Complete Peerage Addition: New Wife for Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick (died 1304)

147 views
Skip to first unread message

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 9, 2002, 4:18:16 AM12/9/02
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

While doing research on the Burnell family this past year, I
determined that Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., of
Holgate, co. Salop, had license 19 September 1295 to marry Robert de
Brus, Earl of Carrick, lord of Annandale (died 1304), father of Robert
I de Brus, King of Scotland. I believe the reference for this license
is Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1292-1301 (published 1895), pg. 147.

I had assumed this marriage never took place, as Robert de Brus (died
1304) is known to have later had a wife named Eleanor who survived
him. Eleanor married (2nd) before 8 Feb. 1305/6 Richard le Waleys,
Knt. [Reference: Complete Peerage, 2 (1912): 360 (sub Brus)].
Elsewhere, I found conclusive evidence that Maud Fitz Alan married
before 1316 Simon de Criketot. Maud was living 19 June 1316
[Reference: Descriptive Catalogue of Ancient Deeds, 4 (1902): 85-86].

Surprisingly, I recently located a document which indicates that the
marriage of Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan did take place, although
this marriage doesn't seem to be mentioned in any modern source that
I've consulted, nor is it mentioned in Complete Peerage sub Brus. The
document I located is very short. It reads as follows:

"13 Oct. 1296. Order to give power to someone to receive the
attorneys of Robert de Brus, earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale,
and Maud his wife, in a plea of dower." [Reference: Calendar of
Chancery Warrants preserved in the Public Record Office, A.D.
1244-1326 (1927), pg. 74].

Given the evidence of the license and chancery warrant, it is obvious
that Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick, in fact married Maud Fitz Alan.
However, the marriage clearly must have ended in divorce or annulment,
as Robert de Brus was survived by a wife, Eleanor, while Maud Fitz
Alan married Simon de Criketot.

This new marriage for Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan will be
included in the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry. This
discovery will revise the charts of many millions of people who
descend from these two people.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com

Doug McDonald

unread,
Dec 9, 2002, 4:26:39 PM12/9/02
to

Douglas Richardson wrote:
>
>
> "13 Oct. 1296. Order to give power to someone to receive the
> attorneys of Robert de Brus, earl of Carrick and lord of Annandale,
> and Maud his wife, in a plea of dower." [Reference: Calendar of
> Chancery Warrants preserved in the Public Record Office, A.D.
> 1244-1326 (1927), pg. 74].
>
> Given the evidence of the license and chancery warrant, it is obvious
> that Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick, in fact married Maud Fitz Alan.
> However, the marriage clearly must have ended in divorce or annulment,
> as Robert de Brus was survived by a wife, Eleanor, while Maud Fitz
> Alan married Simon de Criketot.
>
> This new marriage for Robert de Brus and Maud Fitz Alan will be
> included in the forthcoming book, Plantagenet Ancestry. This
> discovery will revise the charts of many millions of people who
> descend from these two people.


But I take it that it won't change the ancestry of anybody,
just cause extra spouses, because they had no children.

Is this the case?

Doug McDonald

malinda

unread,
Dec 10, 2002, 2:00:32 AM12/10/02
to
Do you suppose the surname of "Richard le Waleys, Knt"
mentioned below evolved into Wallis or Wallace ?

~malinda

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 12, 2002, 11:29:17 AM12/12/02
to
Dear Malinda ~

Thank you for your post. You've asked a good question.

The English surname "le Waleys" means "the Welshman." It is similar
in derivation to the surname "le Fraunceys" (later corrupted to
Francis) (meaning "the Frenchman"). I don't know if the surname, le
Waleys, has any connection with the Scottish surname, Wallace. My
children descend from a Scotch-Irish Wallace family, by the way.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com

mthi...@swbell.net ("malinda") wrote in message news:<04f501c2a019$c50682c0$5916bcd0@computer>...

The...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 5:45:49 AM12/13/02
to
Tuesday, 10 December, 2002


Dear Malinda

[glad to see a message coming through the broken gate...]

The derivation of the Scots surname Wallace is held to
have been from an ancestor, probably called le Waleis or le
Waleys, who came to Scotland from Wales or the borders. The
ancestry is murky at best.

The individual (Richard le Waleys) identified by Douglas
could be a relation, but there is no reason to believe so
since anyone of Welsh ancestry in England or Scotland might
have picked up the sobriquet as a surname. Given that the
famed Sir William Wallace had met his loathsome fate in August
1305, only a short time prior to the marriage of Richard le
Waleys and Eleanor (the widow Bruce), and the connections of
the Bruce family at this time to Edward I, we can be certain
there was no close connection between Richard le Waleys and
Sir William.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,

John *


* John P. Ravilious

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 9:09:37 PM12/13/02
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

This past week I posted evidence which showed that Maud Fitz Alan,
widow of Philip Burnell, Knt., married (2nd) in 1295 Robert de Brus,
Earl of Carrick, lord of Annandale. At the time of my post, I was
under the impression that Maud Fitz Alan married Robert de Brus,
Senior (died 1304). However, it now appears that Maud actually
married his son, Robert de Brus, Junior (died 1329), who subsequently
became Robert I, King of Scotland.

Since my first post, I've had the opportunity to consult with Andrew
MacEwen, of Stockton Springs, Maine, the resident expert on all things
Scottish. Andrew pointed out that Robert de Brus, Senior, resigned
the Earldom of Carrick in favor of his son, Robert de Brus, Junior, in
1292. Consequently, the Earl of Carrick in 1295 at the time of Maud's
marriage was Robert de Brus, Junior, not his aging father.

This re-arrangement of the Brus family tree leads to some interesting
developments. Robert de Brus, Junior, is stated to have married first
about 1295 Isabel of Mar, daughter of Donald, Earl of Mar. However,
none of the authorities I've consulted give the source for this
marriage. Instead, it appears that the wife of Robert de Brus,
Junior, in 1295 was Maud Fitz Alan.

Curiously, it appears that the editor of Scots Peerage was aware of
the same Chancery warrant I found in which Robert de Brus' wife is
named Maud. The warrant document is cited in a footnote in Scots
Peerage, vol. 1 (1904), pg. 8. The editor used another publication of
the 1295 warrant, which separate publication is found in Calendar of
Documents Relating to Scotland, 2: 850. For reasons not known to me,
the editor dismissed the importance of the warrant, even though it
clearly shows that Robert de Brus' wife was named Maud, that she was
formerly married to another party, and that she was suing for dower in
lands in England, implying her former husband was English, not
Scottish. Instead, the editor states that Robert de Brus, Junior,
married (1st) Isabella, daughter of Donald, 10th Earl of Mar. He
gives no documentation for this marriage.

Since the wife of Robert de Brus, Junior, in the period about 1295 was
surely the mother of his daughter, Marjorie, later wife of Walter
Stewart, it seems apparent that Maud Fitz Alan could well be
Marjorie's mother and that the wife named Isabella of Mar may be
entirely ficticious.

As such, I would appreciate it very much if anyone can post and cite
the documentation for the marriage of Robert de Brus and Isabella of
Mar. If no documentation exists, then Maud Fitz Alan would seem to be
mother of Robert de Brus' daughter, Marjorie. If correct, then Maud
Fitz Alan would be ancestress of all the later Stewart Kings of
Scotland.

As for evidence of Maud Fitz Alan's parentage and identity, Rev. C.
Moor in his series, Knights of Edward I, vol. 1 (H.S.P., vol. 80)
(1929), pg. 167 shows that on 5 June 1283 "Richard Fitz Alan, Earl of
Arundel, ackowledged a debt of 2,000 marks to Robert [Burnell], Bishop
of Bath and Wells, for the marriage of Philip Burnel, the Bishop's
nephew, which said Richard bought from him for the use of his sister,
Matilda [Maud]." Rev. Moor cites as his source, Calendar of Close
Rolls, which I have not yet checked for this document. Another
indication of Maud's identity is further provided by the papal
dispensation granted in 1337 for her grandson, Thomas de Haudlo, to
marry Joan de Berkeley [Reference: Papal Registers: Letters 2 (1895):
541]. According to the dispensation, Thomas de Haudlo and Joan de
Berkeley were related in the 4th degree of kindred. The nature of
this kinship can be explained as follows: Joan de Berkeley's
great-grandfather, Edmund de Mortimer, was the brother of Maud's
mother, Isabel de Mortimer, wife of John Fitz Alan.

As for the timetable of events, we have the following chronology:

1264 - Philip Burnel born
1267/72 - Maud Fitz Alan born
1274 - Robert de Brus, Junior, born
1283 - Marriage of Philip Burnel is sold to Richard, Earl of Arundel,
for the benefit of his sister, Maud.
1290/5 - Maud Burnell, daughter of Philip and Maud, born
1294 - Death of Philip Burnell
1295 - Marriage of Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick
1296 - Date of warrant showing Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus had
married
c. 1300 - Birth of Marjorie, daughter of Robert de Brus
say 1300/1301 - Divorce of Maud Fitz Alan and Robert de Brus
1302 - Remarriage of Robert de Brus to his 2nd wife, Elizabeth de
Burgh
1306 - Robert de Brus is crowned King of Scotland
before 1315 - Marriage of Maud Burnell (daughter of Philip and Maud)
to her 1st husband, John Lovel
1315 - Marriage of Marjorie de Brus (daughter of Robert de Brus) to
Walter Stewart
before 1316 - Marriage of Maud Fitz Alan to her 3rd husband, Simon de
Criketot
1316 - Maud Fitz Alan, then wife of Simon de Criketot, last known to
be living.
1329 - Death of Robert I, King of Scotland

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com

royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0212...@posting.google.com>...

The...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 9:28:15 AM12/14/02
to
Saturday, 14 December, 2002


Dear Doug,

An extremely interesting find and argument; the SP
passing over of Maud is probably an example of an author or
editor deciding the document contained an error or
aberration.

It is a complicated family situation in 1295, however....

[For simplicity's sake, I will refer to Robert de Brus, the
competitor and Lord of Annandale, as Robert 'I'; his son
Robert, Earl of Carrick dju (d. 1304), as Robert 'II'; and
his son Robert, Earl of Carrick and later King Robert I of
Scots - Robert 'the Bruce' - as Robert 'III'].

The passing of the Lordship of Annandale and the Earldom
of Carrick were not contemporaneous. Robert 'II' became
Lord of Annandale on or before his father's death, 31 March
1295; he was already Earl of Carrick in right of his wife.
As both CP [Vol II, Brus, p. 360] and Barrow [Robert the
Bruce, p. 92] state, on 9 November 1292

'..he [Robert II] resigned the Earldom of Carrick
to his son...'

but this resignation did not include either the Lordship
of Annandale (in Scotland) or the English lands of the
family in Essex and elsewhere.

The problem seems to lie in the Chancery record you
cited, which in 1296 refers to '..Robert de Brus, earl of
Carrick and lord of Annandale...'. Robert 'II' was then
lord of Annandale, but not Earl of Carrick; Robert 'III' was
then Earl of Carrick, but not lord of Annandale. I will be
looking about to see what evidence there is of
the Mar marriage of Robert 'III', esp. as to timing;
however, I believe the Maud FitzAlan marriage was to Robert
'II' (as indicated in your earliest post on the subject) and
not Robert 'III' for two reasons:

1. Robert 'II' was lord of Annandale in 1296, and had
recently been Earl of Carrick; applying both titles
to the man in 1296 in the Chancery record had some
basis, but there was no reason to refer to Robert
'III' in 1296 as lord of Annandale.

2. Evidently Robert 'II' must have had his marriage to
Maud annulled, or one divorced the other, for as you
note his widow was Eleanor. For Robert 'III' to have
married Maud FitzAlan, they would have had to annul
or received a divorce in or before 1302, in which
year Robert 'III' was married to his (presumably
second) wife Elizabeth de Burgh, the mother of a
number of sons (incl. David II of Scots) and
daughters.

Good luck, and good hunting.

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 1:37:07 PM12/14/02
to
Dear John

"Robert 'II' was then lord of Annandale, but not Earl of Carrick; Robert 'III' was then Earl of Carrick, but not lord of Annandale"

I dont see why you suddenly say that your Rbt II, who held Carrick in the right of his wife from 1272, was suddenly not Earl of Carrick in 1296... & I dont see why you think that just because Anandale wasnt part of the Carrick cession to Rbt King of Scots, that he did not cede it at all... I have always seen the two lordships attributed to the latter...

Actually, your system of numbering doesnt simplify things at all, ... let's call them by their sequence in the Roberts of the line... Rbt V the Competitor, Rbt VI of Carrick, & Rbt VII king of Scots...

Rbt V the Competitor was lord of Anandale after his father forfeited the lands for fighting against King David, while his son fought FOR him, saving the family fortunes when David won; according to Pithois, Robt Vwas married 1st to Marjorie de Carrick in 1272 & 2nd to Eléonore who died 1331.

Rbt VII, King of Scots, was Earl of Carrick & Lord of Anandale, & m 1st Isabell de Mar in 1296, 2nd Elizabeth de Burgh in 1302 (I have a painting of the wedding however, dating it 1306)

I think if there is an error somewhere, it's likely to be that Maud was the 1302 marriage, & Elizabeth the 1306 marriage... Im quite convinced of the 1306 marriage date, inscribed on the portrait itself... if there was a marriage in 1302, it was someone else... & I would like to see the mention; it may well have said only that he was married, & folks assumed it was to Elizabeth, since she was the widow, & the first marriage to Isabelle of Mar is widely known & doubtless, proven...

neither Pithois, nor any other source I EVER seen, mentions Maud... & I have seen a lot of books on the subject, as Im sure you have... do you really think Burkes, CP, SP1(Douglas), SP2, SP3... would have known nothing of her, were she indeed proven? none of the other four wives have ever been disproven; why would they have ignored Maud? If there were an anomaly or a divorce, wouldnt that have made her more discussed, & not less?
-----Message d'origine-----
De : The...@aol.com <The...@aol.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : samedi 14 décembre 2002 15:30
Objet : Re: Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick

The...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 2:58:42 PM12/14/02
to
Saturday, 14 December, 2002


Dear Annie,

My numbering 'system' was meant only to distinguish
between Robert 'the Competitor', his son and grandson - it
certainly was not intended for any permanent identification
purpose.

Concerning the marriage date of Robert 'the' Bruce, Earl
of Carrick and future King of Scots, and his (second ?) wife
Elizabeth de Burgh, G.W.S. Barrow wrote:

' 1302 was the year of Bruce's second marriage. Since
his new wife was Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of
Richard de Burgh earl of Ulster, one of King Edward's
staunchest supporters, it is certain that the wedding
must have followed the submission [of Robert to Edward
I, in that year]. ' [1]

Barrow again states the same date later; no reference is
given, so it seems he took this to be 'common knowledge'
requiring no citation [unfortunate for us].

As to the Lordship of Annandale, Barrow also evidently
adhered to the idea that Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick dju
(d. 1304) did not resign this lordship to his son: he wrote,
describing an assault on Carlisle by a Scots army under John
('the Red') Comyn in March 1296,

' Ironically, the commander of Carlisle castle since
October 1295 had been Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale
and previously earl of Carrick, who with his young
son, the future king, adhered to the English side. ' [2]

Barrow is not perfect, but until there is proof to the
contrary I would tend to accept his views on the subject.
Hopefully one outgrowth of the current thread will be the
discovery of a document which clearly identifies the passing
of Annandale between generations (either in 1292, 1304, or
somewhere in between).

Best regards,

John *

NOTES
[1] G.W.S. Barrow, Robert the Bruce and the Community of
the Realm of Scotland (Edinburgh: 2nd ed., 1976), p. 174.

[2] Ibid., p. 99.

* John P. Ravilious

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 5:24:57 PM12/14/02
to

-----Message d'origine-----
De : The...@aol.com <The...@aol.com>
Ŕ : Xan...@wanadoo.fr <Xan...@wanadoo.fr>; GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : samedi 14 décembre 2002 20:58
Objet : Re: Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick


Saturday, 14 December, 2002

G.W.S. Barrow wrote:
' 1302 was the year of Bruce's second marriage. Since
his new wife was Elizabeth de Burgh, daughter of
Richard de Burgh earl of Ulster, one of King Edward's
staunchest supporters, it is certain that the wedding
must have followed the submission [of Robert to Edward
I, in that year]. ' [1]
Well, this sounds like what I was thinking... he's saying on the one hand
that Rbt the Bruce was married in 1302... then he's putting it together with
whom he knew his last wife to be... but in fact, it's to me indiscutable
because of a dated contemporary wedding portrait, that Eliz married in 1306...
& I gather from your statement, that he repeats the date, but nowhere does he
state or prove who it is he's marrying in 1302, & it cant be Elizabeth... he just
didnt know about Maud, so he assumed...
so Maud must be the one married in 1302...

As to the passage of the Annandale title, I'll see if I can find any precision about it; I have no preference but to find the real story... we can be sure at least that it passed by the death of his father, but I seem to recall that his father's illness (was it leprosy?) caused him to give up all his charges a while before his death... he died in 1304... & his son lived on to 1329 or so, so maybe that's where the general identity with both titles happens unless there's a reason to get precise, which in this case, there is...

Alex Maxwell Findlater

unread,
Dec 14, 2002, 6:06:19 PM12/14/02
to
While Robert the elder resigned the earldom of Carrick, which he held
jure uxoris, to his son Robert the younger, confirmed at the
Parliament held at Stirling in August 1293 (APS, i, 449), I was not
aware that he resigned the lordship of Annandale. This presumably
passed to him later on his father&#8217;s death at Lochmaben on Good
Friday 1295. Born in 1243 and widowed before 1292 or 1293, he would
still be a good catch in his late 40s. I understand that these Bruces
also held considerable English estates including Writtle in Essex, to
which Robert the elder retired after the resignation, when he was not
holding Carlisle Castle against the Scots. Robert the younger, on the
other hand was busy in Scotland at this period, although of course
this did not entirely preclude him from visiting England.

So, if this Robert was indeed lord of Annandale, that fact suggests
that it was probably the elder, who thus was titled earl of Carrick
only by courtesy. In fact CP does state that he was called earl of
Carrick after the resignation, but without a reference.

Perhaps this suggestion might square with the received pedigree the
facts that have come to light.

On the other front, I think that perhaps chroniclers may mention
Robert the younger&#8217;s first wife as Isabella the sister of the
earl of Mar. I have no way of checking this, but a possibility is the
contemporary Walter of Guisborough, Guisborough Priory having been
founded by the first Robert Bruce, also the Chronicon de Lanercost,
also contemporary.

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 4:16:17 AM12/15/02
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

I spent time today pawing through various sources to see what I could
learn about the Brus family of Scotland.

Regarding the resignation of the Earldom of Carrick, I find this event
took place on 9 November 1292, when Robert de Brus, Sr. (died 1304),
who previously held the earldom in right of his late wife, Marjorie,
resigned it to his 18 year old son and heir, Robert de Brus, Jr. The
resignation was made in 1292 specifically so that Robert de Brus, Sr.,
could avoid paying homage to John de Baliol, King of Scotland, and
thereby preserving the Brus family's claim to the Scottish throne.
Two days prior to the resignation of the earldom, Robert de Brus,
Sr.'s aged father, another Robert de Brus (nicknamed the Competitor)
resigned his "whole right and claim that we had, or could have had, to
sue for the realm of Scotland" to his son, Robert de Brus, Sr.
[Reference: E.L.G. Stones, Anglo-Scottish Relations, 1174-1328, pp.
116-117. The editor notes the charter conveying Robert the
Competitor's rights to his son is "scarcely noticed by Scottish
historians"].

Thus, at this point (1292), Robert de Brus, Sr. held no estates in
Scotland, as Annandale was still held by his father, Robert the
Competitor, and the Earldom of Carrick was held by his son, Robert,
Jr. Rather, all Robert, Sr. held was the right and claim his father
gave him to "sue for the realm." Although there are no records to
suggest this happened, it is possible that Robert the Competitor
conveyed Annandale to his grandson, Robert de Brus, Jr., at the same
time the grandson received the Earldom. If so, it would explain why
the grandson was later styled Lord of Annandale in his grandfather's
lifetime.

The following year, 1293, Robert de Brus, Jr., was confirmed in his
mother's earldom of Carrick at the Scottish Parliament held in August
1293 [Reference: G. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of the
Realm of Scotland, 2nd ed., 1976, pg. 93, citing Acts of Parliament of
Scotland, ed. by T. Thomson and C. Innes, vol. 1 (1814), pg. 449].

On 19 September 1293, license was granted by the English king for
Maud, late the wife of Philip Burnel, tenant in chief, to marry
"Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale" [Reference: Calendar of Patent
Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895), pg. 147]. Robert de Brus the Competitor was
still living at this time. He is thought by most authorities to have
been "lord of Annandale" until his death. However, he can't possibly
be the man who married Maud Burnel, for the records show he married
his 2nd wife, Christian d'Ireby, before 1275, which wife survived him
in 1295. If Robert de Brus the Competitor was not lord of Annandale
in 1293, then it seems likely that Annandale passed to his grandson,
Robert de Brus, Jr., in 1292, along with the Earldom of Carrick.

In early 1295, Robert de Brus the Competitor, the senior male
representative of the family, died. His son and heir, Robert de
Brus, Sr., was subsequently summoned to English Parliament from 24
June 1295 to 26 Aug. 1296, by writs directed Roberto de Brus, whereby
he is held to have become Lord Brus. He is not styled "lord of
Annandale" in either military or Parliamentary summons in England in
this period, nor is he styled Earl of Carrick. In 1296, both Robert,
Sr., styled "le veil" (the old) and his son, Robert, Jr., styled "le
jeouene" (the young) swore fealty to King Edward I of England.

On 13 Oct. 1296 a warrant was issued to "give power to someone to
receive the attorneys of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick and lord of
Annandale, and Maud his wife, in a plea of dower." The editor of
Scots Peerage sub Kings of Scotland (vol. 1) and also sub Mar
identifies this warrant as applying to Robert de Brus, Jr., who was
later King of Scotland. However, the editor puzzled over the name of
his wife, Maud, as traditional accounts state his wife was named
Isabel of Mar.

Robert de Brus, Jr., is known to have had a daughter, Margery (or
Marjorie), by an earlier marriage. Geoffrey Barrow supposes that
Margery was born about 1295/6, saying she "would have been about ten
or eleven years old in 1306." [Reference: G. Barrow, Robert Bruce and
the Community of the Realm of Scotland, 2nd ed., 1976, pg. 411]. If
Barrow has correctly estimated Margery's birth, he places her birth
right in the time frame (1295/6) that Robert de Brus, Jr., is known to
have been married to Maud Fitz Alan, widow of Philip Burnell. Every
source I checked, however, overlooked the 1295 marriage license of
Robert and Maud, and only one source (Scots Peerage) mentioned the
warrant allowing Robert and Maud to sue for her dower in 1296. In
fact, no author mentioned anything about Maud Fitz Alan whatsoever.

Interestingly, Robert de Brus' daughter, Margery, first appears in the
records in July 1297, when it was suggested by the English that she be
used as a hostage [Reference: Barrow, ibid., pg. 120, footnote 1; 200,
footnote 2]. Barrow cites as his source for this information the
following work: Documents Illustrative of the History of Scotland
(1870) by F. Palgrave, ed., pp. 197-200.

Margery de Brus was in fact eventually taken to England as a hostage,
as I find that she was in the king's custody at York in 1307 [see
Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1301-1307, published 1898, pg. 503]. This
record also seems to have been overlooked by everyone I consulted.
Margery de Brus subsequently married in 1315 to Walter Stewart, which
date agrees well with Geoffrey Barrow's estimated birthdate of c.
1295/6 for Margery.

None of the sources I consulted gave any evidence, documentation, or
source for the traditional statement that Robert de Brus married (1st)
Isabel of Mar. The closest thing I found for any supporting citation
for Isabel of Mar's existence was in the book, Robert the Bruce King
of Scotland, by R.M. Scott (1982), pg. 34. Scott mentions the first
marriage of Robert de Brus and Isabel of Mar, and he gives as his
source a book published in 1906, namely Scottish Kings: a Revised
Chronology of Scottish History, by A.H. Dunbar. Since 1906 is way
past the events in question, I suspect there is no contemporary
evidence whatsoever of Isabel of Mar's existence.

As for later references to Maud (Fitz Alan) Burnell in English
records, I found a couple of references to her dower lands in the
period following 1296, but the records don't indicated where Maud was
living or the name of her current husband. As such, it is unclear
what happened to Maud after 1296, until she re-surfaces in 1316, as
the wife of Simon de Criketot.

Given that Robert de Brus is known by contemporary evidence to have
married in 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, and given the fact that Barrow
places the birth of Robert's daughter, Marjorie, in the following year
when Robert and Maud are known to have still been married, I conclude
Maud Fitz Alan is Marjorie de Brus' mother. If so, this would make
Maud Fitz Alan the direct ancestress of the later Stewart Kings of
Scotland. I likewise conclude that the marriage of Robert de Brus and
Maud Fitz Alan ended in divorce sometime in the period, 1296/1302.

Comments are invited.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com

royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.02121...@posting.google.com>...

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 6:03:19 AM12/15/02
to
Thanks for this!
-----Message d'origine-----
De : Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : dimanche 15 décembre 2002 10:30
Objet : Re: Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick

Kevan

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 6:58:46 AM12/15/02
to
Doug,

What an interesting thread! Thank you for sharing the data, the find, and
lending your conclusions with the trust of the folks on SGM.

As always, stunned by the amount of data you put forward.

Cheers,
Kevan

brad verity

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 7:07:46 AM12/15/02
to
>From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)

>Given that Robert de Brus is known by contemporary evidence to have
>married in 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, and given the fact that Barrow
>places the birth of Robert's daughter, Marjorie, in the following year
>when Robert and Maud are known to have still been married, I conclude
>Maud Fitz Alan is Marjorie de Brus' mother. If so, this would make
>Maud Fitz Alan the direct ancestress of the later Stewart Kings of
>Scotland. I likewise conclude that the marriage of Robert de Brus and
>Maud Fitz Alan ended in divorce sometime in the period, 1296/1302.
>
>Comments are invited.

My guess would be a record of the divorce or annulment would exist, if it
occured. As both Robert de Bruses, father and son, married within the
lifetime of Maud Fitz Alan, no matter which one was married to her, the
proper ecclesiastical procedure would have to had occured before a
remarriage. I'm not sure how or where Scottish Papal correspondence and
documents are housed for this period, but that would be the first place to
search once their location is determined. As Maud was English, it could
have been covered in those ecclesiastical courts as well.

Cheers, -------Brad

_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 7:33:22 AM12/15/02
to
you doubtless have more refs onhand (& the Mormon library nearby) so Im sure we all appreciate your sharing them with us.
... on the other hand, if there were a divorce, wouldnt there have to be a considerable bit of documentation about it?

Isabelle de Mar is given as first wife in every work I've seen, & while it'll take a while to find the original sources, Id find it hard to just dismiss her on the theory that the Brus should have married only 2, & not 3 times... also, her high birth is much more likely for a first marriage to a pretender to the throne, & I dont think you can just change Marjorie's attribution like that... Marjorie might well be born after a divorce also... I think there was probably documentation used in the original attribution to Isabelle de Mar, & it should be sought... dont go haywire on us, after this great resolution-finding...

Perhaps someone can find access to one of these? Pithois is far from infallible, cites Isabelle of Mar as 1st wife... but he has a great bibliography, with more promising sources cited, for further verification if available ... now, while it quite possible that he just put all that in for decoration, & never read a whit of it, I'd doubt it... & if there was the slightest evidence that Isabelle de Mar had never existed nor married the Bruce, I think he'd have pounced upon the chance to make a name for himself, by proving it... but he cites her, so I would think these (extract of the many more) sources abound in the sense of her existance... I find reassuring a number of calandars of documents & oldish manuscripts from an epoch where more documents were no doubt available... can anyone check these?

Cummin-Bruce (Marie-Elizabeth) Family Records of the Bruces & Comyns (Edimburgh, 1870)
armstrong (Wm Bruce) Collectanea Bruceana (mS, 1898)
Brown Morison, Genealogical Notes anent some Ancient Scottish Families
Crawford, History of the Bruces (mS 1744)
Cokayne's, Debretts', Douglas', Burkes, CP, & CB, etc
Records of the monastery of Kinloss, (Ed. J. Stuart, Edinburgh 1872)

Anderson (Alan) Early sources of scottish History (Edinburgh, 1972)
Bain (J.) Calendar of Documents relating to scotland (Edinburgh, (1881)
Barrow (GWS) Les families normandes d'Ecosse (Annales de Nomandie, Déc. 1965)
Barrow (G.W.S.) The Anglo-Normand Era in Scottish History [Clarendon. Oxford, 1980]
Black (G.F.) The surnames of Scotland [New.York. 1946]
The Chronicle of Melrose (Ed. Anderson. London,1936]
Chronicon de Lanercost, [Maitland Club,1839]
Fraser (William). The Annandale Family Book [1894]
Kerr (R.) History of Scotland
Lawrie (A.C.) Early Scottish Charters (1905)
Rait (Robert) History of Scotland (London, 1914)
Reid (R.C.) Transactions of Dumfrieshire and Galloway Natural History (l 862)
Ritchie (Graeme) The Normans in Scotland (Edinburgh, 1954)

Barbour (John) The Bruce, or the Book of the most excellent
& noble prince Robert de Broyss, king of Scots (Ed. W.M. Mackenzie, London, 19O9)
Barron (E.M.) The scottish war of Independence [Carrthers, 1934]
Barrow (G.W.S.) Robert Bruce (University of Califomia Press, 1951)
Bryce (Thos H.) The skull of King Robert the Bruce [<<in Scot. Hist. Review»]

Addington (A C)The royal house of Stuart, the descendants of King James V of Scotland (1974)
Coway (samuel) The Royal House of Stuart [London. 19081
Dianous (Jean-Charles de) A la recherche des ascendants et des descendants français de Marie Stuart [Bull. de l'Ass. Franco-Eccossaise]
Sinclair (Alexander) Geneological descent of the royal line of Bruce (Edinburgh, 1860]
Surenne (Gabriel) : Prospectus of the royal scottish house of Bruce (Edinburgh, 1860]
Weeks (Lyman Horace) : The Book of Bruce: ancestors & descendants of King Rbt of Scotland (New York, 1907)

Given that Robert de Brus is known by contemporary evidence to have
married in 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, and given the fact that Barrow
places the birth of Robert's daughter, Marjorie, in the following year
when Robert and Maud are known to have still been married, I conclude
Maud Fitz Alan is Marjorie de Brus' mother. If so, this would make
Maud Fitz Alan the direct ancestress of the later Stewart Kings of
Scotland. I likewise conclude that the marriage of Robert de Brus and
Maud Fitz Alan ended in divorce sometime in the period, 1296/1302.

Comments are invited.

> Fitz Alan would be ancestress of all the later Stewart Kings of
> Scotland.
>

B.M. Kamp

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 8:44:00 AM12/15/02
to
Douglas Richardson wrote in his extremely interesting posting on
Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick:

> snip


>
>
> Given that Robert de Brus is known by contemporary evidence to have
> married in 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, and given the fact that Barrow
> places the birth of Robert's daughter, Marjorie, in the following year
> when Robert and Maud are known to have still been married, I conclude
> Maud Fitz Alan is Marjorie de Brus' mother. If so, this would make
> Maud Fitz Alan the direct ancestress of the later Stewart Kings of
> Scotland. I likewise conclude that the marriage of Robert de Brus and
> Maud Fitz Alan ended in divorce sometime in the period, 1296/1302.
>
> Comments are invited.
>

As regards the divorce it is intersting to note that Robert de Brus and
Maud Fitz Allan were third cousins, both being descended of Wiliam
Marshal; Robert through Isabel Marshal x Gilbert de Clare (their
daughter Isabel being Robert's grandmother) and Maud through Eva
Marshal x William de Braose (their daughter Maud being the mother of
Isabel Mortemer and grandmother of Maud Fitz Allan). For the
marriage of Robert and Maud a dispensartion should have been
necessary as they were related in the fourth degree. If the dispensation
was not asked for or not granted Robert de Brus had a perfect reason
for a divorce.

Regards to all,

Bert M. Kamp

ADRIANC...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 8:44:38 AM12/15/02
to

> >From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)

>
> >Given that Robert de Brus is known by contemporary evidence to have
> >married in 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, and given the fact that Barrow
> >places the birth of Robert's daughter, Marjorie, in the following year
> >when Robert and Maud are known to have still been married, I conclude
> >Maud Fitz Alan is Marjorie de Brus' mother. If so, this would make
> >Maud Fitz Alan the direct ancestress of the later Stewart Kings of
> >Scotland. I likewise conclude that the marriage of Robert de Brus and
> >Maud Fitz Alan ended in divorce sometime in the period, 1296/1302.
> >
> >Comments are invited.
>


CP Vol II p 434 states that Maud (sister of Richard Fitz Alan and wife of Sir
Philip Burnell) was living October 1298. Unfortunately CP does not give a
source, but if it could be found it may perhaps indicate if she had
remarried.

Adrian

Tim Powys-Lybbe

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 9:52:43 AM12/15/02
to
In message <F36eBp7rZeBYC...@hotmail.com>
"brad verity" <bat...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >From: royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson)
>
> >Given that Robert de Brus is known by contemporary evidence to have
> >married in 1295 to Maud Fitz Alan, and given the fact that Barrow
> >places the birth of Robert's daughter, Marjorie, in the following year
> >when Robert and Maud are known to have still been married, I conclude
> >Maud Fitz Alan is Marjorie de Brus' mother. If so, this would make
> >Maud Fitz Alan the direct ancestress of the later Stewart Kings of
> >Scotland. I likewise conclude that the marriage of Robert de Brus and
> >Maud Fitz Alan ended in divorce sometime in the period, 1296/1302.
> >
> >Comments are invited.
>
> My guess would be a record of the divorce or annulment would exist, if it
> occured. As both Robert de Bruses, father and son, married within the
> lifetime of Maud Fitz Alan, no matter which one was married to her, the
> proper ecclesiastical procedure would have to had occured before a
> remarriage. I'm not sure how or where Scottish Papal correspondence and
> documents are housed for this period, but that would be the first place to
> search once their location is determined. As Maud was English, it could
> have been covered in those ecclesiastical courts as well.
>
> Cheers, -------Brad

The thought then surfaces that, if there had been a divorce, the
children of it might have been declared illegitimate. If this had
happened, would Marjorie have been the line for the Scottish throne?

--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a patchwork of bygones: http://powys.org

The...@aol.com

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 9:56:21 AM12/15/02
to
Sunday, 15 December, 2002


Dear Douglas, Bert, Annie, Kevan, Adrian, Brad, et al.,

One of the more intriguing threads of the year; should
this result in the identification of Maud FitzAlan as the
mother of Marjorie Bruce (and ancestress of the Stewart
Kings of Scots) it will certainly rank as one of the major
discoveries of 2002 (in re: medieval genealogy at least).

Two things to add to the mix:

1. Marjory Bruce (or de Brus) was captured at Tain
together with John de Strathbogie, Earl of Athol,
Queen Elizabeth (de Burgh) Bruce and others in
September or early October 1306, following which
she and the others were delivered by William, Earl
of Ross to English justice [1]. She was at first
condemned to be caged at the Tower of London much as
Mary Bruce (her aunt) and the Countess of Buchan were
elsewhere; according to Barrow,

' For some unrecorded reason Edward revoked this
horrifying piece of savagery, and Marjorie Bruce
was sent to the Yorkshire Gilbertine nunnery at
Watton. ' [2]

Watton was known as a good location for the nobility
to have their clerical relations housed, vs. others.
It would be interesting to know, concerning this
priory, if there was a high-placed member of the
FitzAlan, Mortimer or other families closely related
to Maud FitzAlan in 'control' at Watton at this time.

2. Marjorie Bruce remained a captive until October 1314,
when she, Queen Elizabeth her stepmother, Mary Bruce
and others were exchanged for Humphrey de Bohun,
Earl of Hereford and Essex (ex. March 1322/3) who
had been captured following the Battle of Bannock-
burn [3].

Marjorie soon thereafter (sometime after 27 April 1315)
was married to Walter, Steward (Stewart) of Scotland, but
survived only long enough to die in childbirth [or
immediately before childbirth according to the story of
Robert II's birth] on 2 March 1315/6 [4].

It may be, if the FitzAlan connection is valid, that this
connection was readily forgotten due to the relative
unimportance of Marjorie in the scheme of the Scottish
succession. A Scots Parliament was held at Ayr in April
1315, at which the royal succession was fixed on (1) the
legitimate male issue of King Robert, then on (2) his
brother Edward and his legitimate issue, followed only then
by (3) Marjorie and her descendants [5]. Edward was killed
in Ireland in 1316, but Robert had two sons by Queen
Elizabeth (de Burgh), John who died young, and David (b. 5
March 1323/4), so that there was no failure of the
legitimate male Bruce line until David II's death in 1371.
Robert the Stewart (then King Robert II) was then aged 55,
with his sons providing much of the energy needed by the
monarchy. His descent from Robert the Bruce, his
grandfather, was the important factor, with the identity of
the mother of Marjorie Bruce of little or no consequence in
view of the issues of the day.

Good luck, and good hunting to all.

John *


* John P. Ravilious



NOTES

[1] G.W.S. Barrow, Robert Bruce and the Community of
the Realm of Scotland (Edinburgh: 2nd ed., 1976), p. 228.

[2] Ibid., p. 231. Barrow cites the Chronicle of Walter
of Guisborough, p. 369; and Calendar of Scottish
Documents, ii, No. 1910.

[3] Ibid., p. 330.

[4] Ibid., p. 412; see also the account of the Stewart
Kings in Scots Peerage.

[5] Ibid., pp. 411-2.

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 11:58:41 AM12/15/02
to
Adrian Channing wrote:
"CP Vol II p 434 states that Maud (sister of Richard Fitz Alan and wife of Sir
Philip Burnell) was living October 1298. Unfortunately CP does not give a
source, but if it could be found it may perhaps indicate if she had
remarried."

Perhaps you didnt notice Doug Richardson's mention of her later marriage to Criketot:

"As for later references to Maud (Fitz Alan) Burnell in English
records, I found a couple of references to her dower lands in the
period following 1296, but the records don't indicated where Maud was
living or the name of her current husband. As such, it is unclear
what happened to Maud after 1296, until she re-surfaces in 1316, as
the wife of Simon de Criketot."

You might ask Doug for the refs he found...
-----Message d'origine-----
De : ADRIANC...@aol.com <ADRIANC...@aol.com>
À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : dimanche 15 décembre 2002 14:46
Objet : Re: Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick

Janet

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 12:49:41 PM12/15/02
to
In the Medieval archives this what I found.

'Sir' Robert de Bruce's. First was 'Sir' Robert de Bruce, Lord of Annandale
who married Isabel of Huntingdon and died @ 1245.

They had a son, 'Sir' Robert de Bruce, Lord of Annandale, born @ 1210,
married Isabel de Clare @ 1240, died @ 1294.

They had a son, 'Sir Robert de Bruce, Lord of Annandale, born 1253, married
Margaret of Carrick @ 1271, died @ 1304

They had a son, Robert I, King of Scotland, born @1274, married Isabel of
Mar @1296 and married second Elizabeth de Burgh @ 1302, died 1329. He ruled
from 1306 to 1329. They had at least five children: Marjorie (by first wife)
and David II, King of Scotland


ROBERT DE BRUS 'the Noble' of Annandale, eldest son of William and
Christina. Married ISABEL (died circa 1251), second daughter of David, Earl
of Huntingdon, who was son of Prince Henry, Earl of Huntingdon, son and heir
of David I, King of Scots. Robert died in 1245. He and Isabel were buried at
Saltre Abbey, near Stilton, Essex
Robert `the Noble' d. 1245, m. Isabella of Huntingdon d. 1252 (NS), through
whom King Robert Bruce's right to the throne derived. Their son Robert d.
1294 was the original Bruce competitor for the throne, grandfather of the
king. David Earl of Huntington was born about 1144. He died on 17 Jun 1219
in Yardley, Northants, England and is Buried at Sawtrey Abbey,
Huntingdonshire. . He was married to Matilda "de KEVELIOC" of Chester on 26
Aug 1190. Matilda "de KEVELIOC" of Chester was born in 1171. She died on 6
Jan 1233. Matilda as 'de Kevelioc' -her father was called that because he
was born in Cyfeiliog (sp?) in Wales, so it is not a 'proper' surname.
(Robert I, the Bruce (died 1329) , succeeded John Balliol after years of
struggle; married (1) Isabella daughter of Donald, 10th Earl of Mar, by whom
he had a daughter Marjorie who married Walter the High Steward, killed by a
fall 1316 leaving an only son Robert Stewart who became Robert II. Robert
the Bruce married (2) Elizabeth, daughter of Richard de Burgh, Earl of
Ulster, by whom he had sons David II and John (d.y.) and daughters (1)
Mathilda married Thomas Isaac and had two daughters Catherine d.s.p., and
Joanna married John, Lord of Lorn; and (2) Margaret married William, 4th
Earl of Sutherland, and had two sons, John, d.v.p. and William, 5th Earl"
[PLM: either Sheppard has the Earls of Sutherland confused, or the previous
sources mentioned in this forum do?]

ROBERT DE BRUS of Annandale, "the Competitor," son of Robert and Isabel.
Born in 1210. When King Alexander III of Scotland was childless, he declared
Robert the heir-presumptive to the Scottish crown. Based on this earlier
declaration, Robert pressed a claim to the throne. However, the crown ended
up going to his kinsman, John Baliol, so on 5 Nov. 1292 Robert resigned his
claim to the throne to his son Robert, Earl of Carrick. He was dead by 3 May
1294. His first wife, whom he had married in May 1240 was ISOBEL (born 1226,
still living 1264 but could died short time later), second daughter of
Gilbert de Clare, 1st. Earl of Gloucester and Hertford. Isabella died in
1251. Weir gives buried at Saltre Abbey, Gloucestershire. Daughter of
Gilbert de CLARE 1st Earl of Gloucester was born about 1180. He died on 25
Oct 1230 in Penros, Brittany. He was married to Isabella MARSHAL on 9 Oct
1217 in Tewkesbury Abbey, Gloucester. Isabel de Clare, m. Robert de Bruce,
lord of Annandale, competitor for the Scottish crown (d. 1294), son of
Robert de Bruce and Isabel of Huntingdon. Robert the BRUCE 6th Lord of
Annandale was born in 1210. He died before 3 May 1294. He was married to
Isabel de CLARE.

Isabel de CLARE was born on 8 Nov 1226. She died after 1294. Robert "The
Noble" de BRUS 5th Lord of Annandale died in 1245. He was married to
Isabella. Isabella died in 1251. Father Gilbert de CLARE 1st Earl of
Gloucester was born about 1180. He died on 25 Oct 1230 in Penros, Brittany.
He was married to Isabella MARSHAL on 9 Oct 1214 in Tewkesbury Abbey,
Gloucester. Gilbert wife Isabella MARSHAL was born on 9 Oct 1200 in Pembroke
Castle, Wales. She died on 17 Jan 1240 in Berkhamsted Castle, Hertfordshire.
She was buried in Beaulieu Abbey, Hampshire, England. He is often given the
soubriquet 'the Competitor' and was designated heir to King Alexander II
between 1237 (when the king's cousin John le Scot died) and 1241 (birth of
the future Alexander III).

SIR ROBERT DE BRUS, Lord of Annandale, son and heir by 1st wife, born July
1243.) He did homage and had livery of his father's lands, July 1295. Having
married, 1stly, in 1271, Margery, suo iure COUNTESS OF CARRICK [SCT], he was
summoned cum equis et armis from 6 April 1282 to I7 August I291, and to
attend the King at Shrewsbury, 28 June 1283, by writs directed Roberto de
Brus comiti de Carrik'. After his 1st wife's death, he resigned the Earldom
of Carrick to his son, and they, as Robert de Brus le veil, and Robert de
Brus le jeouene, Earl of Carrick, swore fealty to Edward I, 28 August 1296.
He was summoned cum equis et armis from 15 May 1297 to 12 March 1300/1, and
to Parliament from 24 June 1295 to 26 August 1296, and to attend the King at
Salisbury 26 January 1296/7), by writs directed Roberto de Brus (only), by
which summonses to Parliament he is held to have become LORD BRUS. He
married, 2ndly, Alianore. He died shortly before 4 April 1304, age 60, and
was buried in the Abbey of Holm Cultram. His widow married, without license,
between 2 December 1304. and 8 February 1305/6, Sir Richard LE WALEYS, of
Burgh Wallis, co. York [LORD WALEYS]. She died between 13 April and 8
September 1331. [CP 2:360, 14:151]. Robert de Bruce, lord of Annandale and
Earl of Carrick de jure uxoris (d. before 4 Apr 1304), m. Marjorie of
Carrick, countess of Carrick suo jure, daughter of Nigel or Neil, Earl of
Carrick. 2. Robert the BRUCE Earl of Carrick was born in 1240. He died
before 4 Apr 1304 in England. He was married to Marjorie of Carrick Countess
of Carrick in 1271 in Turnberry Castle. Marjorie of Carrick Countess of
Carrick died before 1292.
ROBERT BRUCE of Annandale, Lord Bruce, Earl of Carrick, eldest son of Robert
and Isobel. He married, as his first wife but as her second husband,
MARJORIE, eldest daughter and heiress of NEIL or Nigel, Earl of Carrick, and
so became Earl of Carrick in right of his wife. Neil 2nd Earl of Carrick. He
was married to Margaret STEWART. The Countess Marjorie died in 1292, while
he died shortly before 4 April 1304 in England


ROBERT BRUCE of Annandale, Baron Bruce, Earl of Carrick, son of Robert and
Marjorie. He was born 11 July 1274, was crowned King of Scots at Scone 27
March 1306, and died 7 June 1329. Robert I "the Bruce" King of Scotland m'd
Isabel of Mar born: abt 1278 in Castle Kildrummy, Aberdeenshire, Scotland
died: abt 1320. Isabel's Father: Donald Mar and mother: Helen, Princess of
North Wales. Robert I "the Bruce" King of Scotland's His Father was: Robert
de Brus of Annandale and his mother: Margaret of Carrick Margaret's Father:
Nigel, Earl of Carrick and Mother: Margaret Stewart. The Bruce who married
Isobel of Mar, who died after having their child Marjory? He then married
Elizabeth de Burgh, who was supposedly a loving mother for Marjory. They had
David, Margaret, Matilda and John

This list of some to the sources that were mention in Medieval Archives.

THE BOOK OF BRUCE Ancestors and Descendants of King Robert of Scotland by
Lyman Horace Weeks Published by The Americana Society, New York, 1907

A Genealogical and Heraldic History of the Commoners of Great Britian and
Ireland. Vol 1 Pages 493-495.

ROBERT THE BRUCE, KING OF SCOTS by Ronald McNair Scott.

http://www.baronage.co.uk/bphtm-03/bruce-01.html


THE GREAT HISTORIC FAMILIES OF SCOTLAND By Taylor, James. The Great
Historic Families of Scotland . London: J.S Virtue & Co., 1889.

Weis/Sheppard/Faris' ANCESTRAL ROOTS (7th. ed.) include part of it--that
source is pretty easily accessible. And in volume II of Sir James Balfour
Paul's SCOTS PEERAGE, pp.428-435.

With so many Roberts you need chart just for them.


Does this help?
Janet


----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>

Janet

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 1:55:45 PM12/15/02
to
I found this and now I am wondering

THE GREAT HISTORIC FAMILIES OF SCOTLAND By Taylor, James. The Great
Historic Families of Scotland . London: J.S Virtue & Co., 1889

page 7

The first martyr of Mar whose name has come down to our day in a written
document was Martachus, who in 1065 was witness to a charter of Malcolm
Canmore in favor of the Culdees of Lochleven. His son, Gratnach, who about
fifty years later witnessed the foundation charter of the monastery of Scone
by Alexander I., appears to have been the first of the great hereditary
rulers of Mar who bore the title of earl. From this period downward the
heads of the house of Mar filled a most influential position at the Court
and in the national councils; they held the highest offices in the royal
household, and took a prominent part in most of the great events in the
history of the country. They were connected by a double marriage with the
illustrious line of Bruce; the restorer of Scottish independence having
taken to wife a daughter of David, sixth Earl of Mar, while Gratney, seventh
earl, married Christiana, sister of King Robert, and received as part of her
dowry the strong castle of Kildrummie, in Aberdeenshire, which was long the
chief seat of the family. His son Donald, eighth earl, was taken prisoner in
1306, at the battle of Methven, in which his royal uncle was defeated, and
did not regain his liberty till after the crowning victory of Bannockburn.
On the death of Randolph, the famous Earl of Moray, Earl Donald was chosen
Regent in his stead, August 2nd, 1332. But only two days thereafter he was
killed, at the battle of Dupplin, in which the Scots were surprised and
defeated with great slaughter by the 'Disinherited Barons.'


Janet

----- Original Message -----
From: "Douglas Richardson" <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Sunday, December 15, 2002 3:16 AM

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 2:25:59 PM12/15/02
to
Dear Brad ~

Thank you for your good post.

Andrew MacEwen, the resident expert on all things Scottish, informs me
that the early Scottish divorce records have all perished. None have
survived. A Scottish divorce is known in records if one of the
parties later appealed to Rome. In that case, the record of the
appeal can be found in the Vatican records, not Scottish records. The
original divorce proceedings at the local ecclesiasical level have
long since been destroyed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com

atr...@hotmail.com ("brad verity") wrote in message news:<F36eBp7rZeBYC...@hotmail.com>...

Brad Verity

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 3:22:10 PM12/15/02
to
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:


> One of the more intriguing threads of the year; should
> this result in the identification of Maud FitzAlan as the
> mother of Marjorie Bruce (and ancestress of the Stewart
> Kings of Scots) it will certainly rank as one of the major
> discoveries of 2002 (in re: medieval genealogy at least).
>
> Two things to add to the mix:
>
> 1. Marjory Bruce (or de Brus) was captured at Tain
> together with John de Strathbogie, Earl of Athol,
> Queen Elizabeth (de Burgh) Bruce and others in
> September or early October 1306, following which
> she and the others were delivered by William, Earl
> of Ross to English justice [1]. She was at first
> condemned to be caged at the Tower of London much as
> Mary Bruce (her aunt) and the Countess of Buchan were
> elsewhere; according to Barrow,
>
> ' For some unrecorded reason Edward revoked this
> horrifying piece of savagery, and Marjorie Bruce
> was sent to the Yorkshire Gilbertine nunnery at
> Watton. ' [2]

Probably because it would indeed have been a horrifying piece of
savagery and cooler heads prevailed. Though, I remember reading in
one source that Elizabeth (de Burgh) de Bruce was never a candidate
for the cage treatment in Edward I's eyes because she was the daughter
of the Earl of Ulster. Pro-English attitudes have been ascribed to
her - she's been reported to have remarked at her husband's coronation
at Scone in March 1306 that he'll be king for a summer.

If Marjorie's mother was Maud (presumably alive in 1306, according to
Douglas's timeline), that may be the reason the girl was spared.
Though why she was ever considered for it in the first place, if the
cousin of young Edmund, Earl of Arundel, who'd been knighted with
Edward, Prince of Wales, the previous May and served on the Scottish
campaign that captured Bruce's relatives, needs to be examined.

> Watton was known as a good location for the nobility
> to have their clerical relations housed, vs. others.
> It would be interesting to know, concerning this
> priory, if there was a high-placed member of the
> FitzAlan, Mortimer or other families closely related
> to Maud FitzAlan in 'control' at Watton at this time.

Watton was a branch of the Gilbertine order whose main priory was
Sempringham in Lincolnshire, founded in the 12th Century by St.
Gilbert himself, the only English-born cleric to start an order of
friars. The members wore white robes and was rather revolutionary in
accepting both men and women.

For further details on Sempringham, see:

http://homepages.which.net/~rex/bourne/sempringham.htm

The Gilbertines were well supported by the Three Edwards, and
Sempringham and Watton were the priories where female relations of
rebels came to be placed. Gwenllian, daughter of Llewellyn, the last
native Prince of Wales, was placed at Sempringham by Edward I,
Margaret de Clare was sent there by Edward II after the rebellion of
her second husband Hugh d'Audley, Joan Mortimer, daughter of the
escaped prisoner Roger Mortimer of Wigmore (future lover to Queen
Isabella), joined them there in 1324, and Queen Isabella sent two of
the daughters of Hugh Despenser the younger to the Gilbertine houses
in 1326, Sempringham getting Eleanor Despenser and Watton getting
Margaret Despenser.

Marjorie de Bruce being sent to Watton follows this pattern.

The Victoria County History volume of Lincolnshire has an article on
Sempringham and lists its Priors. I don't know if Watton has been
covered in the published VCH volumes on Yorkshire.

Hope some of this helps.

Cheers, -------Brad

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 3:37:45 PM12/15/02
to
Dear Newsgroup ~

I just had a long discussion with Andrew MacEwen, of Maine, the
resident expert on all things Scottish. Andrew indicated he had a
copy of the book, Scottish Kings: a Revised Chronology of Scottish
History, by A.H. Dunbar, published in 1906, which source I mentioned
in passing in my previous post. He said Dunbar is quite good, as he
usually lists his sources for his statements.

Regarding the marriage of Robert de Brus and Isabel of Mar, which
Dunbar dates as having taken place c. 1295, he (Dunbar) gives several
sources. One is Fordun, a 14th Century chronicler. The other is a
chronicle found in the book, Book of Pluscarden, edited by Felix J.H.
Skene, published in two volumes in 1877 and 1880.

Fortunately, Andrew MacEwen had a copy of the Book of Pluscarden.
Volume 1 contains the Latin text of a 14th century chronicle which
Andrew did not identify. On page 128, it states in Latin that Robert
de Brus married (1st) Isabel, daughter of the Earl of Mar, by whom he
had a daughter, Marjorie. No mention is made of Robert de Brus'
marriage to Maud Fitz Alan. Robert de Brus is also stated to have
married (2nd) Elizabeth de Burgh.

Andrew imagines that similar statements will be found in Fordun, who
dates from the same time period. Whether these chroniclers both used
the same source as their authority for Robert de Brus' marriage to
Isabel of Mar is not known at this time.

Regardless, Andrew gives weight to the statement that Robert de Brus
married Isabel of Mar, as the chronicler notes that Robert de Brus'
sister, Christian, was married Isabel's brother, Gratney of Mar. This
would be a double alliance between the two families, which alliances
were quite common in this period. As a general rule, such alliances
were created when the children to be married were quite young. As
such, Robert de Brus could well have been married to Isabel of Mar
when he was 14 (c. 1288), not c. 1295 as usually thought was the case.

I asked Andrew if he accepted the chroniclers' accounts as being
reliable. He said they made some mistakes, but, on the whole, they
are thought to be trustworthy. Andrew felt the double alliance made
sense, as this was a common practice in the period.

Regarding Margery de Brus' birthdate of c. 1295/1296 (as estimated by
Barrow), Andrew thought Margery would not have been a young child when
she was caged by King Edward I. He said even King Edward I had his
limits of decency and cruelty. Rather, he thought Margery was more
than likely a young adult at this time. Barrow, on the other hand,
thought Margery was at best ten or eleven, which would make her still
a child. If Andrew's concept of English civility is correct, then
this would move Margery's birth back in time at least a couple of
years. If so, it would take Margery's birth out of the time period
her father was married to Maud Fitz Alan.

The upshot of this discussion is basically you have two 14th Century
Scottish chronicles, both of which mention Robert de Brus' marriage to
Isabel of Mar, as opposed to two contemporary records which mention
Robert de Brus' marriage to Maud Fitz Alan. The question is: Did
Robert de Brus have only one wife, or two?

Given Andrew's observation regarding the importance of the double
alliance between the Brus-Mar family, I'm inclined to believe that a
marriage to Isabel of Mar occured. However, if so, the marriage
predates the date (c. 1295) that historians have usually given to
Robert de Brus' marriage to Isabel of Mar. Likewise, if Marjorie is
Isabel's daughter, that means she was born earlier than 1295/6, which
is when the historians place her birth.

If Marjorie was born in say 1293, she would have been 13 when she was
caged by King Edward I. He held her in captivity until 1314, thereby
delaying the time a woman of this period would have married. After
her release in 1314, she was married the next year (1315) to Walter
Stewart. Marjorie's delayed marriage may well be why historians have
thought her parents' marriage took place in the mid-1290's, as opposed
to the early 1290's.

Andrew MacEwen cautioned being careful to identify which Robert de
Brus was lord of Annandale and Earl of Carrick in this period. He
felt it was entirely possible that Robert de Brus the Competitor
resigned the lordship of Annandale in 1292 to his grandson, Robert de
Brus (later Robert I, King of Scotland). He said this was an
extraordinary period in Scottish history. He said this action would
not surprise him at all.

Reviewing the above discussion, it is clear we have the "evidence" of
later date 14th century chronicles to weigh against contemporary
original documents. The chronicles mention a wife, Isabel, and no
wife, Maud. The contemporary records mention a wife, Maud, and no
wife, Isabel. In the normal scheme of things, the process of cross
evaluation between these two record sources should have been done by
historians long ago. Andrew MacEwen's feeling is that the chronicles
are usually trustworthy and that the double alliance mentioned in them
between the Brus and Mar families lends credence to the marriage of
Robert de Brus and Isabel of Mar. However, he readily accepts the
possibility that Robert de Brus may have had another wife, Maud Fitz
Alan, who has been overlooked by historians. Andrew is fully aware of
the extensive destruction of original Scottish records for this time
period. As such, there are some things for which we only have partial
knowledge.

Lastly, Andrew reminded me that Isabel of Mar's mother, Ellen (or
Helen), wife of Donald, Earl of Mar, was NOT the daughter of Llywelyn
ap Iowerth, Prince of North Wales, as commonly assumed. Earl Donald
was married to a daughter of Llywelyn but this was evidently an early
first marriage. Isabel's mother, Ellen (or Helen), was evidently a
much younger 2nd wife. I believe Andrew plans to publish an article
on this point some time in the future.

My thanks go to Andrew MacEwen for his useful comments and
observations and also for checking material in his personal library
for me. Andrew is a true gentleman and a scholar. Hats off to Mr.
MacEwen.

Chris Phillips

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 3:57:03 PM12/15/02
to

Brad Verity wrote:
> The Victoria County History volume of Lincolnshire has an article on
> Sempringham and lists its Priors. I don't know if Watton has been
> covered in the published VCH volumes on Yorkshire.

Watton Priory is covered in VCH Yorkshire, volume 3.

Chris Phillips

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 4:28:05 PM12/15/02
to
royala...@msn.com (Douglas Richardson) wrote in message news:<5cf47a19.0212...@posting.google.com>...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
> > On 19 September 1293, license was granted by the English king for
> Maud, late the wife of Philip Burnel, tenant in chief, to marry
> "Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale" [Reference: Calendar of Patent
> Rolls, 1292-1301 (1895), pg. 147]. Robert de Brus the Competitor was
> still living at this time. He is thought by most authorities to have
> been "lord of Annandale" until his death. However, he can't possibly
> be the man who married Maud Burnel, for the records show he married
> his 2nd wife, Christian d'Ireby, before 1275, which wife survived him
> in 1295. If Robert de Brus the Competitor was not lord of Annandale
> in 1293, then it seems likely that Annandale passed to his grandson,
> Robert de Brus, Jr., in 1292, along with the Earldom of Carrick.
>

Dear Newsgroup ~

I appear to have made an error in the above post. My notes I took
yesterday regarding the above mentioned license give the date 19
September 1293, whereas my earlier notes of this same document give
the date 19 September 1295. I believe 1295 is the correct date, not
1293. Maud Fitz Alan's former husband, Philip Burnell, died in 1294.
As such, Maud was not a widow until after 1293. In my earlier posts,
I believe I used the correct date, 1295.

Annie Natalelli-Waloszek

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 6:40:52 PM12/15/02
to
any idea why the divorce records were "disappeared"?

By the way, you & Ravillious are doing a great job on this...


-----Message d'origine-----
De : Douglas Richardson <royala...@msn.com>

À : GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Date : dimanche 15 décembre 2002 20:30
Objet : Re: Maud Fitz Alan, wife of Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick




Dear Brad ~

Thank you for your good post.

Andrew MacEwen, the resident expert on all things Scottish, informs me
that the early Scottish divorce records have all perished. None have
survived. A Scottish divorce is known in records if one of the
parties later appealed to Rome. In that case, the record of the
appeal can be found in the Vatican records, not Scottish records. The
original divorce proceedings at the local ecclesiasical level have
long since been destroyed.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

E-mail: royala...@msn.com

malinda

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 9:01:15 PM12/15/02
to
I noticed the reference below to

"Bryce (Thos H.) The skull of King Robert the Bruce [<<in Scot. Hist.
Review»]"

Does anyone know what this article says...or if the skull of King Robert the
Bruce is missing ?
~malinda

Douglas Richardson

unread,
Dec 15, 2002, 10:38:43 PM12/15/02
to
Xan...@wanadoo.fr ("Annie Natalelli-Waloszek") wrote in message news:<018b01c2a494$86fc6c40$de01f9c1@m>...

> any idea why the divorce records were "disappeared"?
>
> By the way, you & Ravillious are doing a great job on this...

Dear Annie ~

You've asked a great question for which there is no easy answer. As
best I can tell, the local bishops kept the divorce records separate
from their regular episcopal registers. For reasons not known to me,
most of the episcopal registers have survived but none of the divorce
records. This is true for Scotland and I believe for England as well.

If I had to guess what happened, I suspect the divorce records were
destroyed on purpose due to their sensitive nature. In colonial
Connecticut, such matters were considered "private" controversies.
They were kept away from the regular records. In the case of
Connecticut, they happened to survive. As such, the pleadings and
testimony in the divorce case of my ancestors, Richard Edwards and
Elizabeth Tuttle, is still extant.

The purposeful destruction of sensitive records is not necessarily a
modern practice. I think most men realize some things are best left
unsaid. And, if said, some things are left hidden away from view.

Leo van de Pas

unread,
Dec 18, 2002, 7:24:51 PM12/18/02
to
Dear Douglas
Did you receive my message in regards to your question? I also sent it to
you directly but it bounced.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages