SP Addition: Sir Robert de Danielston, grandson of Robert II of Scots
John P. Ravilious
Hello All,
In a previous thread, I set forth a relationship between Margaret
Danielston, 1st wife of Sir William Cunyngham of Kilmaurs (d. bef 1 Mar
1418/9) and Mary/Mariota Stewart, daughter of King Robert III of Scots
[1]. Based in large part on the dispensation for their marriage in
1409 (which evidently never took place) [2], I described a common
descent from Sir William Montfichet of Cargill, which served to explain
both the above relationship and the descent of certain Montfichet lands
to the Drummond and Danielston families.
Evidence has been found which, interestingly, demonstrates the
above described relationship existed not in the maternal (Drummond)
ancestry of Mary Stewart, but rather in the paternal (Stewart) line.
The following was found in the Calendar of Papal Letters, dated at
Tortosa on 27 April 1413:
' Reg Aven 341, 521-2
To William, bishop of Glasgow. Robert, duke of Albany,
had wanted Elizabeth Danyelston, daughter of the late Sir
Robert de Danyelston, nephew of the duke, to marry Sir
Robert de Maxwell, Glasgow diocese, but as they were related
in the fourth degree of consanguinity a dispensation was
necessary. Peter, formerly bishop of Tusculum, cardinal
priest of St. Peter in Chains and, at that time, before the
withdrawal of France's obedience, penitentiary of Pope
Benedict, sent letters in mandate to Dugall, bishop of
Dunblane or to his vicar in spiritualities, and on the
strength of these letters Dugall dispensed Elizabeth and
Robert de Maxwell to marry. Elizabeth and Robert did so
and lived together for more than seven years, during which
time they had six or seven children; but subsequently
Elizabeth separated from Robert on the grounds that at the
time the letters were sent to Dugall, bishop of Dublane,
Peter had withdrawn his obedience from Benedict and
therefore both the letters and the marriage were invalid.
The pope, at the petition of the aforesaid duke, declares
the marriage to be valid, the children legitimate and
dispenses Elizabeth and Robert to live together as husband
and wife.
Tortosa, 5 Kal. Maii, anno 19; expedited, 3 Id. Jul.,
anno 19 [13 July, 1413].
SRO, Vat. Trans., iv, no. 105. [3]
This mandate references two relationships: that of Robert, duke of
Albany (d. 1420) to Sir Robert de Danielston, 'nephew of the duke',
and that of Sir Robert's daughter Elizabeth Danielston to her fiancee
(husband in 1413), Sir Robert Maxwell of Calderwood. In the light of
this document, and the Cunyngham-Stewart dispensation of 1409
previously discussed, it now appears the relationship was as follows:
[NOTE: Individuals cited in the dispensations under discussion
are CAPITALIZED. The conjectured illegitimate connection to the
daughter of Robert II is shown thus: ........]
1) Marjory Bruce = Walter Stewart = 2) Isabel Graham
______I I__________________
I I
* NN (Isabella ~ Robert II = 1) Elizabeth Sir James = Egidia
Boucellier ?) . d. 1390 I Mure Lindsay I Stewart
. I I
................ ______I___________ I_____
. I I I
NN = Sir John Robert III ROBERT Sir John = Isabel
I Danielston d. 1406 D of ALBANY Maxwell I Lindsay
I I I
I I I
SIR ROBERT de I__________ I
DANIELSTON I I
__I___________________________ I _____________ I____
I I I I
I I I I
MARGARET = Sir William x MARY/MARIOTA ELIZABETH = SIR ROBERT
DANIELSTON I de Cunyngham STEWART DANIELSTON I de MAXWELL
I =1) George V
I Douglas
SIR ROBERT CUNYNGHAM =2) James
I Kennedy
V I I
V V
The consanguinity between Margaret Danielston and Mary Stewart,
stated as being in the 2nd and 3rd degrees, is now known to be based on
their mutual descent from Robert II, King of Scots: hence, Sir Robert
de Danielston (d. 1397) was in fact be nephew to Robert, duke of Albany
(as well as his brother King Robert III), and a grandson - and apparent
namesake - of King Robert II. The relationship between Elizabeth de
Danielston and Sir Robert Maxwell of Calderwood (married before 18 Oct
1405) was, one might say, "within" the fourth degree, but was
actually in the 3rd and 4th degrees through common descent from Walter
the Stewart (d. 1326) by his two different wives.
That the last relationship did not quite tally with that mentioned
in the 1413 dispensation is not too surprising: we have seen many
instances where a "4th degree relationship" was later found to have
been actually 3rd and 4th (e.g., Patrick Earl of Dunbar and Agnes
Randolph, 1320 dispensation corrected in 1324). According to Andrew
MacEwen, Elizabeth Danielstona and Sir Robert Maxwell (or one of the
two) actually took the option in 1413 or shortly afterward not to
remain as husband and wife: therefore, no correction to the
dispensation would have been sought (or required).
I discussed this with Andrew MacEwen, who noted the following
issues:
1. The chronology is quite tight. Robert II (when a young man)
was involved with Isabella 'Boucellier' (or Boteler),
before he married (and subsequently was dispensed to marry)
his first wife Elizabeth Mure, and their eldest daughter
Margaret was likely born say 1335, being married to Eoin
mac Donald of the Isles when young (dispensation in 1350).
2. There are a very few charters to Sir Robert de Danielston
(evidently in Robertson's Index) in which Sir Robert
received a grant from King Robert III, was was not referred
to as nephew, or kinsman, by the King (allegedly his uncle).
3. The relationship was not identified by George Burnett,
Lord Lyon King of Arms.
4. The term 'nepos', which was probably the Latin term
translated by McGurk as 'nephew', can be construed to
have meant other relationships besides 'nephew'.
The first problem, that of chronology, is understandable, but is
not proof that a daughter was not had by Robert II by either Isabella
Boucellier (never his wife) or another young lady, circa 1331-1334. If
such a daughter were born in this period, married off to Sir John de
Danielston circa 1345-1349, they could easily have had a son (Robert de
Danielston) born circa 1346-1350, and aged say between 7 and 11 years
of age when delivered as a hostage for King David II on 3 Oct 1357 [4].
This would make Robert II a grandfather at the age of say 32 to 34,
which his distant cousin Lionel, Duke of Clarence would have done on 12
Feb 1370/1 (had he lived).
The second problem, the lack of acknowledgment in charters of
Robert III, would appear problematic, but there are parallels. Sir
Robert Danielston is identified as a royal kinsman in a charter of King
Robert III in 1391, even though there are two instances cited by Andrew
where he was not [5]. Further, with regard to other individuals, there
are instances wherein known kinsman of Robert III, such as Sir James
Douglas of Dalkeith (d. 1420), were either recognized, or not
recognized, as such at different times [6]. I would observe that the
basis for this recognition of a relationship, or lack thereof, was
ultimately dependent on the clerk responsible for preparation of the
charter, or the clerk (if a different individual) who prepared the copy
of the charter used in subsequent publication. It therefore appears
that the statement of a relationship (without qualification) in a
charter might require definition, but that the failure to mention a
relationship did not mean that one did not in fact exist.
As to the third issue raised by Andrew MacEwen, he also observed
that, while Burnett was relatively thorough, he did make several errors
concerning the Stewarts. This last issue would appear to be
insufficient to support the identification of the Stewart-Danielston
relationship as 'unknown'.
The last issue, concerning the possible uncertainty as to the
meaning of the term 'nepos' used in the 1413 dispensation, must I
think be viewed in conjunction with the other evidence in hand. The
1409 dispensation for William Cunyngham and Mary Stewart is not an
equivocal "4th degree" statement, but rather states the
relationship as 2nd and 3rd degree, a close relationship not readily
susceptible to error (involving 1st cousins, 1x removed). Between Mary
Stewart and Margaret Danielston, at least one great-grandparent of one
lady was also the grandparent of the other. This relationship is
exactly as indicated by the 1413 dispensation, with Robert II of Scots
meeting the test as shown. This also agrees exactly with McGurk's
identification of Sir Robert de Danielston as a nephew of Robert
Stewart, Duke of Albany.
I will review the prior posts concerning the Montfichet family and
their relationships in detail shortly. Given the details now in hand
concerning the Cunyngham, Danielston and Maxwell families and their
relationships, it now appears that the Danielston descent is somewhat
more interesting (and royal) than previously conjectured.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] J. Ravilious, Alex Maxwell Findlater et al., <SP Addition: the
Ancestry of Margaret Danielston (conjectured)>, SGM, 5 Nov 2005;
followed by J. Ravilious, <SP Addition: the Ancestry of Margaret
Danielston>, SGM, 20 Nov 2005.
[2] Text of the dispensation, from Francis McGurk, ed. Calendar of
Papal Letters to Scotland of Benedict XIII of Avignon, 1394-
1419 (Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable, 1976), p. 207, dated at
Perpignan, 7 July 1409:
' Reg Aven 333, 519v
To Sir William Cunyngham, lord of Kylmaubris, and the
noblewoman Marjory Stewart, widow of James Kennedy, doncel,
Glasgow diocese. Dispensation is granted for William to
marry Marjory notwithstanding that Margaret, William's first
wife, was related to Marjory in the second and third degrees
of consanguinity <1>.
Perpignan, Elne diocese, Non. Jul., anno 15; expedited
6 Id. Jul., anno 15 [10 July, 1409].
SRO, Vat. Trans., iv, no. 86.
<1> See CPP, i, 639. '
[3] Ibid., pp. 270-1.
[4] 'On July 13, 1354, the son and heir of Sir John Denniston was
named as one of the hostages for King David II, and on October 3,
1357, "Robert filz et heire a sire Robert de Danyelstone" was
delivered into the custody of Sir Richard Tempest as hostage.'
[William Metcalfe, A History of the County of Renfrew, p. 120,
noting 'Either there is a mistake here,..., for in 1359 the Sir
John just mentioned was still alive.' Metcalfe cites Bain
iii. 288, Foedera iii.281; Bain, iii.434]
[5] Among the witnesses to a charter of Robert III to David Fleming,
dated at Scone, 14 March 1391, we find 'Sir Thomas of Erskine,
Sir Patrick of Graham, and Sir Robert of Danielston, the King's
cousins and knights,..' [Charter Chest of the Earls of Wigtown,
p. 101, no. 847 - 'cf. Reg. Mag. Sig. folio vol. p. 200'].
Further, we find that Sir Robert de Danielston's grandson Sir
Robert Cunyngham is called ' Robert Cunyngham of Kilmaurs....
[one of] our dear cousins ' ["Roberto de Conynghame de
Kylmauris....consanguineis nostris dilectis"], when a witness
[together with Archibald de Conynghame of Auchinbowie, Master John
Stewart, rector of Flisk, and John Lummysden, sheriff of Fife ]
to a charter of his cousin John Stewart, Earl of Buchan and son of
Robert, duke of Albany, granting the lands of Dripps in the barony
of Kincardine to Murdoch Stewart, Duke of Albany by charter
dated at Stirling, 28 Jan 1422/3 [Red Book of
Menteith II:291-2, No. 55]. Sir Robert Cunyngham would be a 2nd
cousin 2x removed to John Stewart, Earl of Buchan according to
the relationship alleged above.
[6] The following are noted with regard to Sir James Douglas of
Dalkeith:
A. recognized by King Robert III of Scots as his kinsman, charter to
Duncan, Earl of Lennox dated Dunfermline, 9 November 1392
[witnessed by ' Archibaldo de Douglas domino Galwydie consanguineo
nostro dilecto, comitibus, Jacobo de Douglas domino de Dalkeith
et Thoma de Erskyne consanguineis nostris dilectis, militibus ',
among others; Lennox pp. 10-11]
B. He was not acknowledged as a kinsman (nor were Robert Stewart,
Earl of Fife and future Duke of Albany, Robert III's own
brother, or his cousins Archibald, Earl of Douglas, or Sir
Thomas Erskine):
' Jac. de Douglas dom. de Dalketht [knight]', witness (together with
Robert, Earl of Fife and Mentieth, Archibald, earl of Douglas and
Galloway, and Sir Thomas Erskine) to charter of King Robert III to
'Ade de Mure de Rowalane militi, et Jonete de Danyelstoune sponse
ejus' of the lands of 'Polnekel, Grey, Drumbuy' & c. in the barony
of Cunyngham, co. Ayr. erected into the free barony of Polkellie
('Polnekel') following their resignation of same, at Dumbarton, 6
Dec 1393 (confirmed by King James II, 3 Dec 1440 - RMS p. 58,
no. 253)
C. He was subsequently acknowledged as cousin:
' [Sir] James Douglas, lord of Dalkeith... our dear cousin '
[ " Jacobo de Douglas domino de Dalketh..... militibus consanguineis
nostris dilectis " ], witness (together with 'our dearest firstborn
' David, duke of Rothesay, earl of Carrick and Athol, Robert, duke of
Albany, earl of Fife and Menteith ' our brother germane ';
Archibald, earl of Douglas and lord of Galloway, James Douglas,
lord of Dalkeith and Thomas Erskine, ' knights [and] our dear
cousins ') to a charter of King Robert III to the Burgh of Ayr,
dated at Irvine, 12 Sept 1400 [Chart. Ayr pp. 25-26, No. 17]
* John P. Ravilious