Wives and Daughters of John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl - Part 1

[Brad Verity]

Sorting the wives and daughters of the late 15th/early 16th century Stewarts of Lennox is complicated, but sorting the wives and daughters of the Stewarts of Atholl from the same period is even more so. Less documentation, duplicate names, and uncertain chronology are the top three (of several) issues when studying the family.

John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl died 15 September 1512 at Laighwood, Perthshire, Scotland, and was buried at Dunkeld Cathedral. We know this from his obit recorded in the 'Chronicle of Fortingall', a mid-late 16th century work:
"Obitus Johannis Stuart comitis Atholie apud Laythwod, et sepultus in Dunkell xv Septembris anno Domini mvxij"
https://archive.org/stream/blackbookoftaymo00inneuoft#page/116/mode/2up

The 1st Earl's first wife was Margaret Douglas, daughter of the 5th Earl of Douglas, widow of the 8th Earl of Douglas, and divorced wife of the 9th Earl of Douglas. Exactly when Atholl married Margaret is not known. S.I. Boardman, the author of Atholl's entry in ODNB, states, "On 25 March 1460 Atholl received a grant of the lordship and castle of Balvenie from James II. The occasion of the grant seems to have been John's marriage to Margaret Douglas, daughter of Archibald, fifth earl of Douglas. Balvenie had been forfeited to the crown in 1455 because of the rebellion of John Douglas, lord of Balvenie, the younger brother of Margaret's first and second husbands, the eighth and ninth earls of Douglas. Margaret had followed her second husband into political exile in England during 1455, but returned to Scotland c.1459, after which their marriage was dissolved":
http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=26486&back=,14589,14588

Balvenie Castle, in Aberdeenshire, had been a stronghold of the Douglas family until it was forfeited to the crown in 1455, due to their rebellion, so Boardman's reasoning makes sense:
http://www.historic-scotland.gov.uk/propertyresults/propertyabout.htm?PropID=PL_027&PropName=Balvenie%20Castle

The grant of Balvenie Castle to the 1st Earl of Atholl and Margaret is in the Register Book of the Great Seal of Scotland:
"24 Jac. II. Apud Edinburgh, 25 Mar. REX concessit fratri suo JOHANNI STEWART COMITI ATHOLIE, pro singulari dilectione quam gessit erga ipsum,--terras dominii de Balvany, cum terris de Botruthin, Bocharne, et Abirlour, unacum castro de Balvany, vic. Banff:--TENEND. dicto Joh. et Mergarete ejus sponse et eorum alteri diutius viventi et heredibus inter ipsos legitime procreatis, quibus deficientibus, heredibus de corpore dicti Joh. legitime procreatis, quibus def., regi et heredibus et successoribus suis libere reversuras:--REDDEND. unam rosam rubeam apud capitale messuagium dicti dominii de Balvany nomine albe firme"
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/156/mode/2up

On 8 December 1476, the 1st Earl of Atholl resigned Balvenie Castle and had it granted back to him and his second wife Eleanor Sinclair, and their heirs male. It was the second of four grants concerning Eleanor's family the Sinclairs of Caithness, which James III made in the four-day timespan of 7-10 December 1476:
"17 Jac. III. Apud Edinburgh, 8 Dec. REX confirmavit avunculo suo JOHANNI COMITI ATHOLIE--terras dominii de Balvany, unacum terris de Botruchin, Bocharne, et Abirlour, cum castro de Balvany, ac cum advocationibus ecclesiarum infra vic. Banf ipsi Joh. prius spectantibus;--quas idem Joh. personaliter resignavit:--TENEND. dicto comiti et Elinore ejus sponse, comitisse Atholie, et eorum alteri diutius viventi, et heredibus masculis inter ipsos legitime procreatis, quibus deficientibus, legitimis et propinquioribus heredibus ipsius Joh. procreatis quibuscunque"
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/256/mode/2up

But was the new grant of Balvenie Castle made around the time of the 1st Earl's second marriage, or was it made at a later point, possibly after a son and heir had been born? Without a death date for his first wife Margaret Douglas, it is difficult to determine when the first marriage ended and the second one began. Boardman, in his ODNB bio of the 1st Earl, states, "His first wife, Margaret Douglas, known as the Fair Maid of Galloway, had died before 8 December 1476, by which date Atholl had married Eleanor Sinclair".

Scots Peerage states the 1st Earl "married, secondly, before 19 April 1475, Eleanor Sinclair", but the source it cites for this statement is the above grant of Balvenie Castle on 8 December 1476. It cites no source for the date of 19 April 1475:
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun01pauluoft#page/466/mode/2up

Complete Peerage, sub Atholl (1910), merely repeats the 19 April 1475 date:
https://archive.org/stream/completepeerageo01coka#page/312/mode/2up

With Eleanor Sinclair, the 1st Earl's second wife, we have a firm date of death (21 March 1518/9) and place of burial (Dunkeld Cathedral), thanks to her obit in the Chronicle of Fortingall:
"Obitus Elene Singlar comitisse Atholie xxj Mertii anno &c. vxviij, et sepulta in Dunkell"
https://archive.org/stream/blackbookoftaymo00inneuoft#page/116/mode/2up

Neither Scots Peerage, nor Boardman in his ODNB bio of the 1st Earl, attempt to identify which wife was the mother of his two sons and eleven [SP] daughters. CP states that the 1st Earl's son and heir John, 2nd Earl of Atholl, was from his second wife Eleanor Sinclair. It cites no source for this statement.

In early March 1492, the 1st Earl and Eleanor Sinclair had resigned their rights to Balvenie Castle so that the King could grant it to John, Master of Atholl (the future 2nd Earl) and his legitimate heirs male:
"4 Jac. IV. Apud Edinburgh, 3 Mar. REX concessit JOHANNI STEWART, filio et heredi apparenti Johannis comitis Atholie, et heredibus ejus legitimis quibuscunque,--terras dominii de Balvany, ac terras de Botruvyn, Bocharne, et Abirlour, unacum castro de Balvany, ac advocationibus et donationibus ecclesiarum earundem, vic. Banff;--quas dictus comes et Elinora Sinclare ejus sponsa personaliter resignaverunt:--RESERVATO libero tenemento dictis comiti et Elenore et eorum alteri diutius viventi"
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/440/mode/2up

This of course suggests that the future 2nd Earl of Atholl was of an age to administer and secure a castle at that date. If the 2nd Earl was indeed the son of Eleanor Sinclair, and his parents were married shortly before the December 1476 grant of Balvenie Castle, then the 2nd Earl could be no older than age 15 when he was granted the castle in March 1492. As there is no mention of any wife (we know the 2nd Earl married Janet Campbell, daughter of the 2nd Earl of Argyll), the grant to him of Balvenie Castle doesn't appear to be a marriage settlement, and so it is odd that the 1st Earl would give up the stronghold to his son and heir if the son was only around 15. Rather, it would seem to be a grant to honour the son coming of age? If age 21 in March 1492, then the 2nd Earl was born by 1471; if age 18, then born by 1474.

Though there is nothing in the grant of Balvenie Castle in March 1492 that specifies the future 2nd Earl of Atholl was the son of Eleanor Sinclair, the grant of the same castle in December 1476 to the 1st Earl, Eleanor Sinclair and their heirs male, does strongly suggest that was the case. My guess is that the 1st Earl and Eleanor had married in the early 1470s, a few years prior to that grant, and that their son and heir the 2nd Earl of Atholl was born about 1472/3, so about age 19/20 when he in turn was granted Balvenie Castle.

If his elder son, the 2nd Earl of Atholl, was from the second marriage of the 1st Earl of Atholl, that of course makes the younger son, Andrew Stewart, bishop of Caithness, from that second marriage as well. When Andrew was born is less certain. Presumably by about 1495, as he was bishop-elect of Dunkeld in 1515.

The eleven daughters which Scots Peerage assigns to the 1st Earl of Atholl are a tangled mess. Luckily, primary documents exist which helps to establish several of them. I'll start on his daughters in Part 2.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Brad Verity]

On Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:28:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> The eleven daughters which Scots Peerage assigns to the 1st Earl of Atholl are a tangled mess. Luckily, primary documents exist which helps to establish several of them. I'll start on his daughters in Part 2.

John Higgins kindly shared with me off list a document he had made of the daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl, and where in the birth order the various peerage works have placed them. This has been a huge help.

Abbreviations Used
DP=Peerage of Scotland by Sir Robert Douglas, 2nd Edition, edited by Wood (1813)
[Volume 1 unavailable to me - only Volume 2 is available thru Internet Archive]
BEP= Burke's Extinct Peerage (1866)
https://archive.org/stream/agenealogicalhi00burkgoog#page/n512/mode/2up
SP=Scots Peerage (1904)
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun01pauluoft#page/466/mode/2up
CP=Complete Peerage (various volumes in the series, all post-1910)

Daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl by his first wife Margaret Douglas:

1) [Elizabeth?] Stewart, married as his 2nd of 4 wives, Andrew, 2nd Lord Gray
She is called the first daughter of the 2nd wife by DP; the 2nd daughter of the 1st wife by BEP, listed as the 6th daughter in SP Atholl (1904), called the third daughter by the 1st wife in SP Gray (1907), and the 6th daughter of the 1st wife by CP 6 (1926), sub Gray.

I've not yet located a single primary document to verify this daughter's first name and marriage to Lord Gray. Considering that she was one of only four of the 1st Earl's daughters to marry peers, this is rather odd. Andrew, 2nd Lord Gray, had a complicated marital history. SP Gray says his parents were married "before 1445", and that he married Elizabeth Stewart "before 1483", but doesn't cite a source for either date:
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun04pauluoft#page/276/mode/2up

The ODNB bio of the 2nd Lord Gray by Michael A. Penman simply follows SP when it comes to his wives and children, and doesn't estimate a birthdate for him, except to say he was probably a minor when he succeeded his grandfather in January 1470, which would make him born after 1450. He could not have been born too much later, as a marriage for him with a daughter of the Earl of Erroll was contracted in May 1457. SP Gray says Andrew the 2nd Lord had three children with his first wife Janet Keith, but provides no hint as to when that marriage occurred.

Other than each being involved in the rebellion against James III in 1482, there is nothing in the ODNB bios of the 1st Earl of Atholl and the 2nd Lord Gray to link them together politically, and Gray's ODNB bio has no particulars at all as to his activities in the 1470s. A document of October 1474 does however connect Atholl and Gray. The three named witnesses to the marriage contract Atholl made with the Earl of Huntly (see link to it below) are "Jamys Erle of Buchan & lorde Ouchterhous owr deirast brother Androw lorde Gray Silvester of Retray".

As Andrew Gray could have been born at any point between 1445 and 1457, it's possible he had married Atholl's daughter by October 1474 when he witnessed the marriage contract. Sadly neither of Gray's first two wives appear in the Registers of the Great Seal or Privy Seal of Scotland. Primary documents are needed to verify the first names and identification of Gray's first two spouses - it's odd that no marriage contract or settlement for either spouse exists.

At this point, Gray's marriage to a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl needs to be considered unsupported outside of secondary pedigrees.

2) Joan/Janet Stewart, married as his 1st of 2 wives, Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly
She is called the first daughter of the 1st wife by DP, BEP and CP sub Huntly, is listed as the 1st daughter in SP Atholl (1904), while SP Huntly (1907) doesn't state which number daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl she was.

This is one of the best documented daughters of the 1st Earl. Her marriage contract to Huntly, dated 20 October 1474, in which Atholl calls her "Jehan owr dochter", is printed in full, here:
https://archive.org/stream/recordsofaboynem00news#page/16/mode/2up

Her marriage settlement, dated 16 December 1482, in which she is called "Johanne Stewart', is here:
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/320/mode/2up

The names 'Janet' was a diminutive form of the name 'Joan', and the two names must've been interchangeable in Scotland at this period, for in a later settlement, dated 10 May 1508, she is called "Jonete Stewart":
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/320/mode/2up

She died on 27 October 1510 at Strathbogie (i.e. Huntly) Castle, Aberdeenshire, per her obit in the Chronicle of Fortingall:
"Obitus Jonete Stuart comitisse de Huntle apud Strabolge xxvij Octobris anno Domini mvx"
https://archive.org/stream/blackbookoftaymo00inneuoft#page/114/mode/2up

3) Christine Stewart, married Neil Stewart of Fortingall & Garth
She is called the third daughter of the 2nd wife in DP, and is listed as the 4th daughter in SP Atholl (1904). She is omitted in BEP and not mentioned in CP.

The ODNB bio of the 1st Earl of Atholl states that "Christian married Neil Stewart of Fortingall under the terms of a settlement between Atholl and Neil's father, also Neil, on 22 January 1478"
http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=26486&back=,14589,14588

Her first name is verified by a settlement dated 1 March 1505, where she is called "Christine Stewart"
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/600/mode/2up

We know Christine Stewart died on 30 May 1538 and was buried at Dunkeld Cathedral from her obit in the Chronicle of Fortingall:
"Obitus Christine Stuart domine de Fortergill et sponse Nigelli Roy de Fortergill que obiit apud Fos penultimo die Mai et sepulta apud Dunkeld anno Domini mvxxxviij"
https://archive.org/stream/blackbookoftaymo00inneuoft#page/120/mode/2up

4) Mariote Stewart, married Colin Campbell, 3rd Laird of Glenorchy
She is called sixth daughter of 2nd wife by DP, 4th daughter of 2nd wife by BEP, and listed as the 10th daughter in SP Atholl (1904).

Most sources call this daughter 'Margery', but from her obit in the Chronicle of Fortingall, we know her name was 'Mariote', and that she died on 26 July 1529 [not 1524, as SP has it]:
"Obitus Mariote Stuart domine de Glenwrquhay xxvj die Julii apud Insulam de Lochtay, et sepulta in Finlark anno Domini mvxxviiij"
https://archive.org/stream/blackbookoftaymo00inneuoft#page/120/mode/2up

Per Gordon MacGregor in the Campbell of Glenorchy pedigree in his Red Book of Scotland series, updated just this year, Mariote (whom he calls 'Margery') Stewart and the 3rd Laird of Glenorchy had an elder daughter, "Mariota Campbell, m. by 5 October, 1498, William Stewart, 2nd of Balindoran, (he was widow of Janet, daughter of Archibald Buchannan of Lettir, by whom he had issue) and had issue":
http://www.redbookofscotland.com/sample%20families/Campbell%20of%20Glenorchy.pdf

If Mariote Stewart had a daughter who in turn was married by 1498, Mariote would have to have been a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl by his 1st wife Margaret Douglas.

More daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl will follow in Part 3.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Brad Verity
Sent: 16 May 2014 08:29
<snip>

> 4) Mariote Stewart, married Colin Campbell, 3rd Laird of Glenorchy She is called sixth daughter of 2nd wife by DP, 4th daughter of 2nd wife by BEP, and listed as the 10th daughter in SP Atholl (1904).
>
> Most sources call this daughter 'Margery', but from her obit in the Chronicle of Fortingall, we know her name was 'Mariote', and that she died on 26 July 1529 [not 1524, as SP has it]:
"Obitus Mariote Stuart domine de Glenwrquhay xxvj die Julii apud Insulam de Lochtay, et sepulta in Finlark anno Domini mvxxviiij"
https://archive.org/stream/blackbookoftaymo00inneuoft#page/120/mode/2up
>
> Per Gordon MacGregor in the Campbell of Glenorchy pedigree in his Red Book of Scotland series, updated just this year, Mariote (whom he calls 'Margery') Stewart and the 3rd Laird of Glenorchy had an elder daughter, "Mariota Campbell, m. by 5 October, 1498, William Stewart, 2nd of Balindoran, (he was widow of Janet, daughter of Archibald Buchannan of Lettir, by whom he had issue) and had issue":
http://www.redbookofscotland.com/sample%20families/Campbell%20of%20Glenorchy.pdf
>

Mariote was originally a diminutive of Mary, and I suppose may well also have been a diminutive of Margery and Margaret. So she may have been both Margery and Mariote.

Matt Tompkins

[Kelsey Jackson Williams]

This is all brilliant, Brad. I'm really pleased to see someone digging down and questioning the standard works' interpretation of the Atholl family. I've not looked at the first earl's daughters in any depth, but have done some equivalent work on the third earl's family (together with the problematic structure of his wife, Grisel Rattray's, kinship group) and came away with the impression that the current state of knowledge is far from being either complete or accurate. I'd love to see an article that systematically takes the whole pedigree apart and rebuilds it on stronger foundations; so many members of the early modern gentry descend from these folk . . . .

All the best,
Kelsey
scotsgenealogist.com

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Brad ~

Mariota is the Latin form of Marion. Historians often leave the name untranslated from the Latin, giving the false impression that this name occurs in the vernacular. However, the name is definitely Latin for Marion. The given name Marion is common in Scotland, but less so in England.

This is a similar problem in nature to the Latin form, Matilda, which English historians often leave untranslated, but which is actually just the Latin form of Maud.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Douglas Richardson
Sent: 16 May 2014 16:53

Mariota isn't the Latin form of Marion, Douglas - Mariot and Marion were both diminutive forms of Mary. Someone could be baptised Mary but called Mariot or Marion interchangeably by her family and friends. She would most probably appear in a medieval Latin record as Maria, but might appear as Mariana or Mariota. , especially in the early modern period as Mariot and Marion began to be accepted as distinct names.

Matt Tompkins

[jhigg...@yahoo.com]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:28:42 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> On Thursday, May 15, 2014 3:28:42 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
>
> > The eleven daughters which Scots Peerage assigns to the 1st Earl of Atholl are a tangled mess. Luckily, primary documents exist which helps to establish several of them. I'll start on his daughters in Part 2.
>
>
>
> John Higgins kindly shared with me off list a document he had made of the daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl, and where in the birth order the various peerage works have placed them. This has been a huge help.
>
>
>
> Abbreviations Used
>
> DP=Peerage of Scotland by Sir Robert Douglas, 2nd Edition, edited by Wood (1813)
>
> [Volume 1 unavailable to me - only Volume 2 is available thru Internet Archive]
>
> BEP= Burke's Extinct Peerage (1866)
>
> https://archive.org/stream/agenealogicalhi00burkgoog#page/n512/mode/2up
>
> SP=Scots Peerage (1904)
>
> https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun01pauluoft#page/466/mode/2up
>
> CP=Complete Peerage (various volumes in the series, all post-1910)
>

> Cheers, ----Brad

Both volumes of Wood's edition (1813) of Sir Robert Douglas' Peerage of Scotland are now available online (and downloadable) via the FHL here:
https://familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=214389

Wood (1813) should be used in conjunction with Paul's SP published about 90 years later. Although Paul explicitly bases his work on Wood, he does make some additions and corrections to Wood's work which can be significant.

[Brad Verity]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 12:28:42 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:

> More daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl will follow in Part 3.

Daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl by his 2nd wife Eleanor Sinclair.

5) Katherine Stewart, married as his 1st of 3 wives, John, 6th Lord Forbes.
She is called second daughter of the 1st wife in DP and CP sub Forbes (1926), 1st daughter of the 2nd wife by BEP, and listed as the 2nd daughter in SP Atholl (1904).

No marriage contract or settlement survives to verify the first name and marriage of this daughter of Atholl. We do have this, from a genealogy of the Forbes family written by one Matthew Lumsden, around the year 1580, when he died:
"Next to him succeeded John Lord Forbes, the third brother, gray Willie's youngest son, who married Dame Katharine Stewart, daughter to Earle John of Atholl, who bear to him James Master of Forbes, who died unmarried, whilk was a great pitie and dolor to them yt. knew him; and a daughter called Elspet, who was married on the Laird of Grant, and his Ladie departed but further succession: and after her death, the sd. Lord John married Dame Christian Lundie, daughter to Sr John Lundie of that ilk"
https://archive.org/stream/genealogyoffamil00lums#page/10/mode/2up

As Matthew Lumsden, the author of the above, was married to an illegitimate daughter of John, 6th Lord Forbes, presumably he was familiar enough with the family to correctly report the first name and parentage of the 6th Lord's Stewart wife.

Katherine Stewart died before 26 February 1510, when King James IV approved Forbes's settlement on his second wife Christine Lundy:
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/734/mode/2up

Katherine Stewart's surviving child Elizabeth Forbes married James Grant, 3rd Laird of Freuchie, and three of their children were married in 1539, 1545, and 1553, pointing to births for them in the 1520s. Chronology then suggests that Elizabeth Forbes was born around 1500, and that in turn her mother Katherine Stewart fits better as a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl and his second wife.

This is only guesswork. The 6th Lord Forbes doesn't have an entry in ODNB and only has a barebones account in CP, making it difficult to determine any links with the Stewarts of Atholl that could help to date his first marriage.

6) Elizabeth/Isabel Stewart, married as the 2nd of 2 wives, Alexander Robertson, 9th Laird of Strowan
She is called the fourth daughter of the 2nd wife in DP, 6th daughter of the 2nd wife in BEP, and listed as the 8th daughter in SP Atholl (1904).

We now come to another of the several daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl named Elizabeth, or Isabel - these two names were apparently interchangeable during this period in Scotland. SP, which gives the 1st Earl a total of four distinct daughters named Elizabeth, warns in a footnote to one of them, "The relationship of this lady and the three other Elizabeths above-mentioned to the Earl of Atholl has not been satisfactorily ascertained":
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun01pauluoft#page/466/mode/2up

The marriage settlement, dated 24 January 1505, for Alexander Robertson and Elizabeth Stewart is in the Register Book of the Great Seal of Scotland:
"17 JAC. IV. 2814. Apud Edinburgh, 24 Jan. REX confirmavit ALEXANDRO ROBERTSOUN de Strowane, et ELIZABETHE STEWART ejus sponse,--terras de Dysart, Foscailye cum molendino, et Pitgounne cum molendino, Calvyn, Calbroure, Candrocht, et Petmuldonych, in baronia de Strowane, vic. Perth;--quas idem Alex. resignavit:--TENEND. dictis Alex. et Eliz. et ipsorum alteri diutius viventi, in conjuncta infeodatione, et heredibus masc. inter ipsos legitime procreatis, quibus deficientibus, heredibus dicti Alex. quibuscunque"
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/598/mode/2up

We know from his obit in the Chronicle of Fortingall that Alexander Robertson died on 17 March 1505/6:
"Obitus Allexandri Robertson de Strowen apud Dunmacraff xvij die Mertii anno Domini v quinto"
https://archive.org/stream/blackbookoftaymo00inneuoft#page/114/mode/2up

Presumably it is his widow who was the Isobel Stewart who, in August 1508, received an exemption from James IV regarding her jointure lands in Strowan, as recorded in the Register of the Privy Seal of Scotland [unfortunately the photocopy of this page from the book partially obscures the text]:
"21 JAC. IV. 1717. At Perth, 26 Aug. An Exemptioun maid to ISOBELL STEWART, the dochter of Johne erle of Athole,--exemand hir, hir landis of the [ ]; pertening to hir in conjunct feft-[ ] liand in the barony of Strowane [ ]chirefdome of Perth, hir men,..."
https://archive.org/stream/registrumsecret00scotgoog#page/n280/mode/2up

The above document, obscured as it is, at least is proof that the Elizabeth/Isabel Stewart who married Alexander Robertson of Strowan was indeed the daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl.

7) Isabel/Elizabeth Stewart, married John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Lennox
She is called eighth daughter of the 2nd wife in DP, 7th daughter of 2nd wife in BEP, and is listed as the 3rd daughter in SP Atholl (1904). SP Lennox (1908) doesn't say which number daughter of the 1st Earl she was.

Another well-documented daughter of the 1st Earl. Her marriage contract, dated 19 January 1511/12, in which she is described as "Elizabetht Stewart, the dochtir of Johnne Stewart, Erle of Authole...and sister to the said Master of Authole", is transcribed in full by Sir William Fraser in 'The Lennox' (1874):
https://archive.org/stream/lennoxvol1memov200fras#page/192/mode/2up

The papal dispensation for her marriage, dated 29 January 1511/12, in which she is named "nobilis mulieris Isabelle Stewart, filie nobilis et potentis domini Johannis comitis Atholie", is also transcribed in full by Fraser:
https://archive.org/stream/lennoxvol1memov200fras#page/194/mode/2up

The Register of the Great Seal of Scotland contains her marriage settlement, dated 2 February 1512, in which she is named "Elizabethe Stewart":
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/798/mode/2up

Both DP and BEP name Lennox's wife as 'Anne' Stewart, which is clearly incorrect, per the primary documentation above. It would seem that she used the first name 'Isabel', for that is how she is referred to - "Isabele Stewart, dochtir to the Erle Athole" - in household accounts of King James IV, who paid for her wedding gown and other items regarding her marriage, in January 1511/2:
https://archive.org/stream/accountslordhig01offigoog#page/n323/mode/2up

CP sub Lennox (1929) states that after Lennox's death, "His widow m. (contract dat. 9 Dec. 1529), as 3rd wife, Ninian (Ross), 3rd Lord Ross of Halkhead [S.], who d. Feb. 1555/6." Neither SP Atholl, SP Lennox (1908), nor Sir William Fraser in his work 'The Lennox' mention any such subsequent marriage for her. Only in SP Ross (1910), is the marriage mentioned, "He married, thirdly (contract 9 December 1529), Elizabeth Stewart, widow of John, Earl of Lennox, and daughter of John, Earl of Atholl", but in a footnote, is added, "His marriage-contract with the Countess was probably that of date 9 December 1529 ascribed to the Countess of Erroll in the Complete Peerage":
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun07pauluoft#page/252/mode/2up

But that marriage contract date of 9 December 1529 must be an error for the marriage settlement of Lord Ross and the widowed countess of Erroll, dated 9 December 1523? It was confirmed by King James V on 12 December 1523, and is in the Register of the Great Seal of Scotland:
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi03scot#page/54/mode/2up

There is as yet no primary evidence to support a subsequent marriage of Lord Ross to the widowed countess of Lennox. Given the extensive documentation which survives for the Stewarts of Lennox, surely such a second marriage to Lord Ross would not have escaped record? Perhaps confusion arose because the son of Elizabeth, countess of Erroll married the daughter of Elizabeth/Isabel, countess of Lennox?

8) Elizabeth Stewart, married Robert Innes, 2nd Laird of Invermarkie Castle
She is called ninth daughter of the 2nd wife in DP; 3rd daughter of the 2nd wife in BEP, and listed as 11th daughter in SP Atholl (1904).

DP (many thanks to John Higgins for providing the downloadable link for Vol. 1) states, "9. Elspeth, married about 1510, to Robert Innes of Innermarky; in a charter of confirmation among the writs of the family of Innes, she is designed sister of the Earl of Atholl; but the date of the charter is not specified in the MS. history of the Innes family"
https://dcms.lds.org/delivery/DeliveryManagerServlet?dps_pid=IE920384

The charter referred to above is most likely the following, dated 28 July 1515:
"(3) A Precept of seisin by 'Johannes Comes de Athole ac Dominus de Balvany,' for investing 'predilecto fratri meo Roberto Innes de Innermarky,' in the lands of Edinglassy and Glenmarky in dominio de Balvany, dated 28 July, 1515"
https://archive.org/stream/aneaccountoffami00spal#page/96/mode/2up

This proves that the 2nd Earl of Atholl had a sister married to Robert Innes. A grant dated 1 September 1539 proves that Innes's wife was named "Elizabethe Stewart" and that she was the mother of his son and heir Robert Innes:
"26 JAC. V. 2013. Apud Dunde, 1 Sept. REX concessit ROBERTO INNES de Invermarky, et ELIZABETHE STEWART ejus conjugi, et ipsorum alteri diutius viventi in vitali redditu, et ROBERTO INNES de Monycabok ipsorum filio et apparenti heredi in feodo, et ejus heredibus,--terras de Ugstoun et Pleulandis, cum tenentibus &c., vic. Elgin et Fores;--quas Eliz. Hepburn filia et una heredum quondam Ade H. de Craggis, cum consensu M. Alexandri Levingstoun de Donypace sponsi sui, resignavit; et quas rex, pro servitio dicti Rob. junioris, incorporavit in liberam baroniam de Ugstoun"
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi03scot#page/452/mode/2up

So, we now have the primary document proof, which the editor of SP Atholl (1904) called for, that three different men - Alexander Robertson of Strowan, John, 3rd Earl of Lennox, and Robert Innes of Invermarkie Castle - were married to a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl named 'Elizabeth'. What to make of this?

S.I. Boardman, in his ODNB of the 1st Earl of Atholl, states, "Elspeth, who married Robert Innes of Innermarkie; Elizabeth, who married Andrew, second Lord Gray, before 1483; another Elizabeth, who married Alexander Robertson of Strowan before 24 January 1505; and another (or the same) Elizabeth, who was contracted in marriage to John Stewart, earl of Lennox, on 19 January 1512".

How likely is it that the 1st Earl of Atholl gave three (possibly four - but the first name of Lord Gray's wife has not yet been verified in primary documents) different daughters the same first name? Two possibly, yes, if one was from the first wife and the other from the second wife. Or they could even both be from the same wife if one went by the name 'Elizabeth' while the other went by 'Isabel'. But more than that? Not very likely, unless an additional one was illegitimate. But there is no other evidence to suggest Atholl had any illegitimate children.

So can we take Boardman's suggestion and combine any of these Elizabeth Stewarts? We know from chronology that the Elizabeth who married John, 3rd Earl of Lennox, had to be a separate woman from the Elizabeth who married Robert Innes, and was living with him as late as 1539.

Boardman proposed combining the Elizabeth who married Alexander Robertson of Strowan (d. 1506), with the one who married the 3rd Earl of Lennox in 1512. At first glance, this would seem to work, but closer inspection proves it unlikely. None of the documentation regarding the Stewart of Lennox-Stewart of Atholl marriage (the contract, dispensation and settlement) even hints that the bride was a widow. And it is far more likely for King James IV to pay for much of the bride's expenses if she was a young unmarried woman (possibly in the household of the queen Margaret Tudor?), rather than an established widow with jointure property. Also, chronology is against it. Alexander Robertson is said in pedigrees to have had two sons and a daughter with his second wife Elizabeth Stewart. This suggests that she was born by 1485, at the latest. The 3rd Earl of Lennox could not have been born prior to December 1495. It is not likely he would have been given a bride ten years his senior.

Chronology does, however, line up very nicely for the Elizabeth who married Robert Innes of Invermarkie Castle to have been the widow of Alexander Robertson of Strowan.

Robertson died in March 1506, and his widow received an exemption on her jointure lands in August 1508. Innes is called brother by the 2nd Earl of Atholl in 1515. Innes is said in pedigrees to have had four sons with his wife Elizabeth Stewart, the eldest one his heir Robert Innes (who was killed, vp, at the battle of Pinkie in 1547). In August 1531, this Robert Innes the younger was granted lands in the barony of "Monycabo":
"18 JAC. V. 1063. Apud perth, 2 Sept. REX confirmavit cartam Malcolmi dom. Flemyng,--[qua, pro summa pecunie sibi persoluta, vendidit ROBERTO INNES de Invermarky in vitali redditu, et ROBERTO INNES ejus filio et heredi apparenti, et ejus heredibus, hereditarie,--terras et Baroniam de Monycabo, cum molendino, dependentiis, tenentibus &c., advocationibus ecclesarium et capellaniarum, cum le outsetis, vic. Abirdene:--TENEND. de rege:--RESERVATA tertia parte earundem Eliz. Stewart sponse dicti Roberti senioris, cum contingeret:--TEST. Tho. Kincaid de eodem, Edw. Kincaid, Alex. Innes, Walt. Innes, Wil. Adamsoun, M. Jac. Grantuli rectore de Glas:--Apud Edinburgh, 31 Aug. 1531]:--TEST. ut in aliis cartis &c."
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi03scot#page/232/mode/2up

I cannot fully understand the above grant, but if Robert Innes the younger was of age when he received it, he was born by 1510.

So the birthdates of Alexander Robertson's children with Elizabeth Stewart do not overlap with the birthdates of Robert Innes's children with Elizabeth Stewart. Instead, one set follows naturally after the other. It thus seems very likely that instead of two separate daughters named Elizabeth, the 1st Earl of Atholl had one daughter Elizabeth Stewart (d. after 1539), who married 1st, Alexander Robertson of Strowan (d. 1506), then married 2nd, about 1510, Robert Innes of Invermarkie Castle.

I will deal with the remaining daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl in Part 4.

Cheers, ----Brad

[Douglas Richardson]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:53:12 AM UTC-6, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

< Mariota isn't the Latin form of Marion, Douglas - Mariot and Marion were both diminutive forms of Mary. Someone could be baptised Mary but called Mariot or Marion interchangeably by her family and friends. She would most probably appear in a medieval Latin record as Maria, but might appear as Mariana or Mariota. , especially in the early modern period as Mariot and Marion began to be accepted as distinct names.
>
> Matt Tompkins

Dear Matt ~

Thank you for your comments. They're much appreciated.

I spoke with Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine today. Andrew is the resident expert in all things Scottish. He is a veritable storehouse of knowledge on Scottish history and families. He assured me that Mariota is in fact the Latin form of Marion.

Following my conversation with Andrew, I then checked three older reputable Scottish historians online, all of whom presented a Latin text with the given name Mariota in it. All three historians translated the name Mariota as Marion. I can provide you the weblinks if you desire them.

As such, I'm quite confident that Mariota is the Latin form of Marion, just as Andrew says.

As to your other point, that "Mariot" and "Marion" were simply diminuative forms of Mary. Andrew MacEwen made no comment about that. I'm certainly aware that you can find modern name books which make the claim that Marion is the diminuative form of Mary. However, I've found name books notoriously inaccurate and I no longer have confidence in them, especially for medieval given names. As far as it goes, diminuatives were exceedingly rare in the medieval period.

As far as I know, Mary and Marion were stand alone names. For example, King Edward I's daughter, Mary, always occurs as Mary, never as Marion. In Scottish records you can certainly find examples of Marion's who occur on rare occasions as Mary. But you can also find other similar irregularities with other given names. Does that mean Marion was a diminuative of Mary? I think that would be stretching the evidence.

In a related vein, some time ago I developed the theory that Margery might be the diminuative form of Margaret. However, after considerable study made over many years, I no longer believe that idea. The reason is because I have found all the famous medieval women named Margaret occuring at least once in records as Margery. Conversely I have found women who occur principally as Margery showing up as Margaret at least once in the records. As best I can determine, the two names were interchangeable and neither was the diminuative of the other.

An example of the interchangeability of the names Margaret and Marjory can be seen in contemporary medieval records which involve Margaret and Margery, the two daughters of William the Lion, King of Scots, both of whom came to England. One is usually called Margaret [Margareta] in records, and the other is usually called Margery [Margeria]. But contemporary records indicate that both sisters occur as both Margaret AND Margery. As such, I call one them Margaret (or Margery) in my records, and the other one I call Margery (or Margaret). That's historically accurate, even if it might be slightly confusing to our fellow modern readers.

In the case of Margery versus Margaret, perhaps we are dealing with careless medieval record keepers. But, if so, the truth behind the usages of these names will never be known, at least to us.

As for myself, I try to stick to theories that I can prove. I also try to be as true to the medieval records as possible. And I avoid modern name books.

[Jan]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 6:59:58 PM UTC-4, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:53:12 AM UTC-6, Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.) wrote:

>
> Following my conversation with Andrew, I then checked three older reputable Scottish historians online, all of whom presented a Latin text with the given name Mariota in it. All three historians translated the name Mariota as Marion. I can provide you the weblinks if you desire them.
>

For more examples concerning the use of this name, one can look at manuscripts transcribed on the Records of the Parliaments of Scotland website, http://www.rps.ac.uk/. There are five late medieval manuscripts, dated 1370-1493 and written in Latin, that include the name Mariota. In each of these documents, the authors of the rps website translated this name as Mariota. There is one such record dated 1525. In that one, the authors translated the name as Marion. Search for "Mariota" in the manuscripts to find five medieval examples (which each have the name at least once in a case picked up by this search), search for "Mariote" to find the 1525 example (in which only the case Mariote appears).

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jan ~

Thank you for your good post. It's much appreciated.

Catalogues created by modern archivists are not always reliable when it comes to the way they translate names from Latin forms into their modern equivalents. You have to use such catalogues with extreme caution.

For example, here are six records in the online National Archives of Scotland catalog which refer to "Mariota de Cardney," the well known mistress of King Robert II of Scotland.

Reference Title Date Access status

GD38/1/62/11 King Robert the Second to Mariota de Cardney of the lands of Tolyry and others 27 Mar 1372.

GD38/1/62/11A Robert II to Mariota de Cardny of the two Clyntras etc. in shire of Aberdeen 1 Oct 1372.

GD38/1/62/14 King Robert the Second to Alexander Stewart, his son by Mariota de Cardney, of the lands of Innerlunan 4 Jan 1378.

GD38/1/62/15 King Robert the Second to John Stewart, his son by Mariota de Cardney, of the lands of Kincleven and others 15 Jan 1383.

GD38/1/62/16 King Robert the Second to James Stewart, his son by Mariota de Cardney, of the easter half of Kinfauns etc. 15 Jan 1383.

GD38/1/62/17 King Robert the Second to Alexander Stewart, his son by Mariota de Cardney, of the lands of Lunan. 15 Jan 1383.

What the archivist doesn't tell you is that the original texts of the above six items are ALL in Latin, and that he has failed to translate the name Mariota into a modern vernacular form.

By leaving the Latin form untranslated, he gives the impression that Mariota is a given name in the vernacular, much like the modern forms he uses for Robert, Alexander, James, and John.

Buchanan, Tracts Illustrative of the Traditionary & Historical Antiquities of Scotland (1836): 36-43 gives full transcripts of several of the above six items. Mr. Buchanan clearly indicates that the Latin form "Mariota de Cardney" should be translated as "Marion Cardnay."

On page 46 he quotes from an ancient charter in English reputedly dated 1382 in which mention is made of the "naturals sons" of the king "begottin on Marion Cardnay." No Mariota.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[Douglas Richardson]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 1:28:42 AM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:

< 3) Christine Stewart, married Neil Stewart of Fortingall & Garth
<

< The ODNB bio of the 1st Earl of Atholl states that "Christian married Neil <Stewart of Fortingall under the terms of a settlement between Atholl and <Neil's father, also Neil, on 22 January 1478"
<
< http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=26486&back=,14589,14588

A transcript of the above mentioned agreement dated 22 January 1477/8 is published in Stewart, Historical Memorials of the Stewarts of Forthergill (1879): 74-75, and may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=IS0BAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA74

The earl's daughter is twice called Cristiane in this document, that is, Christian. From the date of this agreement, it is clear that Christian (or Christine) Stewart must have been the daughter of the earl's first wife, Margaret Douglas, who was still living 22 Jan. 1472/3 [see Richardson, Royal Ancestry (2013)].

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Jan and Matt ~

Here is another example which proves that Mariota is the Latin form of Marion.

The original petition cited below is dated 1318. The petition is in French and may be viewed for free on the online Discovery catalog. I just viewed the original record and the name of the petitioner is clearly written "Marion de Newerk."

A brief Latin summary of this petition appears on the roll of the Parliament of October 1318. A transcript of this summary is published in Henry Cole, Documents illustrative of English History (1844): 34, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=TUNNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA34

The Latin summary reads as follows:

Newerk. Ad peti'com Mariot' de Newerk. Ita respons' est - Adeat Canc' ..... END OF QUOTE.

So we have Marion in the French vernacular and Mariot' in the Latin. Latin Mariot' equals French Marion. There is no Mary or Maria.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + +

Reference:
SC 8/129/6403
Description:

Petitioners: Marion de Newerk (Newark).
Name(s): de Newerk (Newark), Marion
Addressees: King and Council.
Nature of request: Marion de Newerk requests remedy against Dogel, claiming that he attacked and imprisoned her, and has committed many other felonies without punishment.
Nature of endorsement: She is to go to Chancery and have a writ at the common law.
Places mentioned: Mountsorrel, Leicestershire.
People mentioned: William Dogel of Mountsorrel.

[MILLARD A.R.]

> From: Douglas Richardson [mailto:royala...@msn.com]
> Sent: 17 May 2014 07:45

>
> Here is another example which proves that Mariota is the Latin form of
> Marion.

I don't doubt that Mariota is a possible Latin rendition of Marion. But there is also no doubt that there was a vernacular pet-form of Mary, Mariot(e).

The Oxford English Dictionary, sub Mary, says: "Mary was used as a baptismal name only moderately in the medieval period, its usual pet-forms being Mariot and Marion".

Reaney and Wilson 'A Dictionary of English Surnames', sub Marriott state this surname comes from 'Mari-ot a very common diminutive of Mary'.

McKinley in 'A History of British Surnames' p.101 states "Certain other endings found in some surnames derived from personal names originate from hypochoristic forms of personal names introduced into Britain after the Conquest. These include the final syllables '-et', '-ot', '-mot', and 'in'... Some of the surnames in question are from feminine personal names such as Marriott and Mollett, both from hypochoristic forms of Mary, Emmett and Emmot, both from Emma..."

That Mariote was used in the vernacular is demonstrated in the following Middle English document (a c.1450 copy of a 1276 document):
http://quod.lib.umich.edu.ezphost.dur.ac.uk/c/cme?didno=AHA2738.0001.001;rgn=full+text;size=25;sort=occur;start=1;subview=detail;type=simple;view=reslist;q1=mariot*

As Mariot existed as a name in the vernacular, the obvious Latin rendition of it would be Mariota. When that name appears in Latin, the vernacular translation is therefore ambiguous so cataloguers are correct to leave it untranslated.

Likewise McKinley (p.128) states: "Maud is a form of a personal name which also appears as Matilda, and Till, Tillet, Tillot and Tullett are from pet forms of Matilda." He also notes that Tillson and Tillotson are so derived. This is such good evidence for the use of pet forms of Matilda that we must conclude that Matilda was also in use in the vernacular. Thus when we see it in Latin it is ambiguous whether it should be rendered Maud or Matilda, unless there is additional evidence relating to the vernacular name of that individual.


Best wishes

Andrew
--
Andrew Millard - A.R.M...@durham.ac.uk
Chair, Trustees of Genuki: www.genuki.org.uk
Maintainer, Genuki Middx + London: homepages.gold.ac.uk/genuki/MDX/ + ../LND/
Academic Co-ordinator, Guild of One-Name Studies: www.one-name.org
Bodimeade one-name study: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/Bodimeade/
My genealogy: community.dur.ac.uk/a.r.millard/genealogy/

[David Topping]

See also:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ca4RAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA47&dq
David

[Douglas Richardson]

David ~

Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.

The source you've cited by Mr. Hammond is quoting from Latin texts evidently found on the People of Medieval Scotland [PoMS] website. I'm familiar with the website. From these records, Mr. Hammond has developed a list of the top twenty most frequently attested women's names in early medieval Scotland.

This list is on page 44:

http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ca4RAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA44

I'm sure the list of names is accurate, but the historian has left half the names in their Latin forms. That includes Mariota. By mixing the Latin forms with vernacular forms, he has created the impression that the Latin forms were the actual names in use in medieval Scotland. Not so.

To get an accurate list of the vernacular names, the historian would need to cross compare the names in his Latin texts against other corresponding records in the vernacular. Had he done so, then and only then, would he know what the actual vernacular forms that were in use. He evidently never did this, so his list is half finished.

By the way, this is the approach I took with the 1318 Parliamentary petition of Marion de Newerk. French vernacular was Marion, Latin was Mariot[a]. Easy peasy.

I note that the first name on Mr. Hammond's list is Matilda, which is a Latin form. The corresponding vernacular form of this name in medieval times is Maud and its variants, Malde, Maude, Mahaud, Mahaut. The vernacular form can be found by consulting contemporary medieval records. Needless to say, this approach can be quite time consuming but it's the only way to get an accurate fix on medieval names, Latin versus the vernacular forms. It's also the only way to determine if two competing Latin forms such as Alesia and Alicia are interchangeable, or if they are stand alone names.

[Peter Stewart]

On 18/05/2014 4:47 AM, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> David ~
>
> Thank you for your good post. Much appreciated.
>
> The source you've cited by Mr. Hammond is quoting from Latin texts evidently found on the People of Medieval Scotland [PoMS] website. I'm familiar with the website. From these records, Mr. Hammond has developed a list of the top twenty most frequently attested women's names in early medieval Scotland.
>
> This list is on page 44:
>
> http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ca4RAgAAQBAJ&pg=PA47&lpg=PA44
>
> I'm sure the list of names is accurate, but the historian has left half the names in their Latin forms. That includes Mariota. By mixing the Latin forms with vernacular forms, he has created the impression that the Latin forms were the actual names in use in medieval Scotland. Not so.
>
> To get an accurate list of the vernacular names, the historian would need to cross compare the names in his Latin texts against other corresponding records in the vernacular. Had he done so, then and only then, would he know what the actual vernacular forms that were in use. He evidently never did this, so his list is half finished.
>
> By the way, this is the approach I took with the 1318 Parliamentary petition of Marion de Newerk. French vernacular was Marion, Latin was Mariot[a]. Easy peasy.

Homespun ease, not much use to anyone who doesn't happen to share your
pet peeves.

Mariota was used in Latin documents for the vernacular form Mariot, that
was a common diminutive (not "diminuative") of Mary. Since Marion was
another common diminutive form it is hardly a puzzle that this occurs
interchangeably in medieval records; and since it is much more frequent
in modern times it is scarcely strange that many historians prefer it to
Mariot.

If Mariota was somehow the Latin form of Marion, how do you explain the
common occurrence of the form Mariona in Latin documents?

By the way, according to Martin's Record Interpreter (that is still used
by many as a reference) the modern alternatives for Matilda are
"Matilda, Maud, Malkin", so your arbitrary choice of Maud as the sole
counterpart form is simply personal. He also noted that the modern
English form of Agatha is Agace, yet you continue to prefer the Latin
form Agatha. Why? And for consistency with Maud do you also insist on
the English form Thady instead of the Latin Thadeus?

Peter Stewart

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine has kindly pointed out to me two companion records dated 1439, both of which involve Alexander, Earl of Ross, lord of the Isles, and Alexander Sutherland and his wife, Marion, which Marion was the sister of Earl Alexander.

The first record is in Latin. It is an original precept of sasine issued by Alexander, Earl of Ross, in favor of his sister, "Mariota," and her husband, Alexander Sutherland, granting to them "omnes et singulas terras nostras Dominii de Dunbeth." Thus we have Mariota in Latin.

This record is mentioned in Henderson, Caithness Family History (1884): xxvii, where the record is mistakenly dated 24 Oct. 1429 [recte 1439]. It may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=qXgQAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR27

The companion document is in English. It is an an agreement of the same date [24 Oct. 1439] between "Alexander of Ile," Earl of Ross, and Alexander of Sutherland and his spouse, "Maryoun of the Ilys." Marion is specifically styled "oure derrast syster" by the earl. Thus we have Maryoun [Marion] in the English text.

The full English text of this document may be viewed in Book of the Thanes of Cawdor (1859): 15-16, which may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=nwEhAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR15

So Mariota is the Latin form, and Maryoun [Marion] is the vernacular form. Easy peasy.

Elsewhere in the same source, Book of the Thanes of Cawdor (1859): 67, there is a reference to a will in English of the same Alexander Sutherland, of Dunbeath, dated 1456, in which he bequeaths "to my daughter Marion all the lave of my lands ....." The said Marion Sutherland was the sole legitimate issue of Alexander Sutherland, of Dunbeath, by his wife, Marion of the Isles.

On pages 68-69 following, there is a record issued by the said Marion Sutherland, then wife of William Caldor. The document is in Latin. In this document, Marion is called "Mariota" in the Latin text.

On pages 77-79, there is yet another document in English which specifically refers to the same woman as "Marion Sutherland," the "first spous" of William Caldor.

So once again we have firm evidence from contemporary sources that Mariota is the Latin form of Marion.

Mr. MacEwen has speculated that the reason why Latin female forms like Mariota and Egidia are left untranslated by Scottish historians and archivists is because there is a scarcity of records in the vernacular in Scotland before 1400.

[PDel...@aol.com]

The clerk writing the document may also have been influenced by the local
form of a name and how it is used. Quite often when perusing documents in
Secretary hand I have found that the clerk took down the name as given by the
family or by its allies/kin. In one instance, although somewhat later than
these dates I was stumped by the use of the name Sallie when the person I
was researching was not called Sallie. Cheaney came to my assistance with
the name Sarah and its diminutive Sallie/Sally. Obviously the clerk
transcribed the name given to him by a member of the family.....Clerks were also
influenced by the local accent/dialect and their own. In Linguistics the 'o'
can sometimes be interpreted by 'e' - especially with, in my case, the
regional varietal dialects of Provençal. the Scottish language was profoundly
influenced by the various dialects of Brythonic Gaelic as well as Norse -
which then translated into base Latin can be a minefield.
Peter


In a message dated 18/05/2014 01:01:31 GMT Daylight Time,

-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject
and the body of the message

[Tompkins, Matthew (Dr.)]

From: Douglas Richardson [royalance***sn.com]
Sent: 18 May 2014 02:53

Well, Douglas, you�ve provided a couple of examples of Mariota apparently being used as the Latin equivalent of Marion which I admit have surprised me. However just two or three pieces of anecdotal evidence are not sufficent to prove your thesis �Mariota is the Latin form of Marion�, which fails to take account of too many inconsistent facts.

For example, there was also a Latin forename Mariona/Mariana. If the Latin form of Marion was Mariota, what vernacular name did Mariona represent? The thesis must therefore be modified to �Mariota is one of the Latin forms of Marion�.

Then there is the fact that Mariot was a fairly common Middle English diminutive form of Mary, alongside Marion and in fact rather more common than it. The 1377-81 poll tax returns, for example, list 34 Mariots and only 20 Marions (data from George Redmonds� Christian Names in Local and Family History, p. 174), and Mariot has given rise to patronymic surnames, such as Marriott and Marryatt (as Andrew Millard has pointed out), in greater numbers than has Marion. Consequently it must be likely that many, perhaps most appearances of Mariota in Latin records represent the vernacular Mariot, rather than Marion. The thesis must now become just �Mariota is sometimes the Latin form of Marion, but more often of Mariot�.

Further, it has been shown that Mariot and Marion were also used as diminutive forms of Margaret and Margery. George Redmonds, in his Christian Names in Local and Family History at pp. 20-21, quotes examples of individuals who were listed in the Poll Taxes more than once but in different forms - for example, Marg� Haubel and Mariota Haubel, and Mariona Mariote, Margeria Mariote and Marjoria Mariote (the latter is also an example of Mariot as a surname). So the thesis must be further modified to �Mariota can be a Latin form of Mariot, Marion, Margaret or Margery�.

Though I remain doubtful whether medieval clerks ever really regarded Mariota as a Latin form of Marion. The problem is that Marion and Mariot were both diminutive forms of Mary (or Margaret/Margery). Baptismal names are generally permanent and unchanging, but nicknames or pet forms (technically, hyprocorisms) are by their nature unstable. Someone might be known by more than one form of their name in different contexts, or different places, or at different times, or to different people - and no doubt sometimes by two forms simultaneously at the whim of the speaker (Rich and Richie, for example, or Rich and Rick). So a few occurrences of Mariota in a Latin record and Marion in an English one need not necessarily mean that Mariota translated Marion - it may just mean that a person baptised Mary (or Margaret or Margery) was known in English as both Mariot and Marion.

Matt Tompkins

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Archæological and Historical Collections relating to Ayrshire and Galloway 8 (1894) contains transcripts of the Protocol Book of Robert Broun which dates from the reign of King James I (VI of Scotland). The first document in the book is dated 1616.

The format of the book is simple. The original Latin text of each original document is presented, followed by an English abstract made by the modern editor.

On pages 181 to 184, for example, there is a document dated 1617 pertaining to Marion and Jonet Mures, the two lawful daughters and nearest heir-portioners of James Mure, late burgess of Glasgow. In the Latin text, the women are called "Mariota" and "Joneta," which the editor has translated as "Marion" and "Jonet." That's simple enough.

The above document may be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=VKFCAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA181

One might think that translating the Latin form "Mariota" into "Marion" was simply the modern editor's preference. However, the document which immediately follows on pages 184-187 proves that Robert Broun himself considered "Mariota" to be the correct Latin form of of "Marion."

This second document concerns the dowry of Marion Blair, wife of Walter Stewart, burgess of Irvine. The date of the document is 1617. In the Latin text, she is called "Mariota Blair." And in the English transcript which follows, the modern editor calls her "Marion Blair."

Wedged in between the Latin text and the modern English abstract, however, there is a short paragraph in English written by Robert Broun himself in which he refers to the lady in question as "Marioun Blair."

So we have a clear case of the Latin form "Mariota" being used by Robert Broun for the vernacular form "Marioun" [Marion]. This is very good evidence indeed.

[Douglas Richardson]

Dear Newsgroup ~

Although I could cite numerous scholars on this same point, Joseph D. Shearer, Ayr and its People (2004), unpaginated refers to a certain Marion Nesbit in 1549, who he says is "the same mentioned in Gavin Ross in 1529 (called Mariota, the Latin form of Marion)."

This information can be viewed at the following weblink:

http://books.google.com/books?id=4Ui26YJfaYAC&pg=PT125

Thus Mr. Shearer believes as I do that Mariota is the Latin form of Marion. The point about Mariota versus Marion has now been made and does not need to be repeated.

With respect to the current discussion, I've addressed the matter of Mariota being the Latin form of the Scottish fore-name, Marion, and have given examples from contemporary records that this is correct. Mr. MacEwen, who should know about such things, is in complete agreement with my comments.

On the surface, it seems like a given names book would be a helpful aid in addressing such an issue. However, my experience and that of Mr. MacEwen is that statements are frequently made in such books that do not agree with our knowledge of medieval records. Consequently we both tend to hold modern names book at arms length, and prefer to rely instead on contemporary records when at all possible. Also we try to stick to Scottish records and sources when dealing with Scottish families. Both of us have learned that you can not assume that customs, legal traditions, naming patterns, etc., in England necessarily follow in Scotland. In fact, there are many considerable differences between English and Scottish societies. Citing names from an English poll tax may tell you something about England but it might not tell you anything about Scotland.

For what it is worth, Mr. MacEwen says he has not seen Mariona as the Latin form of Marion. If so, Mariona may well be a late Latin form. Mr. MacEwen did say evolving name forms are a "complicated" matter. He and I have an open mind about Mariona being a Latin form for Marion. But we would both like to see the evidence from Scottish contemporary records.

My final comment: Secondary sources such as name books have the certain ring of truth about them, especially when authors of such works make blanket statements without any clarification or documentation. However, Mr. MacEwen and I try to base our findings as best we can on contemporary documents, and cite them whereever possible. Relying on secondary works can be a trap for the naive and uninformed who take such things at face value.

[mqs...@gmail.com]

relying on pet peeves is clearly a trap for weak-minded.

[Matt Tompkins]

Douglas, it seems you must not be familiar with the works which have been cited. They do not 'make blanket statements without clarification or documentation'. Reaney's Dictionary of British Surnames, being a dictionary, is necessarily concise, but it justifies every explanation it provides, however briefly, while the other two, McKinley's History of British Surnames and Redmonds' Christian Names, are discursive works packed with evidence and argument. All three are based on years of research focussed specifically on forenames and surnames, in original manuscripts as well as published editions.

It is good that you test their conclusions against what you come across in your genealogical research - no one is right all the time - but to do this you need first to understand their conclusions and the methods by which they came to them. The writings of Percy Reaney, Richard McKinley, George Redmonds and other leading onomasticians who have not so far been referenced, such as Cecily Clark, Dave Postles and Peter McClure, are not just things noticed incidentally in the course of genealogical research but are the fruit of years of methodical academic research specifically into naming practices in the British Isles. Much wasted work in blind alleys can be avoided by taking advantage of the work they have already done, rather than just discarding it as 'secondary sources ... with a certain ring of truth about them'.

For example, your recent ruminations on Margaret and Margery would have benefitted greatly from the analysis presented by Peter McClure in a 1998 article in vol. 21 of Nomina entitled 'The interpretation of hypocoristic forms of Middle English baptismal names'.

There are two major problems with your argument that Mariota was the Latin form of Marion and the evidence you have presented to substantiate it. First, it ignores the facts that (i) Marion was also represented by Mariona/Mariana (there are abundant examples of this in medieval records) and (ii) Mariota also translated the vernacular name Mariot. Second, a few isolated occurrences is not enough to prove the general rule you have argued for. That a woman was once called Marion and Mariota proves very little - you need to check all the available references to her and show that (a) she was always called Marion in the vernacular (never Mariot or any other pet form of Mary, or Mary itself) and (b) she always appeared in Latin records as Mariota (never Mariona or Maria or ...).

Otherwise the possibility remains that she was in fact a Mary who was called both Marion and Mariot, and possibly also other pet forms forms of her name, and/or that her name was translated into Latin in more than one form. You evidently think this improbable, but you might like to consider the following statement made in a 1372 Year Book report (in Law French). It concerns a defendant called Mary who proffered in her defence a release from the plaintiff in which she was called Mariot - the plaintiff claimed that she was called Mary not Mariot and that the release did not protect her, to which she replied that she was baptised Mary but had always been known as Mariot or Marion, as was the usage of the country.

"... celuy qui port le breve, relessa, et confirma a cesty Mary, et a son primer baron, per nosme de Mariot' sa feme, ... tout le droit etc. Et que mesme le feme, qui est baptise Maria, fuit appel un par tout sa junesse Mariot, ou Marion, solonque l'usage de pais ... "

"... the plaintiff had released and confirmed to this Mary and to her first husband, by the name of his wife Mariot, and to the heirs of their two bodies, all the right etc., and that the same woman, who was baptised Maria, was called throughout her whole youth Mariot or Marion, according to the usage of the country ..."

http://www.bu.edu/phpbin/lawyearbooks/display.php?id=14492

Matt Tompkins

[Peter Stewart]

On 19/05/2014 7:52 AM, Matt Tompkins wrote:

<snip>

> There are two major problems with your argument that Mariota was
> the Latin form of Marion and the evidence you have presented to
> substantiate it. First, it ignores the facts that (i) Marion was also
> represented by Mariona/Mariana (there are abundant examples of
> this in medieval records) and (ii) Mariota also translated the
> vernacular name Mariot. Second, a few isolated occurrences is not
> enough to prove the general rule you have argued for.

There is a third major - indeed fatal - problem with the argument: Latin
simply doesn't work that way.

The syllable combination -ion- occurs frequently in Latin words, whereas
-iot- is rare. Coming across the vernacular form Marion would not
present any scribe with a difficulty that he needed to resolve by
changing n to t, purporting to "translate" the name as Mariota. And even
if one did this for some peculiar reason (perhaps because he hadn't read
and studied nearly as much as he liked to pretend...) the notion that
many others would repeat such a weird quirk at different times and
places is flatly absurd.

Peter Stewart

[Matt Tompkins]

On Saturday, 17 May 2014 07:44:49 UTC+1, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> Dear Jan and Matt ~
>
> Here is another example which proves that Mariota is the Latin form of Marion.
>
> The original petition cited below is dated 1318. The petition is in French and may be viewed for free on the online Discovery catalog. I just viewed the original record and the name of the petitioner is clearly written "Marion de Newerk."
>
> A brief Latin summary of this petition appears on the roll of the Parliament of October 1318. A transcript of this summary is published in Henry Cole, Documents illustrative of English History (1844): 34, which may be viewed at the following weblink:
>
> http://books.google.com/books?id=TUNNAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA34
>
> The Latin summary reads as follows:
>
> Newerk. Ad peti'com Mariot' de Newerk. Ita respons' est - Adeat Canc' ..... END OF QUOTE.
>
> So we have Marion in the French vernacular and Mariot' in the Latin. Latin Mariot' equals French Marion. There is no Mary or Maria.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
>

> Reference:
> SC 8/129/6403
> Description:
> Petitioners: Marion de Newerk (Newark).
> Name(s): de Newerk (Newark), Marion
> Addressees: King and Council.
> Nature of request: Marion de Newerk requests remedy against Dogel, claiming that he attacked and imprisoned her, and has committed many other felonies without punishment.
> Nature of endorsement: She is to go to Chancery and have a writ at the common law.
> Places mentioned: Mountsorrel, Leicestershire.
> People mentioned: William Dogel of Mountsorrel.
>

As well as the original petition itself (SC 8/129/6403), in which the lady describes herself in French as Marion, and the brief reference to the case on the Parliament Roll proper (SC 9/21, published in Cole's Documents Illustrative), in which she is referred to in Latin as Mariot', there is a third record of this petition (E 175/1, mm. 2-3), a list of the petitioners at the same parliament, entirely in Latin, in which she is called Marion.

This third document has been printed in 'Parliament at York, Michaelmas, 1318', Camden Third Series, vol. 51 (Dec 1935), pp. 64-80. A pdf of it can be obtained via the link below - Marion de Newerk' appears at p. 77. It will be seen that the entire document, including all the petitioners' names, is in Latin - for example, the names immediately before and after Marion are Rogerus le Taillour and Andreas de Harcla - so there can be little doubt that the entry represents what this document's clerk thought was the Latin form of the name. Though he does seem to have felt a little unsure of himself, as he has left off the genitive ending, in much the same way as the clerk who produced SC 9/21 truncated Mariote to Mariot'.

http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6668352

Matt Tompkins

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

Dear Brad,
Seeing that your very interesting (I'd say almost essential) posts have become the battleground (once again) for topics other than the one you were dealing with, I'd suggest your reposting it without the unnecessary comments and, please, deliver part 4. Most of us are waiting for it and are fed up of the rest.
Kindest regards.
José Luis.

[Brad Verity]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 10:30:31 PM UTC-7, Douglas Richardson wrote:
> A transcript of the above mentioned agreement dated 22 January 1477/8 is published in Stewart, Historical Memorials of the Stewarts of Forthergill (1879): 74-75, and may be viewed at the following weblink:
> http://books.google.com/books?id=IS0BAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA74

Thank you for the link, Douglas. It's great to have the original marriage contract.

> The earl's daughter is twice called Cristiane in this document, that is, Christian. From the date of this agreement, it is clear that Christian (or Christine) Stewart must have been the daughter of the earl's first wife, Margaret Douglas, who was still living 22 Jan. 1472/3 [see Richardson, Royal Ancestry (2013)].

What is your source for Margaret Douglas being alive on 22 January 1472/3? Neither SP nor CP in their Atholl articles, mention this date. Nor does S.I. Boardman in his ODNB bio of the 1st Earl of Atholl.

The marriage agreement between Neil Stewart the elder and the 1st Earl of Atholl is dated 12 January 1477/8. It is for Christine Stewart to marry Alexander Stewart, son and heir apparent of Neil Stewart. If Alexander dies, then Christine will marry Neil, the second son of Neil Stewart. (Obviously, Alexander did die and Christine then married his brother Neil Stewart). If Christine dies, then any other of the 1st Earl's daughters lawfully begotten or to be gotten will marry the son of Neil Stewart. (Sadly, no names of these daughters are given).

I agree the date of the contract makes it likely that Christine was a daughter of Atholl's first marriage to Margaret Douglas. Presumably Christine was the oldest unmarried/un-betrothed daughter of the 1st Earl in January 1478.

But the contract does imply a marriage of children not yet old enough at that date to be lawfully wed. We know the marriage did not occur immediately, since it was second son Neil, not the older son Alexander, whom Christine eventually married.

So I don't know if we can be one hundred percent guaranteed that Christine was a daughter of Margaret Douglas.

On Monday, May 19, 2014 11:17:19 AM UTC-7, J.L. Fernandez Blanco wrote:
> Seeing that your very interesting (I'd say almost essential) posts have become the battleground (once again) for topics other than the one you were dealing with, I'd suggest your reposting it without the unnecessary comments and, please, deliver part 4. Most of us are waiting for it and are fed up of the rest.

Thank you, José Luis. I'm glad you are finding the Stewart of Atholl posts useful. I've been very busy with work the past three days, and it's for that reason, not the Mariot/Marion debate, that my final post (Part 4) has been delayed. I hope to have it completed and posted later tonight.

Thanks & Cheers, ----Brad

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

Glad to read that!
Cheers.
José Luis.

[Douglas Richardson]

On Monday, May 19, 2014 3:14:29 PM UTC-6, Brad Verity wrote:

< What is your source for Margaret Douglas being alive on 22 January 1472/3? <Neither SP nor CP in their Atholl articles, mention this date. Nor does S.I. <Boardman in his ODNB bio of the 1st Earl of Atholl.

Brad ~

Here are the sources which I used for my account of John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl [died 1512] in my book, Royal Ancestry.

I know both you and Andrew MacEwen have considered the possibility that some of John Stewart's daughters were duplicates. Sinclair, however, in his Dissertation upon "Heirs Male" (1837): 117-118 states the following:

"... according to an old pedigree, by Camden, anno 1627, in the British Museum (Harl. MSS, No. 1423, [John Earl of Atholl] had sixteen daughters.").

So possibly John Stewart really did have such a large flock of daughters, and none were duplicates.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

+ + + + + + + + + + + + +

References for John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl, and his two wives, Margaret Douglas and Eleanor Sinclair

Seacome, Hist. of the House of Stanley (1821): 251-254. Buchanan, Tracts Ill. of the Traditionary & Hist. Antiqs. of Scotland (1836): 75 (William [Douglas], 8th Earl of Douglas and Avondale, granted marriage of Margaret de Douglas, daughter of Archibald, 5th Earl of Douglas, by King James II in Feb. 1449/50; both William and Margaret are styled "cousin" [consanguineo/consanguineæ] by King James II). Sinclair, Dissertation upon "Heirs Male" (1837): 117-118 ("... according to an old pedigree, by Camden, anno 1627, in the British Museum (Harl. MSS, No. 1423, [John Earl of Atholl] had sixteen daughters."). Grant, Mems. of the Castle of Edinburgh (1850): 275-276. Book of the Thanes of Cawdor (1859): 96-97 (charter of James IV, King of Scots, dated 1499 names John Stewart son and heir of his "kinsman" [consanguinei] John [Stewart], Earl of Atholl). Forbes, Account of Fam. of Innes (1864): 96. Burke, Gen. Hist. of the Dormant, Abeyant, Forfeited & Extinct Peerages (1866): 509 (sub Stewart, Earl of Athol). Hardy, Syllabus (in English) of the Docs. Rel. England & Other Kingdoms 2 (1873): 693. Sixth Rpt. (Hist. MSS Comm. 5) (1877): 692 (charter of John, Earl of Atholl, dated 1464). Seventh Rpt. (Hist. MSS Comm. 6(2)) (1879): 708 (charter of King James II, King of Scots to his brother, John Stewart, Earl of Athole dated 1460), 709 (charter of James II, King of Scots to John, Earl of Athole, Lord Balvany, and Alinor Countess of Athole, daughter of William Earl of Caithness and Lord of St. Clair his spouse dated 31 Oct. 1477). Stewart, Hist. Mems. of the Stewarts of Forthergill (1879): 10 (John Stewart, of Forthergill, styled "kinsman" [consanguineo] by John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl in 1465), 18-20, 74-75 (indenture dated 22 January 1477/8 between John, Earl of Atholl, lord of Balvany, and Neil Stewart, of Forthergill). D.N.B. 54 (1898): 314-315 (biog. of Sir John Stewart). Maxwell, Hist. of the House of Douglas 1 (1902): 154, 174, 181-203. Scots Peerage 1 (1904): 441-442 (sub Stewart, Earl of Atholl); 2 (1905): 332-336 (sub Sinclair, Earl of Caithness); 4 (1907): 53-55 (sub Forbes), 276-278 (sub Gray), 531-532 (sub Gordon, Marquess of Huntly); 5 (1908): 351-353 (sub Lennox). Johnston, Heraldry of the Douglases (1907): 17-18. D.N.B. 18 (1909): 1201-1202. C.P. 1 (1910): 312-313 (sub Atholl); 4 (1916): 436 (sub Douglas). Hannay, Rentale Dunkeldense (Scottish Hist. Soc. 2nd Ser. 10) (1915): 40, 46. Dunlop, Life & Times of James Kennedy (1950): 187. TG 2 (1981): 51-53; 3 (1982): 32.

[Brad Verity]

On Friday, May 16, 2014 2:00:49 PM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
> I will deal with the remaining daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl in Part 4.

9) [Margaret?] Stewart, married[?] Patrick[?] Robertson, Heir of Strowan
She is called the fifth daughter of the 2nd wife in DP, omitted entirely in BEP, and listed as the 9th daughter in SP Atholl (1904).

This shadowy daughter likely never existed. DP in 1813 doesn't even give her a first name, "5. Lady ---- married to Robert Robertson, younger of Strowan, and had issue". SP Atholl provides her a first name: "Margaret, married to Robert Robertson, younger of Strowan":
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun01pauluoft#page/466/mode/2up

It also cites a source for the marriage, 'Genealogical Collections Concerning Families in Scotland made by W. Macfarlane, 1750-1751', James Toshach Clark (ed.), Volume 2 (1900). Though this source does provide a first name - Margaret - for the Stewart of Atholl wife, it doesn't name her husband as 'Robert' but rather as 'Patrick': "But here its proper enough to observe that Patrick Macalaster or Patrick Robertson Son and heir Apparent of Alexander Robertson of Strowan Married Margt Stewart Daughter of John Earl of Athole by the Lady Eleanora Sinclair his wife Daughter of William Earl of Orkney and Caithnes who was Lord High Chancellour of Scotland in the Reign of King James the Second (footnote: This Same Earl in his draught of the House of Athole Mentions that the father Alexander of Strowan and his Eldest Son Married two Sisters) by whom he had William who was heir of the family after the death of his Grandfather who died in the 1508 As appears Clearly from a Document I have Seen in the Registers of the Privy Seall":
https://archive.org/stream/genealogicalcol01macfgoog#page/n320/mode/2up

We know that Alexander Robertson of Strowan died on 17 March 1506. Eleven days later, James IV issued the following, "At Edinburgh, 28 Mar. A Lettre of Tak maid to WILLIAM ROBERTSON, nevo and are to umquhil Alexander Robertson of Strowane, and Johne Robertson of Kilmorich, conjunctlie and severalye,--of all and sindry the landis that pertenit to umquhil the said Alexander, and now being in the kingis hanndis be reson of ward be his deceis, liand within the schirefdom of Perth,--except the half lanndis of Rannach extending zerely to xx lib.: Thair entre beand at the next Witsonday, and to endure for the space of a zere next thairefter, and forthir for the kingis will: The saidis William and John PAYAND thairfor zerely lxiiii lib. iis. and three d., and mair gif the rentale thairof proportis: And als makand thaim baillies of the sammyn, with power to hold courtis, etc. Subscripta per Regem."
https://archive.org/stream/registrumsecret00scotgoog#page/n204/mode/2up

I know that in IPMs and wills of this period in England, the word 'cousin' was often used to describe a grandchild of the testator/deceased, as 'cousin' was a term that covered any relation who was not a direct son or daughter. I don't know if in Scotland the term "nevo" could mean grandson. William Robertson is called "nevo and are [ie, heir]" of Alexander Robertson of Strowan.

Macfarlane writing in 1750-51 makes a definite error regarding the Robertsons of Strowan. He calls Margaret Robertson, wife of the 7th Earl of Erroll, a daughter of Alexander Robertson and his first wife Elizabeth Lyon. We know from chronology and the papal dispensation for her marriage to Erroll, that Margaret had to have been the daughter of Alexander Robertson and his second wife Elizabeth Stewart of Atholl. The dispensation, dated 12 November 1528, states:
"Ex parte Georgii Hay laici Dunblanensis diocesis et Margarete Robertson mulieris Dunkeldensis diocesis nobis oblata petitio continebat quod ipsi ex certis causis rationabilibus animos eorum moventibus desideraverant immediate matrimonialiter copularj sed quia alter eorum tertio altera vero quarto consanguinitatis gradu immediate fuerunt conjuncti desiderium eorum in hac parte perimplere non possunt absque canonica desuper dispensatione"
https://archive.org/stream/illustrationsto02robegoog#page/n402/mode/2up

I'm not sure exactly what the above Latin translates to, but as SP Erroll (1906) points out, the third and fourth degrees of consanguinity the dispensation mentions is due to George Hay being fourth in descent from Joan Beaufort, Queen of Scotland, while Margaret Robertson was third in descent from the same lady thru her mother Elizabeth Stewart of Atholl (see Part 3):
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun03pauluoft#page/568/mode/2up

It's strange that SP Atholl uses Macfarlane to provide the first name 'Margaret' to the Stewart of Atholl daughter, but ignores Macfarlane calling her husband 'Patrick' Robertson, and instead carries over Wood's naming him as 'Robert' Robertson. Confusion in secondary sources may have arisen due to Patrick Robertson's grandfather Robert also having a wife named Margaret Stewart. Macfarlane states that this earlier Margaret was "Daughter of Sir John Stewart of Bute who was of a Naturall Son of King Robert the Second". I have no information on these Stewarts of Bute to verify whether Macfarlane is accurate in his identification of this earlier Margaret's father.

Meanwhile, the 7th Duke of Atholl, in his 1908 book 'Chronicles of the Atholl and Tullibardine Families', states in a footnote to "Lady Isabel" Stewart, 6th daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl, and second wife of Alexander Robertson of Struan, "In 1465 a contract of marriage had been drawn up between Lady Isabel and Duncan Robertson, Struan's eldest son; he however died, and Struan married the young lady himself. The Robertsons of Faskally were descended from this marriage". Atholl leaves the 7th daughter unnamed and states she married "Robt. Robertson, yr. of Struan", with no further explanation:
https://archive.org/stream/chroniclesofatv11908atho#page/n53/mode/2up

An online article on the website Electric Scotland refers to a 1712 mention of the second marriage of Alexander Robertson of Strowan, "George's father stated in a declaration made in 1712 that he was descended from Alexander second son of Alexander Robertson of Struan and his second wife Elizabeth Stewart daughter of John earl of Atholl who were married soon after 1500. By a charter confirmed by the crown in 1533 the younger Alexander and his wife Isobel Hay of Errol received lands which formed the basis of the estate, and later barony, of Faskally":
http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/dtog/donnachaidh/article4.htm

A marriage in about 1500 for Elizabeth Stewart of Atholl and Alexander Robertson of Struan fits very well with their marriage settlement of March 1505 (see Part 3), and their having had three children (including daughter Margaret, wife of the earl of Erroll), by his March 1506 death. So where did the Duke of Atholl get the 1465 date for the contract of marriage between "Isabel" Stewart and "Duncan", son and heir of Alexander Robertson? The marriage settlement between Alexander Robertson and his first wife Elizabeth Lyon is dated 1 April 1460, and is in the Register Book of the Great Seal of Scotland:
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/156/mode/2up

It would be natural for the 1st Earl of Atholl, married to Margaret Douglas in the same year, 1460, to betroth a daughter to the son and heir of Alexander Robertson of Strowan, a close neighbour and ally. But did such a marriage take place? There is no primary document so far to support it, and the earliest mention of it is not until 1750-51. Considering the confusion within the Robertson of Strowan pedigrees, it may well be an error.

The only marriage between Robertson of Strowan and Stewart of Atholl that can be verified is that of Alexander Robertson himself, to Elizabeth Stewart of Atholl, in about 1500 (see Part 3).

10) Margaret Stewart, married Sir William Murray of Castleton/Tullibardine
She is called seventh daughter of the 2nd wife by DP, 5th daughter of 2nd wife by BEP, and listed as the fifth daughter in SP Atholl (1904).

There is so far no primary document to verify the first name and marriage of this Stewart of Atholl daughter. Though Sir William Murray the younger of Tullibardine/Castleton appears in documents in the Register of the Great and Privy Seal of Scotland, no wife of his does. A handwritten note on the Internet Archive photocopied page of the Duke of Atholl's 1908 book 'Chronicles of the Atholl and Tullibardine Families' states that the marriage of Margaret Murray, daughter of Sir William Murray of Castleton and Margaret Stewart of Atholl, to Thomas Stewart of Grandtully, occurred "c. June 23, 1507":
https://archive.org/stream/chroniclesofatv11908atho#page/10/mode/2up

If that date is accurate, chronology suggests that Margaret Stewart may have been a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl by his first wife Margaret Douglas. But the lack of primary documentation for the Murray of Tullibardine/Stewart of Atholl marriage makes it difficult to confirm, let alone to estimate a date for it.

11) [Jean?] Stewart, married, as his 1st of 2 wives, to Sir John Gordon, 1st Laird of Pitlurg
She is called second daughter of the 2nd wife by DP, 1st daughter of the 2nd wife by BEP, and listed as the seventh daughter in SP Atholl (1904).

All three of the above sources state that Jean's husband was "Sir Robert Gordon of Pitlurg". None cite any sources as evidence. I want to thank John Higgins for pointing out to me that there was no Robert Gordon within the Pitlurg family. He referred me to two sources on the Gordon family.

The first, earlier, source is a manuscript pedigree from about the year 1644, which states, "His son John Gordon second Laird of Pitlurge married the Earl of Athols daughter Stuart, with whom he begat a son John Gordon third Laird of Pittlurg":
https://archive.org/stream/houseofgordon01bulluoft#page/n111/mode/2up

The other source, a 1894 book 'The Thanage of Fermartyn' by Rev. William Temple, states "He [John Gordon, who in 1539 received a grant of the lands of Pitlurge] married Lady Jane Stuart, daughter of the first Earl of Athole of that family, by his second wife, Lady Eleanor St. Clair...Lady Jean predeceased her husband, having borne him two sons...John Gordon married secondly, Margaret Drummond, of the family of Stobhall, without issue...He died in 1546, and was succeeded by his eldest son":
https://archive.org/stream/thanageoffermart00temp#page/310/mode/2up

No documentation by Rev. Temple is offered as evidence for any of the above. The marriage settlement of John Gordon, son and heir of John Gordon of Pitlurg and his Stewart of Atholl wife, to Janet Ogilvy, is dated 7 December 1543:
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi03scot#page/694/mode/2up

John Gordon of Pitlurg was dead by 8 July 1546, when his son and heir John Gordon confirmed the dower lands of his stepmother Margaret Drummond:
https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi03scot#page/766/mode/2up

It's interesting that the 1644 manuscript doesn't name John Gordon's Stewart of Atholl wife. It's not until DP in 1813 that we get a name for her, 'Jean'. There's a reason to think that Jean, however, was not this daughter's first name. We know the 1st Earl of Atholl had a daughter by that name by his first wife Margaret Douglas. That Jean/Janet became the countess of Huntly. It would appear he also had a daughter by the name Jean with his second wife Eleanor Sinclair, that was a separate lady from this wife of John Gordon.

To the eleven daughters SP Atholl gives to the 1st Earl of Atholl, we need to add a twelfth.

12) Jean Stewart, married James Arbuthnott of that Ilk

SP Atholl 1904 lists her as third daughter of the 2nd Earl of Atholl. SP Arbuthnott 1904 says, "He married, contract dated 31 August 1507, Jean or Janet Stewart, fourth daughter of John, Earl of Atholl, with whom he received a tocher of 700 merks", and cites something called the Arbuthnott Inventory as its source:
https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun01pauluoft#page/308/mode/2up

In the 1920 book Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire by Mrs Arbuthnot, Lady Jean Stewart, the wife of James Arbuthnott (d. 1521), is said to have been the fourth daughter of John, second Earl of Atholl:
https://archive.org/stream/memoriesofarbuth00arbu#page/50/mode/2up

Their eldest son and heir Robert Arbuthnott was said to have been a minor in 1527, and received sasine of the whole of the family estates in 1528-9, presumably upon coming of age, so he was born 1508. Even if he received his lands a little younger than age 21, it's unlikely that he was born any later than 1510. His sister Isabel Arbuthnott was married to her first husband David Ochterlony of Kellie before 1531, suggesting that she was born by 1515.

With Jean Stewart Arbuthnott a mother by 1510 at the latest, it becomes chronologically impossible for her to have been the daughter of the 2nd Earl of Atholl. The 2nd Earl, whose own son and heir was born in 1507, could not also have been a grandfather a year or so later. So Lady Jean had to have been the daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl.

The specific date of death of 19 April 1522 for Lady Jean Stewart Arbuthnott can be found all over the internet, but I don't know what the original source for it is - maybe the 'Arbuthnott Missal'?:
http://www.kittybrewster.com/b.htm

To summarize, I have in my database the following as daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl.

With 1st wife Margaret Douglas:
1) Lady Joan/Janet Stewart m. Alexander Gordon, 3rd Earl of Huntly - verified by primary documentation
2) Lady Christine Stewart m. Neil Stewart of Fortingall & Garth - verified by primary documentation
3) Lady Mariote Stewart m. Colin Campbell, 3rd Laird of Glenorchy - verified by primary documentation
4) Lady [Elizabeth?] Stewart m. Andrew, 2nd Lord Gray - undocumented outside of later pedigrees

With 2nd wife Eleanor Sinclair:
5) Lady Katherine Stewart m. John, 6th Lord Forbes - undocumented outside of later pedigrees, possibly by first wife
6) Lady Elizabeth Stewart m. 1) Alexander Robertson, 9th Laird of Strowan; m. 2) Robert Innes, 2nd Laird of Invermarkie Castle - verified by primary documentation, possibly two separate daughters each named 'Elizabeth'
7) Lady Margaret Stewart m. Sir William Murray of Castleton, heir of Tullibardine - undocumented outside of later pedigrees
8) Lady Jean/Janet Stewart m. James, 13th Laird of Arbuthnott - verified by primary documentation
9) Lady [Jean?] Stewart m. John Gordon, 1st Laird of Pitlurg - undocumented outside of later pedigrees
10) Lady Isabel Stewart m. John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Lennox - verified by primary documentation

I have not included a daughter married to a son and heir apparent of Alexander Robertson of Strowan, as I feel there is not really sufficient evidence to support such a marriage.

If anyone has any thoughts, or comes across any further primary documentation (or even later pedigrees) regarding daughters of John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl, I would very much appreciate hearing of it.

Thanks & Cheers, ----Brad

[Steve Wilson]

Great work, Brad. A couple of comments/questions:

1) I believe the chronology suggests that Mariot Stewart, wife of Colin Campbell of Glenorchy, would most likely have been born of the second marriage. Colin's parents had a marriage contract dated 14 Oct 1479, so he was born in 1480 at the earliest. Assuming Mariot Stewart was of the same age or slightly younger than her husband, she would necessarily have to be the daughter of the Stewart-Sinclair marriage.

2) Some secondary sources give another daughter, Anne, married to James Gordon of Lesmoir, though I've yet to see any primary documentation or a suggestion as to which marriage she would have belonged if she in fact existed. My reconstruction of the Gordons of Lesmoir would allow for her having been born of either marriage, again, if she really did exist.

[Ian Goddard]

Peter Stewart wrote:
> By the way, according to Martin's Record Interpreter (that is still used
> by many as a reference) the modern alternatives for Matilda are

> "... Malkin",
>
Which in turn gave the place name here:
http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=414500&y=408500&z=120&sv=holmfirth&st=3&tl=Map+of+Holmfirth,+Kirklees+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf


--
Ian

The Hotmail address is my spam-bin. Real mail address is iang
at austonley org uk

[Steve Wilson]

> 8) Lady Jean/Janet Stewart m. James, 13th Laird of Arbuthnott - verified by primary documentation
> 9) Lady [Jean?] Stewart m. John Gordon, 1st Laird of Pitlurg - undocumented outside of later pedigrees

Could these two daughters be identical? I show a death date for James Arbuthnot of that Ilk of 8 Mar 1521. The eldest son of the Gordon-Stewart marriage was himself married ca. 1543 and perished at Pinkie Cleugh in 1547. This would fit with a quick remarriage of Jean Stewart, widow of James Arbuthnot, to John (I show Robert) of Pitlurg, ca. 1522.

[D. Spencer Hines]

Ah, yes, John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl. [It's important to get that
pronunciation right. No lisping.]

Marvelous Fellow!

My 2nd cousin...

D. Spencer Hines

Prosecutio stultitiae est gravis vexatio, executio stultitiae coronat opus

[Brad Verity]

On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 2:13:50 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:
> 1) I believe the chronology suggests that Mariot Stewart, wife of Colin Campbell of Glenorchy, would most likely have been born of the second marriage. Colin's parents had a marriage contract dated 14 Oct 1479, so he was born in 1480 at the earliest. Assuming Mariot Stewart was of the same age or slightly younger than her husband, she would necessarily have to be the daughter of the Stewart-Sinclair marriage.

What is your source for the 14 Oct 1479 marriage contract, Steve? ODNB has Colin Campbell, 3rd Laird of Glenorchy, born about 1468. It has his eldest son Duncan Campbell, 4th Laird of Glenorchy, born about 1486. That alone forces Mariote Stewart to have been a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl's first marriage. ODNB has Colin's father, Duncan, 2nd Laird of Glenorchy, as born about 1443.

Unfortunately Jane E.A. Dawson's entry on the Campbells of Glenorchy in ODNB isn't available online, but much of it has been used at the following website:
http://www.ed.ac.uk/schools-departments/divinity/research/resources/breadalbane/historical-background/clan-campbell/rise-glenorchy-campbells

> 2) Some secondary sources give another daughter, Anne, married to James Gordon of Lesmoir, though I've yet to see any primary documentation or a suggestion as to which marriage she would have belonged if she in fact existed. My reconstruction of the Gordons of Lesmoir would allow for her having been born of either marriage, again, if she really did exist.

I believe John Higgins has some information on the Gordons of Lesmoir. Apparently the Stewart spouse was not of the Stewarts of Atholl.

This looks workable, except that Jean Stewart Arbuthnott is said to have died 19 April 1522: "JAMES ARBUTHNOT, 13th of Arbuthnot. Died 8 March 1521. The "Missal" says he was "an honourable man". He married, contract dated 31 August 1507, Lady JEAN STEWART (died 19 April 1522), fourth daughter of John Stewart, 2nd Earl of Atholl. The "Missal" says she was "a worthy lady"
http://www.kittybrewster.com/b.htm

That's not enough time for her to have re-married and had two sons with a second husband (John Gordon of Pitlurg). But perhaps the 1522 death date for Jean Stewart is incorrect. I haven't seen the original Arbuthnott Missal, which I'm assuming is the source for it.

Thanks & Cheers, -----Brad

[Ian Goddard]

Ian Goddard wrote:
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>> By the way, according to Martin's Record Interpreter (that is still used
>> by many as a reference) the modern alternatives for Matilda are
>> "... Malkin",
>>
> Which in turn gave the place name here:
> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=414500&y=408500&z=120&sv=holmfirth&st=3&tl=Map+of+Holmfirth,+Kirklees+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
>
>
>

Bad link. Should be:
http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=413394&Y=407352&A=Y&Z=106

[Matt Tompkins]

> > Peter Stewart wrote:
> >> By the way, according to Martin's Record Interpreter (that is still used
> >> by many as a reference) the modern alternatives for Matilda are
> >> "... Malkin",
> >>
>
> Ian Goddard wrote:
> > Which in turn gave the place name here:
> > http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=414500&y=408500&z=120&sv=holmfirth&st=3&tl=Map+of+Holmfirth,+Kirklees+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
> >
>
On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:40:03 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote:
> > Bad link. Should be:
> http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=413394&Y=407352&A=Y&Z=106
>

That came just when I'd finally figured out where the Malkin place-name was!

Peter McClure's Nomina 1998 article begins with an interesting discussion of Malkin. Most dictionaries derive Mal- and its various forms from Mary, for which there is some early modern evidence, but he points out that in the middle ages Matilda was a far more popular name than Mary and argues that Malkin etc originated as diminutives of Matilda, only transferring to Mary in the early modern period when Matilda went out of fashion and was replaced by Mary.

He doesn't mention Trice Martin, who clearly had also worked this out, but he does quote the Promptorium Parvulorum, a 15C English-to-Latin dictionary, which has an entry 'Malkyn, or Mawte [some variant MSS say Mawde, Molt], propyr name: Matildis', and then cites various medieval examples of women known as both Matilda and Malkin, Malin or Malot.

Malkin was apparently so common in the middle ages that it entered the language as a noun, meaning a servant woman, or young lower class woman, or woman of easy virtue, and even a cleaning rag (presumably because used by servant girls)! It can be found with these meanings in the Middel English Dictionary and the OED.

To bring us back to Marion and Mariot, a 1639 text uses Malkyn as an alternative form of Maid Marion, confirming that by that date Malkin had become associated with Mary.

And speaking of Maid Marion, an interesting example of how diminutives of baptismal names formed by the addition of different suffixes, such as Marion and Mariot, were used interchangeably can be found in a late 13C northern French play, 'le Jeu de Robin et Marion' (actually quite unconnected to Robin Hood and Maid Marion)). In it Marion's name switches constantly between Marion and Marote or Marot, and occasionally Marotele and Marotain (while she refers to Robin variously as Robin, Robinet, Robichon and Robert, and a minor character oscillates between Perrete and Peronnele).

http://toisondor.byu.edu/dscriptorium/aix166/

Matt Tompkins

[PDel...@aol.com]

In a message dated 21/05/2014 09:33:13 GMT Daylight Time,

royald...@hotmail.com writes:

> 2) Some secondary sources give another daughter, Anne, married to James
Gordon of Lesmoir, though I've yet to see any primary documentation or a
suggestion as to which marriage she would have belonged if she in fact
existed. My reconstruction of the Gordons of Lesmoir would allow for her having
been born of either marriage, again, if she really did exist.

I believe John Higgins has some information on the Gordons of Lesmoir.
Apparently the Stewart spouse was not of the Stewarts of Atholl.

It was not Ann, but Margaret Stewart of Laithers, who married James Gordon
of Lesmoir - this is well established in both primary and secondary sources
(the latter being Balbithan MSS and The House of Gordon, to name two).
Margaret stewart was daughter of Patrick and granddaughter of Robert, the
latter being one of the sons of Robert Lord of Lorn and Joan Stewart. I descend
from these 5x and from a later holder of this territory the Meldrums of
Laithers 2x - the Meldrums I am having trouble finding any data on although i
know that they are a cadet of the Meldrums of Fyvie.

Hope this all does not confuse..........by the way it seems that my posts
don't seem to reach gen-medieval despite sending an almost identical email
this morning so If it does not go to the group , could you forward it kind
sir?

Peter

[Steve Wilson]

It seems the marriage of James Gordon, 1st of Lesmoir, to Margaret Stewart of Laithers is pretty well established. However, there are some chronological issues with the next couple generations of the Gordons of Lesmoir.

James Gordon, 2nd of Lesmoir, is said to have married Margaret Ogilvy, daughter of Alexander Ogilvy of Deskford by Janet Abernethy of Saltoun. However, George Gordon, 3rd of Lesmoir, must have been born ca. 1515-1520, which doesn't jibe well with marriage dates in the 1530s and 1540s for the other children of Alexander Ogilvy and Janet Abernethy.

Perhaps Margaret Ogilvy, wife of James Gordon, was sister, not daughter, of Alexander Ogilvy. Or, perhaps she was a second wife, with George Gordon being the issue of a previous marriage (with the first wife perhaps having been a daughter of the Stewarts of Atholl). I'm inclined more toward the former than the latter, but would like to examine the issue further.

[Steve Wilson]

I see now that the 1479 date is noted as "marriage contract?" (with a question mark) in my database. I must have happened by it on the Clan MacFarlane website (http://www.clanmacfarlanegenealogy.info/genealogy/TNGWebsite/getperson.php?personID=I1541&tree=CC), which cites the IGI as the source, and wondered if it came from a marriage contract, as many similar marriage dates on that particular website do. However, I haven't been able to locate any documents so far related to the Campbells of Glenorchy which carry that date. My apologies for the erroneous assertion of fact.

However, I do question the exactness of the ODNB's birth dates for Colin Campbell, 3rd Laird, and Duncan Campbell, 4th Laird, and wonder if birth dates roughly 15 years later might not make more sense.

Colin Campbell, 6th Laird, younger brother of the 4th Laird and third son of the 3rd Laird, had marriages in the 1540s and 1550s, implying a likely birth date for him in the 1510s and a likely birth date for the 4th Laird roughly in the decade of the 1500s.

Again, something that probably warrants further examination.

[Ian Goddard]

Matt Tompkins wrote:
>>> Peter Stewart wrote:
>>>> By the way, according to Martin's Record Interpreter (that is still used
>>>> by many as a reference) the modern alternatives for Matilda are
>>>> "... Malkin",
>>>>
>>
>> Ian Goddard wrote:
>>> Which in turn gave the place name here:
>>> http://www.streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?x=414500&y=408500&z=120&sv=holmfirth&st=3&tl=Map+of+Holmfirth,+Kirklees+[City/Town/Village]&searchp=ids.srf&mapp=map.srf
>>>
>>
> On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 11:40:03 AM UTC+1, Ian Goddard wrote:
>>> Bad link. Should be:
>> http://streetmap.co.uk/map.srf?X=413394&Y=407352&A=Y&Z=106
>>
>
> That came just when I'd finally figured out where the Malkin place-name was!

Sorry about that. I forget that Steetmap has a proper link generator &
scraped it from the URL which doesn't get changed when you pan & zoom.

> Peter McClure's Nomina 1998 article begins with an interesting discussion of Malkin. Most dictionaries derive Mal- and its various forms from Mary, for which there is some early modern evidence, but he points out that in the middle ages Matilda was a far more popular name than Mary and argues that Malkin etc originated as diminutives of Matilda, only transferring to Mary in the early modern period when Matilda went out of fashion and was replaced by Mary.
>

I don't know the pronunciation of Malkin elsewhere but in this
particular case "alk" is pronounced as in "walk". I suppose that fits
in with "Maud".

It might be worth pointing out a broader point relevant to these
discussions. I suspect that some of the US contingent here might not
realise how regionally diverse English was and that this affected not
only pronunciations but also the way diminutives were formed. The
common diminutive of a particular name in one area might be quite
different from the common diminutive of the same name in another. IIRC
Redmonds compares the various diminutives of Robert which, of course,
affect the various surnames derived from them.

[PDel...@aol.com]

The thing is that England, let alone The U.S.A is still very regionally
diverse in its diction and particular words that are a relict of the older
langauges.

Pg


In a message dated 21/05/2014 16:35:07 GMT Daylight Time,

[jhigg...@yahoo.com]

The sequence of Gordons of Lesmoir shown here is one of two versions of the early succession of this family. The other version, which reflects more recent research ("recent" here meaning 1907 rather than 1893 or 1894) combines James, 1st of Lesmoir, and James, 2nd of Lesmoir, into a single person with two marriages. Capt. Douglas Wimberley seems to be the authority on this family, having published extensively on it twice - in 1893 & 1894 and again in 1907.

Wimberley's first work, in 1893, is apparently not available online, but a copy on film is held at the FHL (and other copies are listed in OCLC). Here is the FHL catalog listing:
https://familysearch.org/eng/library/fhlcatalog/supermainframeset.asp?display=titledetails&titleno=143898

In 1894 he included his 1893 work on the Gordons of Lesmoir in a collection encompassing three other families in his ancestry, available here:
https://archive.org/details/memorialsoffouro1894wimb
In this work he cites the two versions given above and gives their origins. Sir Robert Douglas' "Baronage of Scotland" is the source for the "two James" version, while two separate manuscript pedigrees (roughly contemporaneous with the Douglas work) are the source for the "one James married twice" version. (Details of all three sources are given in the appendices to the 1893 and 1894 publications.) At this point, in 1893 and 1894, Wimberley supported the "two James version", from Douglas. (Incidentally Douglas appears to be the one who first mentions "Anne" Stewart, daughter of the Earl of Atholl, as the wife of James Gordon of Lesmoir.)

But Wimberley subsequently did further research on this family, and a revised version of his genealogy of the family was published in 1907 in volume 2 of John Malclom Bulloch's "The House of Gordon", available here:
https://archive.org/details/houseofgordonedi02bull
This version provides substantially more material on the early generations of the family and concludes that the "one James married twice" version is the right one. Unless anyone is aware of any subsequent research on this family, I'm inclined to go with Wimberley's 1907 conclusion.

BTW this may help to resolve the issue of Margaret Ogilvy raised in the above post.

[Steve Wilson]

> This version provides substantially more material on the early generations of the family and concludes that the "one James married twice" version is the right one. Unless anyone is aware of any subsequent research on this family, I'm inclined to go with Wimberley's 1907 conclusion.
>
> BTW this may help to resolve the issue of Margaret Ogilvy raised in the above post.

Combining the two James does resolve the issue, leaving us with a chronological peculiarity rather than a difficulty. A 65- or 70-year-old James Gordon of Lesmoir would have married a 20- or 30-something Margaret Ogilvy as his second wife in the mid-1540s--somewhat unusual, but not really unheard of. Under this scenario, there would be nothing preventing Margaret Ogilvy from having been a daughter of Alexander of Deskford.

The confusion about the two Stewart wives seems to be rooted in Atholl and Laithers both having sprung from the Innermeath/Lord branch.

[Steve Wilson]

> I see now that the 1479 date is noted as "marriage contract?" (with a question mark) in my database. I must have happened by it on the Clan MacFarlane website (http://www.clanmacfarlanegenealogy.info/genealogy/TNGWebsite/getperson.php?personID=I1541&tree=CC), which cites the IGI as the source, and wondered if it came from a marriage contract, as many similar marriage dates on that particular website do.

I just ran across the following on page 129 of 'The House of Argyll and the Collateral Branches of the Clan Campbell' (https://archive.org/stream/houseofargyllcol00glas), published in 1871:

"II. Sir DUNCAN succeeded his father; he marrie din 1479 Lady Margaret Douglas, daughter to George, Earl of Angus."

Also, from Electric Scotland (http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/atoc/campbel2.htm):

"His son and successor, Sir Duncan Campbell of Glenurchy, further added to the importance of his family by acquiring the estates of Glenlyon, Finlarig, and others on Loch Tay side. When he married Margaret, daughter of George, fourth earl of Angus, in 1479, he obtained with her a dowry of six hundred merks, and he fell with James IV. at Flodden in 1513."

These secondary sources (among others) also show the 1479 marriage date:

Anderson's 'The Scottish Nation', 1863
(books.google.com/books?id=lug2AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA373)

Burke's 'Peerage', 1865
(books.google.com/books?id=ZU59tRkdl2MC&pg=PA124)

Journal of the Clan Campbell Society, 1984 (books.google.com/books?ei=KTx9U_CjBvHgsATymIK4Bw&id=EEk5AAAAMAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q="oct+1479")

It would then appear that the Colin Campbell of Glenorchy who married Mariot Stewart of Atholl can't have been born any earlier than 1480, making her almost certainly a daughter of Stewart-Sinclair marriage.

[Steve Wilson]

Also, it's worth mentioning that the 'House of Argyll' book states that Colin Campbell of Glenorchy married "Lady Margaret Stewart, daughter of John, Earl of Atholl, the uterine brother of James the Second, and Dame Ellenor Sinclair, daughter of William, great Earl of Orkney."

The Electric Scotland source, on the other hand, states that he married "Marjorie Stewart, daughter of John, Earl of Atholl, half brother of James II., her mother being Margaret Douglas, that Fair Maid of Galloway, who, as heiress of her ancient house, played such a strange romantic part in the story of her time."

However, as I've stated many times now, given the 1479 marriage and 1480+ birth dates, Mariot/Margaret/Marjory must have been the daughter of Eleanor Sinclair, to whom her father was already married in 1475 (unless she were significantly older than her husband).

Given that Eleanor Sinclair's mother was named Marjory, it is tempting to assign this Stewart daughter that same name and conclude she was named in honor of her grandmother. This, however, would require the Latin "Mariote" in her obituary notice to be a translation of the vernacular "Marjory," about which I'm sure Douglas and a few others might have something to say.

[Brad Verity]

On Wednesday, May 21, 2014 5:38:43 PM UTC-7, Steve Wilson wrote:
> However, as I've stated many times now, given the 1479 marriage and 1480+ birth dates, Mariot/Margaret/Marjory must have been the daughter of Eleanor Sinclair, to whom her father was already married in 1475 (unless she were significantly older than her husband).

Genealogist Gordon MacGregor, in his Red Book of Scotland series (http://www.redbookofscotland.com ), states (on page 8 of the pdf link below), that Mariote (whom he calls 'Margery') Stewart and the 3rd Laird of Glenorchy had an elder daughter, "Mariota Campbell, m. by 5 October, 1498, William Stewart, 2nd of Balindoran, (he was widow of Janet, daughter of Archibald Buchannan of Lettir, by whom he had issue) and had issue":
http://www.redbookofscotland.com/sample%20families/Campbell%20of%20Glenorchy.pdf

That, plus the dates provided in the ODNB account of the Campbells of Glenorchy, made me think Mariote Stewart was a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl's first marriage.

But what I hand't noticed is that MacGregor also gives a date of "October of 1479" for the marriage of the 2nd Laird of Glenorchy and Margaret Douglas, which makes it chronologically impossible for their son Colin Campbell, 3rd Laird of Glenorchy, to have been the father of Mariota Campbell, second wife of William Stewart, 2nd Laird of Baldorran.

MacGregor appears to have confused two Colin Campbells of Glenorchy. Per Wikipedia entry, Mariota Campbell was the daughter of Colin, 1st [not 3rd] Laird of Glenorchy, and so aunt, not daughter, of the 3rd Laird:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Stewart_of_Baldorran

Wikipedia's source for the above is the 1970 book 'The Clan Steuart' by Gladys P. Nelker, p. 19, which I haven't seen.

I don't know how or why Jane E.A. Dawson's estimates of birthdates for the 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Lairds of Glenorchy are so far off the mark. Here is her ODNB account on them, in full:
"Colin's son Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy (c.1443-1513) had an equally long career, during which he made major territorial acquisitions in the Breadalbane region, in particular securing the strategically vital holdings of the Isle of Loch Tay at the west end of that loch and Finlarig at its east end. He married twice; his first wife was Margaret Douglas, daughter of the fourth earl of Angus, with whom he had four sons and three daughters, and the second was Margaret (d. 1554), daughter of Sir John Moncrieff of that ilk, who bore him another son. Duncan's considerable literary and artistic skills placed him at the centre of the Gaelic literary circle which included the Fortingall MacGregors who compiled The Book of the Dean of Lismore and allowed Campbell to contribute nine humorous and bawdy poems to that Gaelic collection. For many years he worked closely with his cousin, the second earl of Argyll, and when both were killed at the battle of Flodden (9 September 1513) they were buried side by side at Kilmun, Argyll.

"Colin Campbell of Glenorchy (c.1468-1523), the third laird, was a mature forty-five years of age when he inherited after Flodden. He had married Marjory Stewart (d. 1524), daughter of the earl of Atholl, and they had three sons, all of whom succeeded him as laird of Glenorchy. His ten-year tenure settled the family's estates and witnessed a symbolic shift away from the Campbell heartland of Argyll and Glenorchy into Perthshire and a new base in Breadalbane. Colin built a chapel to the Blessed Virgin Mary at Finlarig and when he died, on 8 August 1523, he was buried there, as were all his successors. The deaths of the two older of his three sons, the fourth laird, Duncan Campbell (c.1486-1536), and the fifth laird, John Campbell (c.1496-1550), without male heirs threatened the dynasty's survival. Duncan had married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Colquhoun of Luss, producing no surviving children. John's wife, Marion Edmonstone of Duntreath, bore him two daughters. Although they retained the lands their predecessors had obtained and the fifth laird accumulated considerable wealth, the lordship stagnated during the 1530s and 1540s."

My one suggestion is to try and verify the 1479 marriage date by looking at the original document that all these secondary sources used. Maybe it's been misdated along the way, and was actually 1469, not 1479?

Otherwise, I'm happy to concede a birthdate of about 1480 for the 3rd Laird of Glenorchy, and to adjust his wife Mariote Stewart as a daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl and his second wife Eleanor Sinclair.

> Given that Eleanor Sinclair's mother was named Marjory, it is tempting to assign this Stewart daughter that same name and conclude she was named in honor of her grandmother. This, however, would require the Latin "Mariote" in her obituary notice to be a translation of the vernacular "Marjory," about which I'm sure Douglas and a few others might have something to say.

I like your idea that she was married for her maternal grandmother, but I'm leaving her as 'Mariote' in my database, as that's the version of her first name in the only 16th-century source (to date) which names her.

Nice research work, Steve!

Thanks & Cheers, ----Brad

[Marlene Tulip]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Marlene Tulip <marlen...@gmail.com>
Date: 22 May 2014 12:36
Subject: Re: Wives and Daughters of John Stewart, 1st Earl of Atholl - Part
4
To: Brad Verity <royald...@hotmail.com>


Hello Brad and Steve,

Been reading your scottish descents with interest, thank you for posting.

Re the 1479 marriage date for Duncan Campbell and Margaret Douglas I think
the primary source could well be this from the 3rd volume of the The
Douglas Book by William Fraser.

https://archive.org/stream/douglasbookf03fras#page/110/mode/1up

Best wishes,
Marlene

> were killed at the battle of Flodden (9 September 1513) they w!

> ere buried side by side at Kilmun, Argyll.
>
> "Colin Campbell of Glenorchy (c.1468-1523), the third laird, was a mature
> forty-five years of age when he inherited after Flodden. He had married
> Marjory Stewart (d. 1524), daughter of the earl of Atholl, and they had
> three sons, all of whom succeeded him as laird of Glenorchy. His ten-year
> tenure settled the family's estates and witnessed a symbolic shift away
> from the Campbell heartland of Argyll and Glenorchy into Perthshire and a
> new base in Breadalbane. Colin built a chapel to the Blessed Virgin Mary at
> Finlarig and when he died, on 8 August 1523, he was buried there, as were
> all his successors. The deaths of the two older of his three sons, the
> fourth laird, Duncan Campbell (c.1486-1536), and the fifth laird, John
> Campbell (c.1496-1550), without male heirs threatened the dynasty's
> survival. Duncan had married Elizabeth, daughter of Sir John Colquhoun of
> Luss, producing no surviving children. John's wife, Marion Edmonstone of

> Duntreath, bore him two daughters. Although !

> they retained the lands their predecessors had obtained and the fifth
> laird accumulated considerable wealth, the lordship stagnated during the
> 1530s and 1540s."
>
> My one suggestion is to try and verify the 1479 marriage date by looking
> at the original document that all these secondary sources used. Maybe it's
> been misdated along the way, and was actually 1469, not 1479?
>
> Otherwise, I'm happy to concede a birthdate of about 1480 for the 3rd
> Laird of Glenorchy, and to adjust his wife Mariote Stewart as a daughter of
> the 1st Earl of Atholl and his second wife Eleanor Sinclair.
>
> > Given that Eleanor Sinclair's mother was named Marjory, it is tempting
> to assign this Stewart daughter that same name and conclude she was named
> in honor of her grandmother. This, however, would require the Latin
> "Mariote" in her obituary notice to be a translation of the vernacular
> "Marjory," about which I'm sure Douglas and a few others might have
> something to say.
>
> I like your idea that she was married for her maternal grandmother, but
> I'm leaving her as 'Mariote' in my database, as that's the version of her
> first name in the only 16th-century source (to date) which names her.
>
> Nice research work, Steve!
>
> Thanks & Cheers, ----Brad
>

[Brad Verity]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 12:04:14 AM UTC-7, Marlene wrote:
> Re the 1479 marriage date for Duncan Campbell and Margaret Douglas I think
> the primary source could well be this from the 3rd volume of the The
> Douglas Book by William Fraser.
> https://archive.org/stream/douglasbookf03fras#page/110/mode/1up

Dear Marlene,

Thank you very much - that is exactly the primary source. Isobel, Countess of Angus is agreeing to relieve her son the 5th Earl of Angus, of his obligation with Duncan Campbell of Glenorchy to pay the 600 merks that was the marriage portion of his sister Margaret Douglas. It's not clear to me from this document when the marriage of Duncan Campbell and Margaret Douglas took place. The contract for that marriage was made in a different indenture, which also contained the schedule of payment of the 600 merks to Duncan Campbell, and that other indenture is referred to in this document but apparently hasn't survived among the Douglas muniments.

However, the marriage of the 2nd Laird of Glenorchy and Margaret Douglas could not have taken place too much earlier than the 14 October 1479 date of Countess Isobel's obligation to pay Margaret's marriage portion. In an earlier document - the marriage contract for Robert Graham heir of Fintry to marry Elizabeth Douglas - it is said "and gif it falis of the said Elysabeth the mariage be nocht completid, than the said Robert sall spouse and mary Margaret Douglas, hir sistyr", so Margaret was definitely unmarried at that date, which was 7 August 1476:
https://archive.org/stream/douglasbookf03fras#page/106/mode/1up

The ODNB bio of the 3rd Laird of Glenorchy is off by at least ten years on its estimate of about 1468 for the birth of the 3rd Laird of Glenorchy. He could not have been born before 1478.

I've adjusted my database and made Mariote Stewart, wife of the 3rd Laird of Glenorchy, the daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl and his second wife Eleanor Sinclair.

Many thanks, Steve and Marlene, for correcting my Campbell of Glenorchy chronology.

Cheers, -----Brad

[dtvmcdonald]

This is an old post, but worth a try. I'm trying to sort out the
daughters who married Arbuthnott (Jean) and Forbes (C(K)atherine).
Arbuthnott is now pretty clear.

But Forbes is not. I wrote Richardson to see if he remembered why he
assigned Catherine as he did. He replied in email that he did not
remember and referred me to the most unfortunately late Andrew MacEwen, RIP.

I too have searched for primary sources for Catherine and found none.

Has anybody tried to find dispensations? These would tell, since
the closest source for one is Robert II and the other Robert III.

Is there any other hope?

Are these things findable?

Doug McDonald


On 5/16/2014 4:00 PM, Brad Verity wrote:> On Friday, May 16, 2014
12:28:42 AM UTC-7, Brad Verity wrote:
>> More daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl will follow in Part 3.
>
> Daughters of the 1st Earl of Atholl by his 2nd wife Eleanor Sinclair.
>
> 5) Katherine Stewart, married as his 1st of 3 wives, John, 6th Lord
Forbes.
> She is called second daughter of the 1st wife in DP and CP sub Forbes
(1926), 1st daughter of the 2nd wife by BEP, and listed as the 2nd

daughter in SP Atholl (1904).
>

> No marriage contract or settlement survives to verify the first name
and marriage of this daughter of Atholl. We do have this, from a
genealogy of the Forbes family written by one Matthew Lumsden, around
the year 1580, when he died:
> "Next to him succeeded John Lord Forbes, the third brother, gray
Willie's youngest son, who married Dame Katharine Stewart, daughter to
Earle John of Atholl, who bear to him James Master of Forbes, who died
unmarried, whilk was a great pitie and dolor to them yt. knew him; and a
daughter called Elspet, who was married on the Laird of Grant, and his
Ladie departed but further succession: and after her death, the sd. Lord
John married Dame Christian Lundie, daughter to Sr John Lundie of that ilk"
> https://archive.org/stream/genealogyoffamil00lums#page/10/mode/2up
>
> As Matthew Lumsden, the author of the above, was married to an
illegitimate daughter of John, 6th Lord Forbes, presumably he was
familiar enough with the family to correctly report the first name and
parentage of the 6th Lord's Stewart wife.
>
> Katherine Stewart died before 26 February 1510, when King James IV
approved Forbes's settlement on his second wife Christine Lundy:
> https://archive.org/stream/registrummagnisi02scot#page/734/mode/2up
>
> Katherine Stewart's surviving child Elizabeth Forbes married James
Grant, 3rd Laird of Freuchie, and three of their children were married
in 1539, 1545, and 1553, pointing to births for them in the 1520s.
Chronology then suggests that Elizabeth Forbes was born around 1500, and
that in turn her mother Katherine Stewart fits better as a daughter of
the 1st Earl of Atholl and his second wife.
>
> This is only guesswork. The 6th Lord Forbes doesn't have an entry in
ODNB and only has a barebones account in CP, making it difficult to
determine any links with the Stewarts of Atholl that could help to date
his first marriage.
>

[dtvmcdonald]

On 5/20/2014 2:48 PM, Brad Verity wrote:

> To the eleven daughters SP Atholl gives to the 1st Earl of Atholl, we need to add a twelfth.
>
> 12) Jean Stewart, married James Arbuthnott of that Ilk
>
> SP Atholl 1904 lists her as third daughter of the 2nd Earl of Atholl. SP Arbuthnott 1904 says, "He married, contract dated 31 August 1507, Jean or Janet Stewart, fourth daughter of John, Earl of Atholl, with whom he received a tocher of 700 merks", and cites something called the Arbuthnott Inventory as its source:
> https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun01pauluoft#page/308/mode/2up
>
> In the 1920 book Memories of the Arbuthnots of Kincardineshire and Aberdeenshire by Mrs Arbuthnot, Lady Jean Stewart, the wife of James Arbuthnott (d. 1521), is said to have been the fourth daughter of John, second Earl of Atholl:
> https://archive.org/stream/memoriesofarbuth00arbu#page/50/mode/2up
>
> Their eldest son and heir Robert Arbuthnott was said to have been a minor in 1527, and received sasine of the whole of the family estates in 1528-9, presumably upon coming of age, so he was born 1508. Even if he received his lands a little younger than age 21, it's unlikely that he was born any later than 1510. His sister Isabel Arbuthnott was married to her first husband David Ochterlony of Kellie before 1531, suggesting that she was born by 1515.
>
> With Jean Stewart Arbuthnott a mother by 1510 at the latest, it becomes chronologically impossible for her to have been the daughter of the 2nd Earl of Atholl. The 2nd Earl, whose own son and heir was born in 1507, could not also have been a grandfather a year or so later. So Lady Jean had to have been the daughter of the 1st Earl of Atholl.
>
> The specific date of death of 19 April 1522 for Lady Jean Stewart Arbuthnott can be found all over the internet, but I don't know what the original source for it is - maybe the 'Arbuthnott Missal'?:
> http://www.kittybrewster.com/b.htm
>

But I just discovered a problem with this, albeit from a very late
source, the 1920 book above, p. 27. The author says James Arbuthnott's
(d. 1521) wife, Lady Jean Stewart, was granddaughter of Margaret Douglas.

The second Earl of Atholl was not a son of Elizabeth Douglas. This means
the 1920 source contradicts itself. IF one believes p. 27,
whose weight is like a hummingbird feather, this has to be through
one of the early daughters! Unless, of course, there were sons
of Elizabeth Douglas who hasd children but died before being enfeoffed,
and so unrecorded. What it really means is that she really was by
the 1st Earl and unknown mother.

Doug McDonald