CP Correction: Patrick, Earl of Dunbar - "b. about 1285"
John P. Ravilious
Dear Tim, et al.,
I had mentioned in my last post to the "Agnes Dunbar again"
thread,
that I would address the matter of the birthdate of Patrick, Earl of
Dunbar (son of Marjory Comyn, and successor to the Earldom in 1308).
This matter has been discussed previously on SGM.
Pointed out to me some time ago by the noted authority Andrew
MacEwen, in the Close Roll, 25 Edw. I., m. 27 we have record of writs
dated 24 May 1297, addressed to several Scots magnates 'respecting
their intended Expedition into Flanders along with King Edward ' [1].
The first 10 individuals so addressed, in order, were :
Patrick, son of the Earl of March
Robert de Brus, Earl of Carrick (b. 1243, then aged 53)
John, 'brother of James, Steward of Scotland (b. say 1245 or
later)
Malcolm, Earl of Lennox (born 1248 or before)
Enguerrand/Ingram de Guines
Nicholas de Graham
Alexander de Lindsay
Herbert de Maxwell
Ingram de Umfraville
William de Douglas
It is significant that the first individual so addressed in a
letter of King Edward I of England [' to his dear and faithful
Patrick, son of Patrick Earl of March, greeting..'], whose
letter is the one included in the Close Roll (with reference following
that 'similar letters' were addressed to the other individuals) was
Patrick, the son of Earl Patrick. According to the version given in
Complete Peerage, this Patrick was " b. about 1285; was with his
father in 1300 (when but 15) at Carlaverock " [3]. This statement
is not shown to be based on any documentation, and we can only presume
it was based on some older (undocumented) statement, in Douglas'
Peerage or elsewhere. I can imagine few things more illogical than
King Edward I of England addressing such a letter to an 11 or
12-year-old, no matter whom his father was.
Add to this, that Patrick son of the Earl of Dunbar, was a knight
before 22 July 1298, when he was recorded as Sir Patrick de Dunbar in
the army of Edward I at Falkirk [4]. His father, Earl Patrick, then
aged 55 or more, was also at the battle: the purpose served by his
son, aged allegedly 12 or 13 at the time, one might imagine, but his
having already been knighted at that age is close to unbelievable.
What this means for the traditional placement of this same
individual as the Earl Patrick who d. in 1368 (traditionally aged
83 at the time, but more likely aged say 93 according to those
holding him to be the same individual), I think, is obvious.
There is no support for the statement that this Earl Patrick was
born in, or about, 1285; and every reason to infer his being aged
say 21 (slightly younger, possibly, but even more likely, slightly
older) at the date of the letter in the Close Rolls of 1297.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] Text given in Stevenson, Documents Illustrative of the History
of Scotland from the Death of King Alexander the Third to the
Accession of Robert Bruce, MCCLXXXVI - MCCCVI [Edinburgh: H.M.
General Register House, 1870], II:167. The URL for finding
this online, courtesy of Googlebooks:
For those interested (and to whom this message was originally
addressed), I have attached the same document to this
message as a .pdf file, labeled "PatrickDunbar1297".
[2] Ibid., pp. 167-168.
[3] CP IV:507.
[4] 'Patrike de Dunebarre', knight, served with the army of King
Edward I in Scotland, fighting at the Battle of Falkirk,
22 July 1298 together with his father. His arms are recorded as
' Gules a lion rampant a bordure argent semy of cinquefoils of the
field a label of three points azure' (Falkirk Roll, H36).
* John P. Ravilious
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< There is no support for the statement that this Earl Patrick was
born in, or about, 1285; and every reason to infer his being aged
say 21 (slightly younger, possibly, but even more likely, slightly
older) at the date of the letter in the Close Rolls of 1297. >>
The support is that CP says he was "Aged 24 in 1308/9 having had livery of
his father's lands 10 Nov 1308"
If we can demolish that age, that might be the last pin in this pinned
together garment.
Will Johnson
WJho...@aol.com
writes:
<< There is no support for the statement that this Earl Patrick was
born in, or about, 1285; >>
I just thought of a way to do it.
Perhaps, when Patrick had "livery of his father's lands in 1308", perhaps at
that time there was some sort of notation about "Patrick aged 24". But just
perhaps they were referring, not to the son Patrick, but rather to the
*grandson* Patrick.
If we can somehow disconnect the "aged 24" from the "son of the dead Earl"
type statement, that just might make CP's account a little more whole, and yet
corrected.
Will
John P. Ravilious
Ages such as this, from an IPM, are notoriously inaccurate. The
typical language would be, "aged 24 and more", so accuracy is not a
known hallmark here. There are many cases, with separate IPMs in two
or more English counties, where different groups holding the
inquisitions come up with different ages for the same individual.
Using this stated age is I think proved inappropriate in this
case, else (as I wrote before) King Edward I of England spent too much
time writing to 11 year old boys..... Prince Michael [not Kent],
perhaps, but King Edward..... I think not.
Cheers,
John
WJho...@aol.com
In a message dated 5/8/2006 9:09:59 PM Pacific Standard Time,
the...@aol.com writes:
Ages such as this, from an IPM, are notoriously inaccurate. The
typical language would be, "aged 24 and more", so accuracy is not a
known hallmark here.
I agree, but I'm actually stating something completely different.
That the "24" may be accurately referring to the grandson, and someone has
conflated that two persons into one.
If the IPM in question can be found, it's possible it might clear up more
than one problem, at once.
Will