo Johannam de Moravia, uxorem suam contigerit, absque haerede de corporibus eorundem procreato " (RMS I (1814 ed.), pp.87-88, no. 305). Andrew's interpretation was that there was as yet no issue of the marriage; this was part (not all) of his argument that Archibald's wife was Joan, daughter and heiress of Thomas Murray of Bothwell by his wife Joan Murray (heiress of Drumsargard). A discussion of the elder Joan Murray's lack of issue in 1371 (she likely being aged about 35, perhaps more, at the time) may have taken place before this hypothesis was put forward.
>
> Also the article published by Dr. Bruce McAndrew on the matter in 2010 should be consulted by those interested (Heraldic investigations anent early Murray genealogy, PSAS 140 (2010), pp. 145-164). McAndrew makes a good case from the evidence, especially the heraldic representations created in the chapel erected at Bothwell by Archibald the Grim, that support the position that Douglas' wife was Joan, daughter (not widow) of Thomas Murray of Bothwell (cf. pp. 154-159).
>

>

> Cheers,
>
> John

For those who are interested, the article by Dr. Bruce McAndrew cited above can be downloaded here (see pp. 145-164):
http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/psas/contents.cfm?vol=140

[Peter Howarth]

On Sunday, 4 March 2018 22:19:48 UTC, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:
>I haven't read Mr. McAndrew's comments regarding the heraldic evidence of the Douglas-Moray marriage, but my guess is that his comments have possibly overplayed the implications of such evidence.

The article is available from the website of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland.

In it, Dr McAndrew examines the four heraldic corbels by the east window in the Collegiate Church of Bothwell, celebrating the immediate family of Archibald the Grim. Three of them represent Archibald himself, his son and his daughter. When L Hodgson photographed them in 2010, he showed that the fourth corbel bore an impaled coat, dexter: three stars within a double tressure flory counter flory; sinister: three stars. Dr McAndrew showed earlier in the article, in his detailed study of the different Murray seals, that these two arms represented Murray of Bothwell (dexter) and Murray of Drumsargard (sinister). In the past, the impaled coat was treated as representing the marriage of Sir Thomas Murray of Bothwell and Joanna (I) Murray of Drumsargard. However Dr McAndrew questions why Archibald the Grim would celebrate his wife's first husband in his collegiate church.

His solution hinges on the meaning of the impalement, whether it in fact represents a marriage, or something else. At this time, quartering was only just starting to be used in Scotland. Archibald's cousin, the 2nd Earl of Douglas, was amongst the first in Scotland to adopt quartered arms, Douglas (patronymic) with Mar (his mother's earldom). However, Archibald continued to use the traditional method of impalement on his corbel, with Douglas to the dexter and Galloway, his territorial lordship, to the sinister. So, if the impaled arms on the fourth corbel are those of a single person they would represent Joanna (II), heiress of both Bothwell and Drumsargard. We would then have the four corbels representing Archibald, his wife, his son, and his daughter.

Peter Howarth

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, February 27, 2018 at 12:28:10 PM UTC-5, riemorese...@gmail.com wrote:
> Joan Douglas was the first wife of Murdoch, Duke of Albany. Is her ancestry known? I have seen suggestions that she was a legitimate daughter of Archibald, 3rd Earl of Douglas, but am not convinced (no evidence). Thanks!

What a fascinating discussion this has turned out to be, and I appreciate two such learned gentlemen taking part!
Mr. McAndrew's excellent article is available (without charge) online. The starting point is here: https://www.socantscot.org/publications/psas/
In a model that more learned societies should follow, the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland have digitized and put online, without charge, their Proceedings and all out-of-print books and monographs. What a treasure!

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Jim and John ~

George Harvey Johnston published the book, The Heraldry of the Douglases, in 1907. On page 15, he states that Archibald, third Earl of Douglas, "married Joanna, widow of Sir Thomas Moray, Lord of Bothwell, by whom he acquired the Lordship of Bothwell." Thus he has followed the Bain-Barnett position and that of Scots Peerage and Complete Peerage regarding Countess Joan's identity.

See the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=FwwtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA13

On page 16, he further discusses the heraldy on the seal of Earl Archibald's wife, Joan of Moray, Countess of Douglas, dated 1401: "Two shields. Dexter shield per pale, Dexter side, A heart, on a chief, three stars [Douglas]; Sinister side, A lion rampant crowned [Galloway]. Sinister shield. Three stars [Moray] (Macdonald). Nisbet gives the Arms of Moray of Bothwell as Azure, three stars argent." END OF QUOTE.

The author identifies the Countess own arms, Three stars," as being Moray, he citing the authority of Scottish seals, Mr. Macdonald. As the daughter of Maurice de Moray, Earl of Strathearn, that would be correct.

However, if she was the daughter of Sir Thomas de Moray, of Bothwell, that would also be correct.

Hence, the heraldry on her seal doesn't provide a clear answer to this problem, other than Countess Joan was a Moray.

Checking further, I find that Mr. MacDonald in his book, Scottish Armorial Seals, published in 1904, discusses the same seal on page 260. He states that Johanna Murray, Countess of Douglas, Lady of Galloway and Bothwell, was the "daughter of Maurice Murray, Earl of Strathearn." He further indicates that she "married (1st) to Sir Thomas Murray of Bothwell, (second) to SIr Archibald Douglas 'the Grim,' Lord of Galloway, and third Earl of Douglas, who died Christmas 1400." The legend on the countess' seal reads: "S ionete co[mi]tisse de douglas dne bothuel."

The MacDonald book may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=kpgCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover

Thus, it would appear Mr. MacDonald, like Mr. Johnston, adopted the Bain-Burnett position as to the parentage of Countess Joan of Moray.

[John Higgins]

On Sunday, March 4, 2018 at 5:18:21 AM UTC-8, John P. Ravilious wrote:

John, have Andrew MacEwen's thoughts on this matter been published anywhere?

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Jim and John ~

I've had a chance to read Bruce McAndrew's article which deals with the marriage of Sir Archibald de Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas [died 1400], and his wife, Joan de Moray. As John Ravilious has kindly noted, the article was published in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland [PSAS] 140 (2010): 145-164. The actual discussion of the problem at hand is covered on pages 155 through 159.

On page 155, Mr. McAndrew states without qualification that Joan of Moray, wife of Archibald de Douglas, "would have been entitled to quarter or empale the arms of Murray of Drumsargard with her own Murray of Bothwell arms." This statement implies that the author has already accepted that Joan of Moray was the daughter of Sir Thomas de Moray, not Sir Maurice de Moray. He does this before he has even proved Sir Thomas de Moray even had such a daughter! That's odd.

He then proceeds to discuss the seal of Joan de Moray, wife of Archibald de Douglas. This is the same seal discussed by George Harvey Johnston in the book, The Heraldry of the Douglases (1907): 16. Both he and Mr. Johnston concur that the seal displays Countess Joan's own arms as "Three stars" for Moray. Mr. MacAndrew tells us earlier in the article that the simple "Three stars" represents for family of Moray of Drumsagard family [i.e., Maurice de Moray, Earl of Strathearn] not the family of Moray of Bothwell [i.e., Thomas de Moray, of Bothwell]. Assuming he has correctly identified the simple three stars as being for the Drumsagard family, this should be AMPLE evidence that Joan de Moray was the daughter of Sir Maurice de Moray. But Mr. McAndrew has a theory to prove and he does not leave the matter there.

He acknowledges that Archibald de Douglas was dispensed in 1361 to marry Joan de Moray, daughter of Sir Maurice de Moray, and widow of Sir Thomas de Moray. But he adds there is no evidence the marriage ever took place. And, any case, he says she could have died of the plague! To that I would reply there is no evidence that the marriage didn't take place. And there is no evidence whatsoever that Joan de Moray, widow of Sir Thomas de Moray, died of the plague before she could have married Archibald de Douglas.

To provide ample time for Archibald de Douglas to have married the fictitious infant daughter of the young woman he was dispensed to marry, McAndrew then says "it is noticeable that there were no children of the marriage [of Archibald and Joan] till 1372 when Joanna (II) [the alleged infant heiress] would have been of marriageable and child-bearing age."

This is the source he cites to support this statement: Nothing.

The truth is no one seems to knows when the older Douglas children were born. The oldest surviving son, Archibald de Douglas, was estimated by Complete Peerage to be born "about" 1370, whereas Scots Peerage pegged his birth as "about" 1372. Mr. McAndrew has clearly fudged on these dates by leaving out the word "about." He also uses the later of the two dates, again to allow for extra time for the alleged Moray heiress to grow up and be of child bearing age.

I say Archibald is the "oldest surviving son" of his parents as there could have been any number of children who preceded the younger Archibald's birth who died in infancy or young adulthood. A good example of the high infant mortality rate in this time period is the family of King Edward I of England, whose first wife gave birth to some 15 or 16 children, of whom only six children survived to adulthood. Given such high infant mortality rates, it is not appropriate to use a guesstimated birthdate for the oldest surviving son to imagine when the marriage of Archibald de Douglas and Joan de Moray took place (although I admit this is common practice among genealogists and historians). All we know is that Archibald and Joan were dispensed to marry in 1361.

Insofar as the marriage date of the younger Archibald de Douglas, Scots Peerage says only that he married "some time before 1390" Margaret Stewart, daughter of King Robert III. As for Margaret's birth, no one knows exactly when that occurred either, and she is a royal princess. However, she was apparently born sometime between 1367, when her parents were known to be married, and 1378 (birth of her eldest known brother). We have here in fact a good example of why Mr. McAndrew has used a faulty measuring stick to determine when Archibald de Douglas and Joan de Moray might have married. King Robert III and his wife, Annabelle de Drummond, were married in or before 1367, yet their eldest surviving son, David, was not born until 1378. If we apply the same timeline to the elder Archibald de Douglas' marriage, assuming his eldest surviving son was born about 1370 or 1372, then we should guess that the elder Archibald and Joan de Moray were married about 1359 or 1361. Given that Archibald and Joan were dispensed to marry in 1361, that would be just about right.

Having rejected the evidence of the 1361 dispensation for the marriage of Archibald and Joan, and having rejected the evidence of Joan's own seal, Mr. McAndrew then turns to his analysis of four armorial corbels in the Collegiate church of Bothwell. One of the corbels has the arms of Moray of Bothwell impaled with Moray of Drumsagard. These impaled arms supposedly represent the marriage of Sir Thomas de Moray, of Bothwell, with Joan de Moray, daughter of Sir Maurice de Moray, of Drumsagard, Earl of Strathearn. That seems like a reasonable assumption to me.

But Mr. McAndrew asks "But why would Archibald [de Douglas] the Grim celebrate his wife's first husband in his collegiate church?" Why indeed? Archibald de Douglas' wife, Joan's first husband, Sir Thomas de Moray, was the lord of Bothwell, and probably lies buried in this very church. Not only that, but Archibald de Douglas acquired all the lands of Sir Thomas de Moray, including Bothwell. Given these facts, it would be surprising if Archibald de Douglas didn't commemorate Sir Thomas de Moray in some way in this church.

To dismiss the implication of the impaled arms, Mr. McAndrew then says that the arms of the corbel are intended not as impaled arms to represent the first marriage of Joan de Moray. No indeed. They are actually similar to quartered arms and they represent the ancestry of Archibald de Douglas' wife, Joan de Moray. On this point, I believe he has overplayed his evidence (which is what I feared he would do). I don't think the corbel evidence gives him any support for his theory that Archibald de Douglas married the daughter of the woman he was dispensed to marry. Rather, Archibald's wife Joan's own seal tells the tale. She used the simple three stars of Moray of Drumsagard as her arms on her seal which proves she was the daughter of Sir Maurice de Moray, of Drumsagard. The corbel in the Bothwell church with the impaled arms of Moray of Bothwell and Moray of Drumsagard simply represents Joan's first marriage to Sir Thomas de Moray.

Reviewing the above, Mr. McAndrew has produced no evidence that Sir Thomas de Moray [died 1361] left any issue by his wife, Joan de Moray, much less an infant daughter Joan. He has advanced no evidence that the alleged infant daughter grew up to marry her mother's intended second husband, Archibald de Douglas. Rather, his studied review of Moray family arms and Joan de Moray's own seal prove that Joan de Moray, wife of Sir Archibald de Douglas, was the Joan de Moray, widow of Sir Thomas de Moray, just as stated in the 1361 dispensation.

[Peter Howarth]

On Tuesday, 6 March 2018 04:36:09 UTC, celticp...@gmail.com wrote:

>
> To dismiss the implication of the impaled arms, Mr. McAndrew then says that the arms of the corbel are intended not as impaled arms to represent the first marriage of Joan de Moray. No indeed. They are actually similar to quartered arms and they represent the ancestry of Archibald de Douglas' wife, Joan de Moray. On this point, I believe he has overplayed his evidence (which is what I feared he would do).

I don't think it will make any difference to the theory that you wish to prove, but you seem to be suggesting that impaled arms represented marriage and quartered arms represented ancestry. Dr McAndrew was not making those claims; they are in fact only modern interpretations.

In the fourteenth century, arms were felt to be essentially representations of land. This explains, for example, why Hugh de Audley abandoned his fretty arms for the Clare chevrons when he received Clare lands with the earldom of Gloucester. But a question then arose of how one could show that someone held two lots of land. One way was to place the arms for each one side by side as an impalement. This is what Archibald the Grim did, placing the arms for his earldom of Douglas on one side, and the arms of Galloway, the lordship given to him by the king, on the other. Similarly, Thomas de Moray of Bothwell had control over both Bothwell and his wife's lands of Drumsargard, and placed their arms side by side.

There was however another, more modern fashion for combining such arms which Archibald's cousin and predecessor, James, had used. He held two earldoms and quartered the arms for Douglas with those for Mar. These quarters represented the lands he held, rather than his ancestry. John Talbot, 1st Earl of Shrewsbury, did something similar when his quarters represented the lordships he derived from his two wives. Thus, as Dr McAndrew pointed out, impalement and quartering could both represent the holding of two lots of land.

It was only later on that heraldry abandoned its connections with land and became simply an empty status symbol, where people added quarters willy-nilly with no land involved and tried to justify them by referring to 'heraldic heiresses' who in fact brought nothing with them. By then, quartering was left representing only ancestry and nothing more substantial.

Peter Howarth

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Jim and John ~

Hamilton, Descriptions of the Sheriffdoms of Lanark and Renfrew (1881): Memoranda (in front of book) includes a discussion of the four Douglas heraldic shields found in the church of Bothwell. Mr. McAndrew called these same four shields "corbels."

Below is a weblink to this discussion:

https://books.google.com/books?id=F-M-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PP19

Mr. Hamilton states the following:

"On the north side of the arch, inside, is a shield, - three stars in chief, with three stars (two and one) surrounded by the royal treasure, impaling another of three stars (two and one). This is probably for one of the Morays of Bothwell and his wife." He adds: "And in connection with the subject of the acquisition by Archibald Douglas of the Barony of Bothwell, generally attributed to his marriage with the daughter of Thomas Moray, see an article in Notes and Queries, 23rd Dec. 1878, in which it is shown, by reference to the Vatican Archives, that there are strong grounds for now believing that Johanna Moray was the widow, not the daughter, of Thomas, the last Baron of Bothwell of this line." END OF QUOTE

As we can see, Mr. Hamilton suggests that the shield with the impaled double Moray arms represents a Moray marriage. I concur. He also accepts that Joan de Moray, the wife of Archibald de Douglas, was the widow, not the daughter, of Sir Thomas de Moray. I also concur.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

In my post yesterday regarding Mr. McAndrew's 2010 article, I noted that Mr. McAndrew asked the following question: "But why would Archibald [de Douglas] the Grim celebrate his wife's first husband in his collegiate church?"

Mr. McAndrew seems not to have bothered dating the four shields in the Bothwell church. We know one of the shields in the church commemorates the marriage of Marjory Douglas and David Stewart, Duke of Rothesay, which marriage took place in Feb. 1400. Given that Margery's father, Archibald de Douglas, died later the same year, it seems likely that the four shields were placed in the Bothwell church not by Archibald de Douglas, but by his widow, Joan de Moray, or by their son and heir, the younger Archibald de Douglas. If so, it seems perfectly reasonable that Joan de Moray, styled "lady of Bothwell" in her own seal in 1401, would seek to commemorate her first marriage to Sir Thomas de Moray, who was the previous lord of Bothwell.

[TGB]

I think rather than using 85 years for a partly hypothetical three generations, it would be more useful to take at most 40 years away from Robert Stewart of Fife's birth to offer a reasonable birth date for his maternal grandmother - i.e. sometime after 1349. This then argues for Archibald Douglas' wife as the daughter of Thomas and Joan of Moray, not Thomas' widow.

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

> I think rather than using 85 years for a partly hypothetical three generations, it would be more useful to take at most 40 years away from Robert Stewart of Fife's birth to offer a reasonable birth date for his maternal grandmother - i.e. sometime after 1349. This then argues for Archibald Douglas' wife as the daughter of Thomas and Joan of Moray, not Thomas' widow.

I have not been active for a while, owing to some family issues. But I agree that 85 years seems too long for three generations, especially if we are talking about female lines. This averages out to about 28 years per generation. That is certainly possible, but far less likely if we are talking about first children. In my research, I have tended to use 25 years for men, and allowed the possibility of 20 years for women. If anything falls outside of that range, I take a closer look at the circumstances.

There are certainly some exceptions, especially when looking at male or mostly male lines. Thus my great-grandfather Thomson was born in 1821, and I was born in 1955. That's 134 years for four generations -- or about 43 years a generation. Going back to the 18th century, one Scottish forebear had his youngest daughter when he 80. That throws off the average a bit!

Will revisit all this over the next few days and post again.

[riemorese...@gmail.com]

Is there any evidence that Murdoch and his first wife had issue? His sons were all by the second marriage to Isabella of Lennox, and his daughter Isabella did not marry until about 1420, so she was clearly of the second marriage as well.

[celticp...@gmail.com]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Last year there was an interesting discussion here on the newsgroup regarding the identity/parentage of Joan de Moray, wife of Sir Archibald de Douglas (nicknamed "the Grim") [died 1400], 3rd Earl of Douglas.

Recently I came across an interesting article entitled "The Chiefship of the Clan Murray" published in The Scottish Antiquary or Northern Notes and Queries, 15 (1900): 53-77.

On page 64, there is a discussion of the parentage of Joan de Moray:

Thomas de Moray … left a widow, Joanna. The chroniclers and peerage-writers say she was his daughter and heiress, but the Papal registers twice call her Sir Thomas’s widow. According to one chronicler [Gray], there was a great rivalry for her hand among the preux chivaliers of the period, and Archibald Douglas (the Grim) only carried her off after defeating five Englishmen in successive duels.” It appears “from a number of charters” in the published Laing Charters “that the wife of Sir Thomas Moray was the daughter and heiress of Sir Maurice Moray of Drumsargard, Earl of Strathearn, by Joanna de Menteith. She was a distant relative of her husband.” END OF QUOTE.

The full article on the Moray family may be viewed at the following weblink:

https://books.google.com/books?id=rZAeAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA64

As we can see, the author of this article adopted the Bain-Barnett position and that of Scots Peerage and Complete Peerage regarding Countess Joan's identity/parentage.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah