Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies, and Campbell of Loudoun
John P. Ravilious
Tuesday, 13 January, 2008
Hello All,
The Scots Peerage account of the pedigree of the Earls
of Galloway notes the relationship of the Stewarts of
Lennox (previously Darnley) and those of Garlies.
A letter from Matthew Stewart, Earl of Lennox, to the
Earl of Shrewsbury dated 13 Jan 1544/5 lists among the
'lairds of Galloway' whom he brought to Carlisle the
laird of Garlies and his son Alexander:
' And, forasmuch as the Laird of Garlies is my
near kinsman, and also of my surname, I did
take in my custody, by the Lord of Somerset's
license, only the said Lord's son, being of
the age of 16 years..' [1]
The foregoing has been cited as evidence of the near
kinship between the Stewarts of Garlies and those of
Darnley, primarily as a defense of the contention that
Sir William Stewart of Jedworth was a younger son of
Alexander Stewart of Darnley [2]. This position is
known to be erroneous thanks to Andrew B. W. MacEwen.
At the same time, there was a near kinship as evidenced
by the letter of the Earl of Lennox. By their common
descent from Sir John Stewart of Bonkil (k. 1298) they
were 7th cousins: such a remote relationship was most
unlikely to have given rise to the designation of
Garlies as 'near kinsman' to the Earl in 1545.
An explanation for this relationship has been
deduced, having nothing to do with the traditional
claims of a patrilineal link. Matthew Stewart, Earl
of Lennox (d. 1571) was a great-great-grandson of Alan
Stewart, elder son of Sir John Stewart and Elizabeth
of Lennox. Alexander Stewart, laird of Garlies (d.
ca. 1593) was a great-grandson of Sir William Stewart
of Garlies (d. 1479) and his wife Elizabeth Stewart.
Elizabeth's first name only is given in the Scots
Peerage account[3]: her identification as Elizabeth
Stewart is provided in Burke's (1880), but without any
documentation or indication of her parentage [4].
Chronologically, Elizabeth could have been a daughter
of Sir John Stewart of Darnley and his wife Elizabeth
of Lennox. If Elizabeth was in fact a sister of Alan
Stewart, the Earl of Lennox and Alexander Stewart of
Garlies would then have been 3rd cousins 1x removed.
No other near kinship is found in their mutual
ancestry, and their common Stewart ancestry
(Dalswinton and Darnley) would not have been the
basis for any allegation of close kinship.
Some generations earlier, there is evidence that
alludes to this kinship. In the Scots Peerage
(Galloway) account, mention is made of Thomas Stewart
of Minto, younger son of Sir William Stewart of
Garlies and his wife Elizabeth Stewart:
' He married Isabella Stewart, daughter of
Walter Stewart of Arthurley, as appears from
a charter dated 16 August 1477 in their
favour by Sir John Stewart of Darnley, who
therein terms them his 'cousins'. '[5]
Isabel Stewart of Arthurlie was a 3rd cousin of
Sir John Stewart of Darnley; her husband Thomas was
a 5th cousin (both through common descent from Sir
John Stewart of Bonkil). A closer relationship
apparently existed, as the identification of Thomas
Stewart's mother Elizabeth as a sister of Alan
Stewart would then make Thomas and John first
cousins.
There is evidence which supports this identifica-
tion. Close kinship between Sir George Campbell of
Loudoun and his wife Elizabeth Stewart necessitated
their obtaining a dispensation in 1466 [6]. A
matter of frequent debate in the past, it was
conjectured on 12 Sept 2008 that Elizabeth was the
daughter of Sir Alexander Stewart of Garlies and
his wife Elizabeth Douglas [7]. Despite this
identification, the relationship between Sir George
Campbell and Elizabeth Stewart had not then been
resolved. The present conjecture that Elizabeth,
mother of Sir Alexander Stewart of Garlies was a
daughter of Sir John Stewart and Elizabeth of
Lennox would in fact give the indicated relation-
ship: George and Elizabeth were both descended
from Helen Campbell by her two husbands, Sir George
Campbell from Eoin MacDonald and Elizabeth Stewart
from Duncan, Earl of Lennox.
[NOTE: The conjectured parentage for Elizabeth,
wife of Sir William Stewart of Garlies is
shown thus: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ]
1) Eoin MacDonald = Helen = 2) Duncan
dvp 1369 I Campbell I E of Lennox
________________I I (ex. 1425)
I I
Agnes = Sir John Elizabeth = Sir John
' of the I Montgomery of Lennox I Stewart
Isles ' I I of Darnley
________I______ _ _ _ _ _I_____
I I I I
Alexander Agnes Elizabeth Alan
= 1) Sir Robert = William Stewart
___I Cunyngham Stewart of k. 1438
I = 2) Sir George Garlies I
I I Campbell I I
V I ________I___ I
I I I I
I Alexander Thomas Sir John
I of Garlies Minto E of Lennox
I = Elizabeth 'cousin' 'cousin'
I Douglas I
____I _____I_______ I
I I I I
Sir George = Elizabeth Alexander Matthew
Campbell I Stewart of Garlies E of Lennox
{dispensation, 1466: k. 1513 k. 1513
3rd & 4th degree} I I
I I
Sir Alexander John
of Garlies E of Lennox
(fl. 1546) d. 1526
d. 1593 I
'near kinsman' I
Matthew
E of Lennox
d. 1571
'near kinsman'
It should be noted that the relationships
documented above and reflected in the foregoing chart
are based in large part on the solution provided by
Andrew B. W. MacEwen for the parentage of Agnes
'of the Isles' (See the SGM archives concerning past
discussions).
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] Edmund Lodge, Illustrations of British History,
Biography and Manners, in the Reigns of Henry
VIII, Edward VI, Mary, Elizabeth & James I
(London: John Chidley, 1838), 2nd edition,
I:134. Also cited in Scots Peerage,
SP IV:147, 153.
[2] SP IV:145-7.
[3] SP IV:150.
[4] Sir Bernard Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic
Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage
(42nd edition, London: Harrison, Pall Mall,
1880), p. 518.
[5] SP IV:151, sub Stewart, Earl of Galloway,
cites Reg. Mag. Sig., 25 June 1489.
[6] Dispensation to remain in marriage, dated
29 Mar 1466:
" It is represented for the part of George Campbell
of Martnaham [Martinharme], layman, and Elizabeth
Stewart, laywoman, spouses, d. Glas., that they,
not ignorant that they were related in third and
fourth degree of consanguinity, and that the father
of Elizabeth had baptised [sic] George at the font,
contracted matrimony per verba de presenti and,
without any preceeding banns, solemnised it in the
face of the church, consummated the same and had
offspring. But the said spouses are not able to
remain in matrimony without the dispensation of
the apostolic see, and if they should divorce,
strife and scandals would break out. It is
therefore supplicated that the Pope absolve them
from excommunication on account of the foregoing,
and give mandate to dispense them to remain in
matrimony and to contract it anew, decreeing
offspring born and to be born legitimate.
Concessum. Rome, St. Mark's. Dispensatio 593.81.'
[James Kirk, Roland J. Tanner & Annie I. Dunlop,
eds., Calendar of Scottish Supplications to Rome,
Volume V, 1447-1471 (Glasgow: Scottish Academic
Press, 1997), p. 332, no. 1114]
' 1466, May 7. From GEORGE CAMBEL AND YSABETA his
wife, Glasgow diocese, by their own hands, as
composition for dispensation of matrimony in third
and fourth degrees of consanguinity. fl. xij. '
[Annie I. Cameron, The Apostolic Camera and
Scottish Benefices, 1418-1488 (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1934), p. 284]
[7] J. Ravilious, , SGM, 12 Sept 2008.
* John P. Ravilious
M.Sjostrom
Oh, knight William Stewart, of Jedburgh
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00006259&tree=LEO
was not a son of knight Alexander Stewart, of Darnley.
Darnley's marriage was in around 1380.
Jedburgh's SON married in 1496 - at a date when hardly Darnley's any son was old enough even to have a son, yet less a son himself to marry...
Whose son was William Stewart of Jedburgh ?
M.Sjostrom
If I understood correctly, the said 'Eoin MacDonald' was eldest son of this couple (and thusly born in est 1330):
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00056785&tree=LEO
being the 'dvp' heir of The Isles: Iain/Eoghan/Eoin macEoin 'MacDomhnaill' of Islay, Master of The Isles
His father Eoin the Good had married, secondly, daughter of the High Steward (= the future king Robert II), and ultimately made sons of his second marriage as heirs to the bulk of the succession, also the 'kingletship' of the Isles. The younger Eoin however had full brothers, including his brother Raghnaill mac Eoin, who became 1st chief Clanranald.
If agnes of the Isles was this master Eoin's daughter, then she would be in feudal sense (as opposed to clan tradition) heiress of Gormoran and other such things. is there indications that agnes or her issue had such rights?
Ealan Caimbeul appears (not ascertained by me) to have been daughter of knight Archibald of Lochawe, in gaelic presumably Gilla Eascoib mac Cailean 'caimbeul', a Loch Obha:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00043785&tree=LEO
I guess this
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00139343&tree=LEO
represents lady Ealan inghen Gillescoib Caimbeul (b in est 1345)
anyway, descendants of (Ealan and her second husband) Dhonnchad, 'earl' of Lennox, Leamhnachd, seem to include:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00064051&tree=LEO
in the other branch,
Aigneis 'MacDomhnaill', of the Isles (Ealan's proposed daughter), had following descendants:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00060385&tree=LEO
Now, if the second (Loudoun) marriage of
(http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00112063&tree=LEO
(Agnes/Anne de Montgomerie, widow of Cunninghame of Kilmaur), daughter of the previous Aigneis, is reliable, then
Her son
knight George Campbell, laird of Loudoun (b aft 1451), married that 'unknown' Elizabeth Stewart
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00221958&tree=LEO
who is above proposed to have been daughter of
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00042776&tree=LEO
himself son of
another 'unknown' Ealasaid
who herself proposed as daughter of
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00006262&tree=LEO
Uilleam of Garlies (= William Stewart, 2nd laird of Garlies and Dalswintoun) married this Ealasaid (Elizabeth) in around 1430
M.Sjostrom
identity of Aigneis, of The Isles:
===================================
I know that lots has been conversed about parentage of Agnes of the Isles (= Aigneis a Inchegaill)
and it seems she is proposed as daughter of Eoin mac Eoin, master of the Isles and Garmoran... by his wife Ealan mac Gillescoib a Caimbeul, whose (second) husband were Dhonnchad, 'earl' of Lennox.
However, Dhonnchad's and Ealann's great.grandson, Iain (John), earl of Lennox, seems to have married in 1438 Margaret de Montgomerie, herself granddaughter of said Aigneis, and were the proposition correct, thusly great-granddaughter of Ealan mac Gillescoib by her supposed first (Isles) husband:
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00006020&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
Did John of Lennox receive what sort of dispensation for his marriage with Margaret ??
dispensation from consanguinity of third degree ???
M.Sjostrom
However, had that last-mentioned Ealasaid been daughter of that couple, then by marrying knight Uilleam of Garlies, she would have married son of her own first cousin - because
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00006278&tree=LEO
means just that:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00006256&tree=LEO
That marriage would have taken place in around 1430
So, had Uilleam of Garlies (= William Stewart, 2nd laird of Garlies and Dalswintoun) dispensation to marry this Ealasaid (Elizabeth)??
and would it been plausible that the pope would have dispensed from consanguinity of 2nd (and 3rd) degree??
There's a grave problem.
John P. Ravilious
> If I understood correctly, the said 'Eoin MacDonald' was eldest son of this couple (and thusly born in est 1330):http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00056785&tree=LEO
> being the 'dvp' heir of The Isles: Iain/Eoghan/Eoin macEoin 'MacDomhnaill' of Islay, Master of The Isles
> His father Eoin the Good had married, secondly, daughter of the High Steward (= the future king Robert II), and ultimately made sons of his second marriage as heirs to the bulk of the succession, also the 'kingletship' of the Isles. The younger Eoin however had full brothers, including his brother Raghnaill mac Eoin, who became 1st chief Clanranald.
> If agnes of the Isles was this master Eoin's daughter, then she would be in feudal sense (as opposed to clan tradition) heiress of Gormoran and other such things. is there indications that agnes or her issue had such rights?
>
> Ealan Caimbeul appears (not ascertained by me) to have been daughter of knight Archibald of Lochawe, in gaelic presumably Gilla Eascoib mac Cailean 'caimbeul', a Loch Obha:http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00043785&tree=LEO
>
> represents lady Ealan inghen Gillescoib Caimbeul (b in est 1345)
>
> anyway, descendants of (Ealan and her second husband) Dhonnchad, 'earl' of Lennox, Leamhnachd, seem to include:http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00064051&tree=LEO
>
> in the other branch,
> Aigneis 'MacDomhnaill', of the Isles (Ealan's proposed daughter), had following descendants:http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00060385&tree=LEO
>
> Now, if the second (Loudoun) marriage of
> (http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00112063&tree=LEO
> (Agnes/Anne de Montgomerie, widow of Cunninghame of Kilmaur), daughter of the previous Aigneis, is reliable, then
>
> Her son
>
> who is above proposed to have been daughter ofhttp://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00042776&tree=LEO
> himself son of
>
> another 'unknown' Ealasaid
>
> However, had that last-mentioned Ealasaid been daughter of that couple, then by marrying knight Uilleam of Garlies, she would have married son of her own first cousin - becausehttp://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00006278&tree=LEO
> means just that:http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00006256&tree=LEO
>
> That marriage would have taken place in around 1430
>
> So, had Uilleam of Garlies (= William Stewart, 2nd laird of Garlies and Dalswintoun) dispensation to marry this Ealasaid (Elizabeth)??
> and would it been plausible that the pope would have dispensed from consanguinity of 2nd (and 3rd) degree??
> There's a grave problem.
======================
Dear M.,
The problem is, the affiliation shown for the 'first' William
Stewart of Jedworth is as given in Scots Peerage (#I00006259 in
Genealogics) but is erroneous. This was established by Andrew MacEwen
(and possibly others) some time ago, but this relationship is still
supported by most descendants of the (Stewart) Earls of Galloway.
Its presence in the Scots Peerage account will likely keep it living
for some time to come.
The best evidence of the problem with the Jedworth/Galloway
claim, and the failure of the traditional parentage assigned to this
Sir William Stewart, is found in the Ragman Rolls for the homage at
Berwick in 1296. The follower homagers are included [see
http://www.rampantscotland.com/ragman/blragman_s.htm ]:
1. " Senefcalli, Dominus Johannes (Domini Jacobi Senefcalli Scocie
germanus, miles) ; (Johan Senefechal frere Mon fire James
Senefchal
Defcoce). "
This is clearly Sir John Stewart of Bonkil, younger brother of
James the Stewart.
2. " Senefchal de Jeddeworth, Johan le (del counte de Rokefburgh).
"
This individual was another individual, probably grandfather of
the 'first' Sir William Stewart of Jedworth.
There was a John Stewart of Jedworth who gave his homage at
Berwick; there was also Sir John Stewart of Bonkil, #1 above. They
were not the same individual.
Because of all the effort in forcing William Stewart of Jedworth
onto the Darnley family tree, many errors have been created. It is
very difficult to correct: my hope is that there will be a major re-
writing of the Stewart pedigree, but the effort to do a quality job
will be significant.
Cheers,
John
John P. Ravilious
> identity of Aigneis, of The Isles:
> ===================================
>
> I know that lots has been conversed about parentage of Agnes of the Isles (= Aigneis a Inchegaill)
>
> and it seems she is proposed as daughter of Eoin mac Eoin, master of the Isles and Garmoran... by his wife Ealan mac Gillescoib a Caimbeul, whose (second) husband were Dhonnchad, 'earl' of Lennox.
>
>
> Did John of Lennox receive what sort of dispensation for his marriage with Margaret ??
> dispensation from consanguinity of third degree ???
===========================
Dear M.,
John Stewart was contracted to marry Margaret, daughter of
Alexander, Lord Montgomery as shown on Genealogics, in 1438. This
marriage never took place (although again this lives on in Scots
Peerage).
John married in 1460, Margaret, daughter of Alexander, Master of
Montgomery (son of the above Alexander) and his wife Elizabeth
Hepburn. I have no note re: a dispensation, although one would have
been nice: they were related in the 3rd and 3rd degrees of
consanguinity. A very important article you should read (I no longer
have a copy to hand):
Andrew B. W. MacEwen, Seven Scottish Countesses: A Miscellany, I:
Margaret Montgomery, Countess of Lennox, in The Genealogist, Fall 1997
(Volume 11, No. 2), pp. 176-183.
Cheers,
John
M.Sjostrom
sigh.
British 'standard' literature of genealogies..... looks so much to deserve the honorific 'standard error'.....
Like I recently already wrote, there seems to be all too many misplaced daughters and invented filiations in *British genealogical literature*, even the accepted standard works. sigh. Apparently, nothing there can really be relied on.
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/61cd0f6ef06b31d1
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/67b923cfcbfc02d1
I realize these corrections (Lennox and Stewart) now mentioned, must have an impact on roots of residents of Buckingham Palace.
this brings to my mind also the question of Catherine Chalmers allegedly being the mother of Marjory/Mairiot Sutherland, heiress of Dunbeath - though the heiress obviously must have been daughter born of the legitimate wife. Does anyone have an inkling what Andrew MacEwen thinks about THAT question ?
Jared & Christina Olar
is the equivalent of John, the other of Owen. The names are probably
confused in the old records sometimes.
In addition, it should be kept in mind that it is only a hypothesis that
"Cambell" or "Campbell" is the Gaelic "Caimbeul," wry-mouth.
Jared L. Olar
> Uilleam of Garlies (= William Stewart, 2nd laird of Garlies and
Jared & Christina Olar
office -- it often stands for the "Stewart" surname in these old records,
but not always. How can we be sure this John the Seneschal of Jedworth is
John Stewart of Jedworth?
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <the...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:18 PM
Subject: Re: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies, and Campbell of
Loudoun
Jared & Christina Olar
proportion of error in out-of-date English, Scottish, Irish, and Welsh
genealogical literature than there is in out-of-date Scandinavian
genealogical literature.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:58 PM
Subject: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies,and Campbell of
Loudoun
>
> -------------------------------
> 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
M.Sjostrom
I suspect that our fellow poster Jared is not familiar with out-of-date Swedish genealogical literature, nor with up-to-date Swedish genealogical literature. :)
Those are written in swedish, an obstacle to many, and even greater trouble to assess competently.
----
simple test:
1) is the nobility genealogy series 'Elgenstierna' regarded as out-of-date or up-to-date ?
2) is the series 'Äldre Svenska Frälsesläkter' regarded as out-of-date or up-to-date ?
3) is the nobility genealogy series 'Anrep' regarded as out-of-date or up-to-date ?
4) which of these has medieval genealogy ?
5) which of these has post-1600 genealogy ?
John P. Ravilious
wrote:
> Is that really the best evidence? "Seneschal" could be a surname or an
> office -- it often stands for the "Stewart" surname in these old records,
> but not always. How can we be sure this John the Seneschal of Jedworth is
> John Stewart of Jedworth?
>
> Jared L. Olar
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 2:18 PM
> Subject: Re: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies, and Campbell of
> Loudoun
>
> The best evidence of the problem with the Jedworth/Galloway
> claim, and the failure of the traditional parentage assigned to this
> Sir William Stewart, is found in the Ragman Rolls for the homage at
>
> 1. " Senefcalli, Dominus Johannes (Domini Jacobi Senefcalli Scocie
> germanus, miles) ; (Johan Senefechal frere Mon fire James
> Senefchal
> Defcoce). "
>
> This is clearly Sir John Stewart of Bonkil, younger brother of
> James the Stewart.
>
> 2. " Senefchal de Jeddeworth, Johan le (del counte de Rokefburgh).
> "
>
> This individual was another individual, probably grandfather of
> the 'first' Sir William Stewart of Jedworth.
>
> There was a John Stewart of Jedworth who gave his homage at
> Berwick; there was also Sir John Stewart of Bonkil, #1 above. They
> were not the same individual.
>
> Because of all the effort in forcing William Stewart of Jedworth
> onto the Darnley family tree, many errors have been created. It is
> very difficult to correct: my hope is that there will be a major re-
> writing of the Stewart pedigree, but the effort to do a quality job
> will be significant.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
========================
Dear Jared,
It's the best evidence I have to hand - Andrew MacEwen has done
far more original work, and is in the best position to know.
'Seneschal' and Steward (or Stewart) are essentially
interchangeable for our purposes, and it's clear that the descendants
of John 'senescallus' of Jedworth took the Stewart name, in the late
14th century if not before.
The point is, at the same time (1296) there was John Stewart
('senescallus'), the brother of James the Stewart, there was ALSO this
other John Stewart ('senescallus') of Jedworth. They were not the
same man. But this is a typical confusion, which has led to the
'first' Sir William Stewart of Jedworth being identified as a younger
son of Alexander Stewart of Darnley. THAT William Stewart was the
first of Castlemilk.
Cheers,
John
Jared & Christina Olar
was Andrew Stuart of Torrance, who belonged to a now extinct cadet of the
Stewarts of Castelmilk, who attempted to identify John le Seneschal of
Jedworth as the male-line ancestor of the Stewarts of Garlies, subsequently
Earls of Galloway (Stuart of Torrance was attempting to establish his own
family's seniority). The Scots Peerage account says there is no good reason
to believe this John le Seneschal was either a Stewart or ancestor of Sir
William Stewart of Jedworth. Again, it is not the advocates of the
hypothesis that Sir William was a son of Sir Alexander of Darnley who have
confused John le Seneschal with Sir John Stewart "of Bonkyll" -- Scots
Peerage argues convincingly, contrary to previous genealogical writers, that
John le Seneschal could not possibly be the same as Sir John Stewart of
Bonkyll, and then proceeds to argue that Sir William was most likely a son
of Sir Alexander of Darnley. The alleged connection of the Castlemilk
Stewarts to Darnley is also dubious.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <the...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 6:46 PM
Subject: Re: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies, and Campbell of
Loudoun
Dear Jared,
It's the best evidence I have to hand - Andrew MacEwen has done
far more original work, and is in the best position to know.
'Seneschal' and Steward (or Stewart) are essentially
interchangeable for our purposes, and it's clear that the descendants
of John 'senescallus' of Jedworth took the Stewart name, in the late
14th century if not before.
The point is, at the same time (1296) there was John Stewart
('senescallus'), the brother of James the Stewart, there was ALSO this
other John Stewart ('senescallus') of Jedworth. They were not the
same man. But this is a typical confusion, which has led to the
'first' Sir William Stewart of Jedworth being identified as a younger
son of Alexander Stewart of Darnley. THAT William Stewart was the
first of Castlemilk.
Cheers,
John
-------------------------------
Jared & Christina Olar
you mean to type "1396." John first appears on record in the marriage
contract, dated 17 Oct. 1396, between John's father and Sir Walter Stewart
of Dalswinton, for the marriage of John to Walter's daughter and sole
heiress Marion Stewart. But John and Marion were not parties to this
contract, because they were both still minors. John accompanied his father
to Homildon Hill six years later, indicating that he had attained his
majority by then.
As for Sir Alexander of Darnley's marriage around 1380, that was his
marriage to Janet Keith. Scots Peerage argues that most of Sir Alexander's
children were born of a prior marriage, apparently to a sister of Sir John
Turnbull of Minto, uncle of Sir William Stewart of Jedworth.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 12:15 PM
Subject: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies,and Campbell of
Loudoun
>
M.Sjostrom
in the funny case of both sir William of Jedburgh and sieur Jean d'Aubigny being sons of sir Alexander of Darnley, there's then that trouble of necessity for dispensation:
* 1 Sir Alexander Stewart, of Darnley d. Bef 5 May 1404
o 'first wife'
+ 2 Sir William Stewart, of Jedworth d. 14 Sep 1402
# Isabel
* 3 Sir John Stewart, of Dalswinton and 1st of Garlies d. Abt 1419
o Marion Stewart
+ 4 Sir William Stewart, of Dalswinton and 2nd of Garlies d. Abt 1479
married (in around 1430) Elizabeth - see below
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00006278&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=6
o second wife: Janet Keith d. Aft 11 Dec 1406
+ 2 Sir John Stewart, Seigneur d'Aubigny b. est 1380 d. 12 Feb 1429
# countess Ealasaid, heiress secondary of Lennox
* 3 supposed daughter: Elizabeth (b est 1410), married in c1430 sir William Stewart, of Dalswinton and 2nd of Garlies (b in est 1405; d c1479) - see above
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00006261&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=6
--------
Elizabeth Stewart would have been marrying her first cousin's son, a forbidden marriage due to consanguinity of 2nd (&3rd) degree.
I think popes in those days did not yet consent to dispense 2nd degrees...
Plus, do you find a dispensation....
-----
Why did the Lordship of Darnley (seat of the father...) passed, not to 'elder' son (as Jared believes him to have been), William of Jedburgh, but to the branch of younger son (eldest son of 'second' marriage), i.e the earls of Lennox, whose line attestedly held Darnley....
John P. Ravilious
wrote:
> You seem to be misremembering the details of this perennial controversy. �It
> was Andrew Stuart of Torrance, who belonged to a now extinct cadet of the
> Stewarts of Castelmilk, who attempted to identify John le Seneschal of
> Jedworth as the male-line ancestor of the Stewarts of Garlies, subsequently
> Earls of Galloway (Stuart of Torrance was attempting to establish his own
> family's seniority). �The Scots Peerage account says there is no good reason
> to believe this John le Seneschal was either a Stewart or ancestor of Sir
> William Stewart of Jedworth. �Again, it is not the advocates of the
> hypothesis that Sir William was a son of Sir Alexander of Darnley who have
> confused John le Seneschal with Sir John Stewart "of Bonkyll" -- Scots
> Peerage argues convincingly, contrary to previous genealogical writers, that
> John le Seneschal could not possibly be the same as Sir John Stewart of
> Bonkyll, and then proceeds to argue that Sir William was most likely a son
> of Sir Alexander of Darnley. �The alleged connection of the Castlemilk
> Stewarts to Darnley is also dubious.
>
> Jared L. Olar
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
> Subject: Re: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies, and Campbell of
> Loudoun
>
> Dear Jared,
>
> � � �It's the best evidence I have to hand - Andrew MacEwen has done
> far more original work, and is in the best position to know.
>
> � � �'Seneschal' and Steward (or Stewart) are essentially
> interchangeable for our purposes, and it's clear that the descendants
> of John 'senescallus' of Jedworth took the Stewart name, in the late
> 14th century if not before.
>
> � � �The point is, at the same time (1296) there was John Stewart
> ('senescallus'), the brother of James the Stewart, there was ALSO this
> other John Stewart ('senescallus') of Jedworth. �They were not the
> same man. �But this is a typical confusion, which has led to the
> 'first' Sir William Stewart of Jedworth being identified as a younger
> son of Alexander Stewart of Darnley. �THAT William Stewart was the
> first of Castlemilk.
>
> � � �Cheers,
>
> � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �John
>
> -------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
> quotes in the subject and the body of the message- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
=======================
Dear Jared,
There is no doubting my ability to forget details, either in
posting to the newsgroup or otherwise.
Regardless, as I mentioned the details as to the deconstruction
of the Garlies/Galloway descent from a younger son of Alexander
Stewart of Darnley are housed with Andrew MacEwen, awaiting (I hope)
eventual publication. From past contact I know that he has found
errors in both Andrew Stuart's work on the subject, as well as the
Scots Peerage accounts.
One example of the errors in question is the whole Turnbull
connection as set forth in the Scots Peerage account. This is closely
tied to the Stewart of Darnley (Lennox) account, SP V:345-6. The
statement that Janet Keith, wife of Alexander Stewart of Darnley,
'cannot have been mother of his elder children' has been disproved by
Andrew (MacEwen). This statement hinges on the theory that 'Sir John
Stewart of Darnley was already a knight in 1386' [SP V:346], which was
due to conflating John Stewart of Darnley with another (older) knight.
Evidence that John Stewart of Darnley was the son of Janet Keith
includes the following supplication, dated Rome, 25 February 1422:
" Concessio
John Stewart, Lord Derneley, of royal race, Constable of the
Scots, - that the Pope would grant faculty to his mother, Jonete de
Keth, wife of the late Alexander Stewart, to choose a fit confessor
with power to absolve her once in life and at the point of death from
all sins a pena et culpa, even in cases reserved to the Apostolic See,
with commutation of fasting.
Fiat ut petitur. O.
Rome, S. Peter's, 5 Kal. March, anno 5. " [1]
It is likely that a series of articles, or preferably a
monograph, will be produced to resolve these several issues. Judging
by the ink produced in just touching on this one aspect, it will
likely be a while.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Rev. and Hon. E. R. Lindsay, M.A. and A. I. Cameron, M.A.,
Ph.D., eds., Calendar of Scottish Supplications to Rome, 1418-1422
(Edinburgh: T. and A. Constable, Ltd., 1934), p. 282.
Jared & Christina Olar
If it's true that the Sir John of 1386 was not Sir John of Darnley, then
yes, there would be no need to place his birth prior to circa 1380. The
1422 supplication would, on the face of it, have to mean that Sir John was
son of Janet Keith. But can we rule out the interpretation of "mother" as
stepmother? Reading it as "stepmother" doesn't sound likely, but I'm in no
position to reach a firm conclusion about that. But if so, that alone would
shoot down the hypothesis that Sir William of Jedworth was Sir John's
brother.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <the...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2009 9:09 PM
Subject: Re: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies, and Campbell of
Loudoun
John P. Ravilious
wrote:
> Thanks for your further explanation and enlightenment, John.
>
> If it's true that the Sir John of 1386 was not Sir John of Darnley, then
> yes, there would be no need to place his birth prior to circa 1380. The
> 1422 supplication would, on the face of it, have to mean that Sir John was
> son of Janet Keith. But can we rule out the interpretation of "mother" as
> stepmother? Reading it as "stepmother" doesn't sound likely, but I'm in no
> position to reach a firm conclusion about that. But if so, that alone would
> shoot down the hypothesis that Sir William of Jedworth was Sir John's
> brother.
>
> Jared L. Olar
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
> To: <gen-medie...@rootsweb.com>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Jared,
The one other item I have is the text of a charter of Janet Keith
dated at Dalserf, 11 Dec 1406 in which she granted lands in Galston to
her son Andrew Hamilton. One of the witnesses were her sons, Sir
William Hamilton and John Stewart of Crookston, not then a knight (he
later succeeded to Darnley, which I believe she held in dower).
The tenure of the Stewarts of Darnley of Crookston is sufficient
proof as to whom this John Stewart was. Cf. the charters of his son
Alan Stewart, virtually all dated at Crookston.
Cheers,
John
============================
"......Omnibus hanc cartam visuris vel audituris Johanna de Keth
domina de Gallistone salutem in Domino sempiternam. Noveritis me in
libera viduitate mea non vi aut metu ductam nec errore lapsam sed mera
et spontanea voluntate mea de certa sciencia et bona cause dedisse
concessisse et hac presenti carta mea confirmasse carissimo filio meo
Andree de Hamyltone, pro suo consilio et auxilio michi impensis et
impendendis, omnes et singulas terras meas de Gallystone
infrascriptas, scilicet terras de Tholoch, de Uvirmomunde, terras de
Lanysyde, cum servicio tenandorum de Golgof, terras de Bryntwod,
terras de Sorne, terras de Kyrktone, terras de Dundivane cum
pertinenciis, in baronia de Kile infra vicecomitatum de Are.....
apud Dalserff, undecimo die mensis Decembris anno Domini millesimo
quadringentesimo sexto.
Hiis testibus, domino Willelmo de Conynghame tempore illo
vicecomite de Are, Willelmo Baille domino de Barnbwrne, Willelmo de
Dalyelle domino ejusdem, Willelmo de Hamyltone filio meo militibus,
Hugone Campbelle domino de Lowdone, Johanne Senescalli filio meo
domino de Crukystone, Jacobo de Conyngham, Johannem Cambelle de
Gallystone, cum mutis aliis...." [Registrum Magni Sigilli (1306-1424),
pp. 371-2, no. 890]
Jared & Christina Olar
son, and so the hypothesis presented in Scots Peerage must be discarded.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "John P. Ravilious" <the...@aol.com>
Newsgroups: soc.genealogy.medieval
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Dear Jared,
Cheers,
John
============================
-------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to
GEN-MEDIEV...@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the
M.Sjostrom
Janet Keith, heiress of Dalserf and Galston (bc 1335; d after 1406) was seemingly a remarkable heiress.
As her father, knight Uilleam de Keeth, laird of Galston, is mentioned as having deceased in 1336 at Stirling, this means that Janet was some twenty years married with her first husband, David Hamilton, laird of Cadzow (d bef c1380).
Janet was relatively old when (in c1380) marrying her second husband, Alexander Stewart, laird of Darnley and Crookston. It looks like she had not too many years left before her menopause, to give birth to kids of the second husband.
The father (knight Uilleam) of Janet Keith appears (already from the property inheritances) been son of:
2 Robert de Keeth (b in est 1270) - himself a younger son of Iain de Keith, Marischal, and his much-talked Comyn wife.
3 Joanna de Galbrathe, heiress of Dalserf (d 1301) - herself daughter of sir Uilleam a Galbrathe and his Comyn of Badenoch wife.
Janet's issue appears to have included:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00056983&tree=LEO&displayoption=all&generations=4
Her eldest son, knight Iain de Hamilton, laird of Cadzow, appears to have predeceaed her - presumably that son was born in twenty or so years earlier (such as, in c1355..60) than kids of her second marriage.
wjhonson
> Janet Keith, heiress of Dalserf and Galston (bc 1335; d after 1406) was seemingly a remarkable heiress.
> As her father, knight Uilleam de Keeth, laird of Galston, is mentioned as having deceased in 1336 at Stirling, this means that Janet was some twenty years married with her first husband, David Hamilton, laird of Cadzow (d bef c1380).
> Janet was relatively old when (in c1380) marrying her second husband, Alexander Stewart, laird of Darnley and Crookston. It looks like she had not too many years left before her menopause, to give birth to kids of the second husband.
>
> The father (knight Uilleam) of Janet Keith appears (already from the property inheritances) been son of:
> 2 Robert de Keeth (b in est 1270) - himself a younger son of Iain de Keith, Marischal, and his much-talked Comyn wife.
> 3 Joanna de Galbrathe, heiress of Dalserf (d 1301) - herself daughter of sir Uilleam a Galbrathe and his Comyn of Badenoch wife.
>
>
> Her eldest son, knight Iain de Hamilton, laird of Cadzow, appears to have predeceaed her - presumably that son was born in twenty or so years earlier (such as, in c1355..60) than kids of her second marriage.
---------------------------------
I think you may find that allowing Janet Keith to have children by her
first husband David Hamilton of Cadzow, Knt who d 1381/2 and then at
*least* seven sons by her second husband who d.v.p. abt 1402, that
it's not possible for her to be born so early as 1336.
Rather it must be that this Janet Keith is not the daughter of the Sir
William who fell at Stirling, but rather of a same-name son. Thus
allowing Janet to be the mother as well of that "esquire" William
Stewart slain at the Battle of Orleans "as a young man" in 1429 (see
Scottish Peerage)
Will Johnson
Jared & Christina Olar
as opposed to stepmother, of Sir John, Seigneur d'Aubigny.
> # countess Ealasaid, heiress secondary of Lennox
> * 3 supposed daughter: Elizabeth (b est 1410),
> married in c1430 sir William Stewart, of Dalswinton and 2nd of Garlies (b
> in est 1405; d c1479) - see above
> http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00006261&tree=LEO&displayoption=male&generations=6
What evidence is there that Elizabeth, first wife of Sir William, 2nd of
Garlies, was a daughter of Sir John, Seigneur d'Aubigny? Scots Peerage
shows no surname or parentage for Elizabeth.
> Elizabeth Stewart would have been marrying her first cousin's son, a
> forbidden marriage due to consanguinity of 2nd (&3rd) degree.
> I think popes in those days did not yet consent to dispense 2nd degrees...
> Plus, do you find a dispensation....
A dispensation would be needed if Elizabeth were Sir John's daughter and Sir
William's grandfather were a brother of Sir John. Of course not all
dispensations have survived, but even so this is a pretty good demonstration
that EITHER Sir William of Jedworth was son of Sir Alexander of Darnley OR
Elizabeth was a daughter of Sir John.
> Why did the Lordship of Darnley (seat of the father...) passed, not to
> 'elder' son (as Jared believes him to have been)
Not so hasty, Mr. Sjostrom. What evidence do you have for your assumption
that I believe Sir William Stewart of Jedworth to have been older than Sir
John, Seigneur d'Aubigny? Or for that matter, why have you assumed that I
believe Sir William was Sir John's brother? Anyway, in presenting the
hypothesis that Sir William was Sir John's brother, Scots Peerage always
indicates that Sir William would have been younger, not older, than Sir
John. As your correctly note, if Sir William were older, Darnley would have
gone to him.
Jared L. Olar
M.Sjostrom
I think the 'rules' of proof mean that to make a filiation, there should exist proof or indication, positive, of existence of that filiation.
A 'traditional' pedigree (without near-contemporary proof) would not suffice, since traditional pedigrees often are concoctions..... made for various purposes and based on various motivations.
For example, is there any *proof* (as opposed to 'belief') that William of Jedburgh were son of Alexander of Darnley ?
M.Sjostrom
'surname' Stewart:
There exists and existed a lot of (unrelated) people surnamed Smith. Because, so many parishes and villages had their smith, at one time or another.
Now, I am certain that lots of princelings and castles had their seneschal. An occupation which was in scotland often known as 'Stewart/d'.
That may be an explanation why there existed so many lineages, interpreted as Stewarts of the FitzAlan root.
actually, much like 'Smith'.
-------------------------------
Another point would be that in high-medieval (and late-medieval) circumstances in Scotland, seemingly relatively often an illegitimate son of *a* Stewart was also surnamed Stewart, or 'seneschal'. The Flaald-root family may have been great in producing bastards.
Since illegitimates were not so self-evidently entitled to inheritance, it is often difficult to pinpoint, whose child this or that 'Stewart' precisely were.
However, rules of forbidden degrees for marriages, applied to illegitimates (and issue of illegitimates) as well. Dispensations are one source where to make conclusions about descents, also descents via illegitimate children.
M.Sjostrom
erudition about Stewarts of Darnley:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/c30d2db7be66e9bd
about certain Elizabeth:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/114921fd4aa37ffe
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/4f8d1258fb16b602
-----
there isn't anything near-contemporary which would say that William of Jedburgh were son of Alexander of Darnley; is there?
William of Jedburgh appears to have been an adult in mid-1380s. Alexander of Darnley just only in those years started to have children by his *attested* wife Janet de Keith, heiress of Dalserf and Galston.
William of Jedburgh's son, seemingly underage, but already living, was in 1396 betrothed.
If William of Jedburgh was not son or a very close relative of Alexander of Darnley, then the otherwise-attested close kinship between the Garlies and earl Matthew of Lennox in mid-1500s requires another (preferably closer) kinship link.
Anyway, Matthew would in any case been unlikely to regard such a remote-in-time kinship as would be one via William of Jedburgh, as such which made him attestedly mention those as his kin, or cousins.
John of Darnley would possibly not mention his sister's son as 'cousin' and thusly Elizabeth would not be daughter of Alan of Aubigny and Darnley (and Lennox), but rather his sister. The Loudoun 1466 dispensation (4th degree) speaks for the same. And, chronology makes it almost impossible for Elizabeth to be born of Alan's marriage (seemingly wedded in c1429), because Elizabeth's son Alexander (3rd of Garlies) needs to be born practically not later than 1440. His name, Alexander, would have come from the Darnleys.
----
I have been wondering how and why *Garlies* ended up to William of Jedburgh's issue, as the last seen before that was Garlies being associated with Iseabail Stiubhart, daughter of Iain the 'jure uxoris' of Bonkil:
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00164966&tree=LEO
If Iseabail owned Garlies and brought it into her issue by Tomhas the regent (the Randolphs, later the Dunbars), what link would have it to appear among holdings of knight Iain (killed in c1419), son of William of Jedburgh ??? or Iain's wife...
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00006276&tree=LEO
M.Sjostrom
weakness in chronology:
knight Robert Cuninghame, laird of Kilmaurs, the (first) husband of Agnes Montgomerie, was seemingly attested living in 1448.
http://genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00112063&tree=LEO
This makes it hard for Agnes to have old enough children with her alleged second husband, George Campbell, laird of Loudoun,
particularly a son (George Campbell, of Loudoun) who already in 1466 attestedly was old enough to have married and then to receive a post-nuptial dispensation, which somehow indicates that the marriage was consummated and not a very recent thing....
But if George the younger (1466) was not born of Agnes Montgomerie, then the whole reconstruction of why that dispensation was needed, collapses.
Agnes' first marriage (Kilmaurs) is dated to 1425, but at that time, Agnes may have well been underage.
Her own birth should have occurred in 1410s. [and Aigneis of the Isles reconstructions again suffer....]
Any indications that Agnes Montgomerie divorced from her first husband?
Or any possibility that Kilmaurs would have died already before 1448 ??
M.Sjostrom
identity of Aigneis, of The Isles:
============================
I observed that any children of this Aigneis (who married Montgomerie) seemingly were not born before 1410s.
This makes a likelihood that Aigneis married in c1410.
Usually, a bride would have been max 20 years old, possibly tad younger.
This sets Aigneis' likely birth dating to c1390.
And this does not fit to anything :)
Eoin/Iain mac Eoin, eldest son of the Good Lord of the Isles born of the latter's first (Gormoran) marriage, would have been an old man in 1390 and presumably already (long) dead at that time.
The father, the Good lord Eoin, yet older (born in say 1300/1310) and besides died in c1387. the royal Margaret the latter's second wife, all too old to birth anything after 1370s.
Ealan inghen Gillescoib, supposed wife of the younger Eoin, was in 1380s busily birthing daughters to her (last) husband, Dhonnchadh mormaer of Leamhnachd (Duncan of Lennox).
I am somewhat aware that lots has been conversed about parentage of Agnes of the Isles (= Aigneis a Inchegaill)
----
Dhonnchad's and Ealann's great-grandson, Iain (John), earl of Lennox, seems to have married in 1460 Margaret de Montgomerie, herself great-granddaughter of said Aigneis, and were the proposition correct, thusly great-great-granddaughter of Ealan mac Gillescoib by her supposed first (Isles) husband.
Consanguinity of 3rd and 4th degree, requires dispensation.
Jared & Christina Olar
only a likely hypothesis. But as John Ravilious has kindly explained,
subsequent developments have disproved it.
Jardd L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 6:11 AM
Subject: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies,and Campbell of
Loudoun
>
> I think the 'rules' of proof mean that to make a filiation, there should
> exist proof or indication, positive, of existence of that filiation.
> A 'traditional' pedigree (without near-contemporary proof) would not
> suffice, since traditional pedigrees often are concoctions..... made for
> various purposes and based on various motivations.
>
> For example, is there any *proof* (as opposed to 'belief') that William of
> Jedburgh were son of Alexander of Darnley ?
Jared & Christina Olar
through his wife Marion Stewart, heiress of Garlies and Dalswinton. Scots
Peerage has something to say about how Garlies came to the Stewarts and
finally to Sir William's son John, but I don't have time right now to look
it up. I should be able to find it tonight, if someone else hasn't already
located it.
Jared
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2009 7:28 AM
Subject: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies,and Campbell of
Loudoun
John P. Ravilious
Comments interspersed below
On Jan 14, 8:53�am, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> identity of Aigneis, of The Isles:
> ============================
>
> I observed that any children of this Aigneis (who married Montgomerie) seemingly were not born before 1410s.
> This makes a likelihood that Aigneis married in c1410.
> Usually, a bride would have been max 20 years old, possibly tad younger.
>
> This sets Aigneis' likely birth dating to c1390.
>
> And this does not fit to anything :)
========================
It appears that Agnes was probably born ca. 1367-1369. She was
probably bearing children ca. 1390-1410.
Her eldest (surviving) son was Alexander Montgomery, later 1st
Lord Montgomery, a long-lived gentleman (d. after 7 Oct 1469) who was
probably born ca. 1390. She d. before 9 March 1413/4, when he, called
'Alexandri de Montegomeri, carissimi filii sui et heredis, fratris
germani predicti Roberti', consented to the charter of his father
granting to his younger brother Robert Montgomery, 'begot between him
and the late Agnes of the Isles, his spouse' [ "quondam Agnetam de
Insulis, sponsam suam"] of the lordship of Giffen [confirmed by Robert
Stewart, Duke of Albany at Stirling, 9 Mar 1413/4 - Fraser, Memorials
of the Montgomeries, II:21-22, No. 27; also see Munro, Acts of the
Lords of the Isles, p. 298, Appendix D]
I'm not sure where the idea that Agnes only married Sir John
Montgomery came from, but it is erroneous.
Cheers,
John
========================
John P. Ravilious
>
> This makes it hard for Agnes to have old enough children with her alleged second husband, George Campbell, laird of Loudoun,
> particularly a son (George Campbell, of Loudoun) who already in 1466 attestedly was old enough to have married and then to receive a post-nuptial dispensation, which somehow indicates that the marriage was consummated and not a very recent thing....
>
> But if George the younger (1466) was not born of Agnes Montgomerie, then the whole reconstruction of why that dispensation was needed, collapses.
>
> Agnes' first marriage (Kilmaurs) is dated to 1425, but at that time, Agnes may have well been underage.
> Her own birth should have occurred in 1410s. [and Aigneis of the Isles reconstructions again suffer....]
>
> Any indications that Agnes Montgomerie divorced from her first husband?
> Or any possibility that Kilmaurs would have died already before 1448 ??
====================
Dear M.,
The 1448 date is erroneous. This is taken from Scots Peerage (SP
IV:232), where it is recorded (sub Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn),
' On January 1448 King James II. granted to Sir Alexander
Montgomery the heritable office of Bailie of the King's barony of
Cunningham, formerly held by Sir Robert....'
That Sir Robert Cunyngham died prior to 11 July 1439 is proved by
mandate for the dispensation for her marriage to Sir George Campbell,
dated 11 July 1439 [correcting errors in the original
supplication dated 13 Jun 1439]:
' ..dispensation of George Campbell [of Loudoun] and Agnes
[Montgomery],
widow of Robert Cunyngham, of the diocese of Glasgow, expedited but
not
yet presented ' [Dunlop, Annie I., and David MacLauchlan, eds.,
Scottish Supplications to Rome, Volume IV: 1433-1447 (Glasgow:
University of Glasgow Press, 1983), No. 583].
Cheers,
John
John P. Ravilious
>
> - Show quoted text -
=================
Correction:
The prior message should have stated (at the end),
" I'm not sure where the idea that Agnes only married Sir John
Montgomery ca. 1410 came from, but it is erroneous."
John
M.Sjostrom
Aigneis 'of The Isles'
===================
Thank you John.
I have now corrected my files to have:
Aigneis a Innsegall (= Agnes of The Isles)
born in est 1367, died before 1414, married probably in 1380s
her husband was: knight John Montgomerie, laird of Aird Rosain, Eglintoun and Eaglesham (born in est 1360; died in c1429, or just before); son of knight Hugh Montgomerie, of Eaglesham, and his wife Ealasaid, heiress of Eglintoun and Aird Rosain.
children included:
1 knight Alexander Montgomerie, laird of Ard Rosain, 1st Lord Montgomerie (b in est 1395, d aft 1469 - probably died in c1470)
2 Robert Montgomerie, laird of Giffen (b in est 1400)
3 Agnes(|Anne) Montgomerie (born in est 1405); married firstly (1425) knight Robert Cuningham, laird of Kilmaurs (d bef 1439); married secondly (c1439) knight George Campbell, laird of Loudoun (b in est 1405; d aft 1450)
--
mother of Aigneis a Innsegall:
according to Andrew B W MacEwen (is it published somewhere?), this lady was daughter of the EARLIER marriage of Ealan inghen Gillescoib a Caimbeul a Lochobha [whose last marriage was with count Dhonnchad mac Baltair, mormaer of Leamhnachd = Lennox],
herself daughter of knight Gilla Escoib mac Cailean ('Archibald') Caimbeul, laird of Lochawe; and his wife Mairi/Iseabail ['MacLagmand']
according to MacEwen, Aigneis' father was:
Eoin/Iain mac Eoin 'MacDomhnaill' a Innsegall, heir of The Isles (died c1469);
himself the eldest son of kinglet Eoin/Iain/John mac Aenghus 'MacDomhnaill' of Islay, Lord of The Isles, by his first (and divorced) wife, the MacRuaidhri heiress of Garmoran.
M.Sjostrom
Aigneis a Innsegall
===============
I observed that Aigneis' marriage and genealogical position makes sense.
At the time of her marriage (1380s, 1390s), the young Aigneis was stepdaughter of count Dhonnchad, local ruler of 'Lennox'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donnchadh,_Earl_of_Lennox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardrossan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennox_(district)
Somehow I feel that Leamhnachd, Lennox, was geographically close to the lordships of Ardrossan, Eglintoun and Eaglesham, baronies which the bridegroom, knight John de Montgomerie, held. A clear and natural interest for both parties to make alliance. No need to wonder why The Isles, i.e Hebrides.... 'The Isles' at that time was mostly just something in Aigneis' pedigree, but not of great relevance to that marriage.
M.Sjostrom
supposed common root between Ealann/Eilidh ('Helen', 'Ellen') and her supposed husband, Eoin/Iain the younger, of The Isles (marriage which supposedly produced Aigneis a Innsegall = Agnes of The Isles):
-----------------------------------------------------------
I observed that some tradition attaches to Cailean Mhor 'Caimbeul', also anachronistically known as 'Sir Colin Mor Campbell', (by whichever of his wives) a daughter who supposedly married Aenghus 'Mhor' mac Domhnaill, of Islay. If that daughter was mother of Aenghus 'Ogh' MacDomhnaill, then the above-pivoted couple would have been both great-great-grandchildren of knight Cailean Mhor, and thusly kin with each other in consanguinity of 4th degree. Any dispensation known ???
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00043792&tree=LEO
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00056786&tree=LEO
knight Cailean Mhor, Colin 'Mor', b. est 1240 d. 1296
* probably by first wife (whomever she were):
o 2 knight Domhnaill mac Cailean (Caimbeul)
# 3 knight Donnchadh mac Domhnaill (Caimbeul)
* Susanna Crawford, heiress of Loudoun
o 4 knight Andrew Campbell, laird of Loudoun b. est 1320 d. 1368
o 2 knight Niall mac Cailean (Caimbeul), laird of Lochow, d. Bef 1316
# 3 knight Cailean mac Niaill (Caimbeul), laird of Lochobha b. Abt 1290 d. Bef 2 May 1343
o 4 knight Gilla Easbaig mac Cailein ('Archibald') Caimbeul, laird of Lochawe, b. Abt 1320 d. Bef 1394
+ (Mairi|)Iseabail (MacLagmand)
# 5 knight Cailean mac Gilleasbaig ('Sir Colin') Campbell, of Lochow d. Bef 1414
# 5 Ealann/Eilidh inghen Gilleasbaig a Caimbeul a Lochobha
* married supposedly firstly Eoin/Iain mac Eoin a Innsegall, once Master of The Isles
* married ascertainedly (secondly) count Donnchadh mac Baltair ('Duncan'), mormaer of 'Lennox'
knight Cailean Mhor, Colin 'Mor', b. est 1240 d. 1296
* possibly by second wife, supposedly Afraig a Charraig, daughter of the Mormaer of Charraig (Carrick):
o 2 [supposed daughter], married:
+ Aenghus 'Mor', Lord of Islay d. 1296
# 3 Aenghus 'Oigh', Lord of The Isles d. Abt 1330/1336
* Aine ni Cathan (Aigneis)
o 4 Mairi inghen Aenghus a Innsegall
+ Uilliam a Ros, 5th Earl of Ross d. 9 Feb 1372
o 4 Eoin/Iain/'John' 'the Good', Lord of the Isles, High Chief of Clan Donald, d. Abt 1387
+ Amie|Euphemia, Heiress of the MacRuaris, of Garmoran
# 5 Eoin/Iain the younger a Innsegall, once Master of The Isles (see above), d. around 1369
supposedly married (as her first husband) Ealann/Eilidh inghen Gilleasbaig a Caimbeul a Lochobha, see above
# 5 Raghnaill mac Eioin a Innsegall ('Ranald'), 1st Chief of Clanranald d. 1386
+ Margaret Stewart, daughter of (the ultimate king) Robert II
-----------------------------------------------------
I also notice that chronology does not support the idea that knight Cailean Mor's daughter were mother of Aenghus Og.
Aonghas Og could hardly be born much later than in c1270, seeing his (quite adult) activities in the Independence Wars, and how early (1250s) his father was attested in adult activities.
Cailean Mhor was not elderly when he was active in the Bruce partisanship in The Great Cause, therefore Cailean should have been born in around 1240, not much earlier.
For these reasons, the supposed daughter must have been born to quite a young Cailean, if she were to be mother of Aonghas Og. And yet more difficult would the supposed Charraig wife (Afraig) be grandmother of Aenghus Oig, because such Afraig a Charraig was mature enough to give birth to her own children at earliest in the sanme decade when Aonghas Oig was himself born.
BUT, even if the grandmother of Aonghas Oig had been knight Cailean's earlier wife, still the chronology is almost too tight.
John P. Ravilious
> supposed common root between Ealann/Eilidh ('Helen', 'Ellen') and her supposed husband, Eoin/Iain the younger, of The Isles (marriage which supposedly produced Aigneis a Innsegall = Agnes of The Isles):
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> I observed that some tradition attaches to Cailean Mhor 'Caimbeul', also anachronistically known as 'Sir Colin Mor Campbell', (by whichever of his wives) a daughter who supposedly married Aenghus 'Mhor' mac Domhnaill, of Islay. If that daughter was mother of Aenghus 'Ogh' MacDomhnaill, then the above-pivoted couple would have been both great-great-grandchildren of knight Cailean Mhor, and thusly kin with each other in consanguinity of 4th degree. Any dispensation known ???
>
========================
Dear M.,
I am not aware of a dispensation for the marriage of Helen
Campbell and Eoin MacDonald; he died rather young (they had two
children only), so it's possible they never 'got around to it'. Not
unusual as it appears. Helen did have a dispensation for her marriage
to the Earl of Lennox (30 Mar 1373), as he and Eoin MacDonald were
near related (not involving common Campbell ancestry though).
The chronology concerning Angus Og MacDonald is not
a problem in fact. He was likely born say 1285: I'd
place his mother as being born +/- 1268. Note for one
thing, his mother (a Campbell) was Angus Mor's 2nd wife.
The main piece of evidence which substantiates this
MacDonald-Campbell marriage: a mandate was granted to
dispense the marriage of Angus Og's daughter to the Earl
of Ross, dated at Avignon, 8 Kal. June [25 May] 1342:
' To the bishop of Moray. Mandate to grant a
dispensation to William, earl of Ross and Mary,
daughter of the late Angus de Ile, donsel, to
intermarry, they being related in the fourth
and third degrees of kindred. ' [1]
This dispensation was required as William and Mary
were related in the 3rd and 4th degrees, due to their
common descent from Neil, Earl of Carrick.
Neil, Earl of Carrick = Isabel
_______________________I__
I I
Marjory = Robert de Aufrica = Sir Colin
C of Carrick I Brus I Campbell
I ____I
I I
Maud NN = Angus Mor
= Hugh, E of Ross I MacDonald
I I
I I
I Angus Og MacDonald
I I
I I
William = (1342) Mary
E of Ross
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] W. H. Bliss, B.C.L. and C. Johnson, M.A., eds., Calendar of
Entries in the Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland:
Papal Letters, Vol. III, A.D. 1342-1362 (London: for the Public Record
Office, 1897; reprinted 1971, Kraus-Thomson, Liechtenstein), p. 85,
cites fol. 168, Regesta Vol. CLV. Munro, Acts of the Lords of the
Isles, p. 242, no. B23, cites the same source.
M.Sjostrom
It is known (to perceptive) that in late-medieval genealogy research (with the forbidden degrees of consanguinity), some indications are given even the 'absence' of something:
If (roughly-same-class) neighbors are absent from marriages of someone's descendants, for generations, it is an *indication* that those descendants share such an ancestor that their marriage would be forbidden.
For example, magnates were eager to keep marriage alliances with their neighbor magnates.
I went through lots of marriages of descendants of Aigneis a Innsegall, as much as there was in Genealogics. Chrildren, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.
I looked for specifically
(a) descendants of the Campbells of Lochow
(b) descendants of the last mormaers of Lennox, for example descendants of Murdoch of Albany and descendants of the Darnley
* issue of the supposed sisters of Aigneis:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00139343&tree=LEO
* issue of the supposed maternal uncle of Aigneis:
http://genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00043780&tree=LEO
Not too much 'collisions' were found: it really is almost like they for four generations avoided each other. Yep, some indication to support identification of the mother of Aigneis.
The few collisions seem to be:
* the already-mentioned Margaret Montgomerie (great-granddaughter of Aigneis) marrying knight John Stewart, laird of Darnley, earl of Lennox (great-grandson of Ealann)
* the already-mentioned Elizabeth Stewart of Garlies (supposed great-great-granddaughter of Ealann) marrying George Campbell, laird of Loudoun (grandson of Aigneis). They had explicit dispensation.
Whereas examples:
No collision, but marriages JUST outside the forbidden degrees:
* William Stewart, 3rd of Baldorran (apparently descendant of countess Iseabail of Lennox), married Mariot Campbell of Glenorchy, a descendant of Ealann's brother. William was Ealann's great-great-grandson.
They as themselves neither are descended from Aigneis.
* Archibald Campbell, of Lochawe, 2nd earl of Argyle (great-great-grandson of knight Cailean), married Elizabeth Stewart of Lennox (herself great-great-granddaughter of Ealann), and since Cailean and Ealann were siblings, the couple was related in fifth degree and not in forbidden consanguinity. No collision.
They as themselves neither are descended from Aigneis.
* Gilbert Kennedy, 2nd earl of Cassillis (great-great-grandson, or was he great-great-great-grandson, of Aigneis) marrying Isabel Campbell of Lochawe-Argyle (herself both a great-great-granddaughter of Ealasaid a Leamhnachd 'Elizabeth of Lennox', supposed sister of Aigneis; as well as great-great-great-granddaughter of Aigneis herself).
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00053936&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=7
No collision.
This last example makes me to enquire whether Elizabeth Montgomerie, baroness Kennedy (married 'bef 1459') were daughter or granddaughter of Aigneis' son, Alexander Lord Montgomerie, whose eldest grandkids clearly were born in or even before 1440s.
M.Sjostrom
WHAT
is the dispensation granted by pope Gregorius XI (r 1370-78) to 'Waltero Aulani domicello' in diocese of Glasgow, to marry 'Eleanora filia Gillespeth Campell domicella' ??????
That is the wording in A Stuart's supplement....
I would almost vouch for that 'Eleanora' being this 'Ealan'/'Helen'/'Ellen', and that 'Gillespeth campell' be this Gilla Easbaig (mac Cailean) 'caimbeul' ('Sir Archibald'), laird of Lochobha.
In 1373, John wrote, Ealan received dispensation to marry the future Mormaer of Lennox, but HIS name should be: Donnchadh (mac Baltair) a Leamhnachd.
This is almost like Dhonnchad's father (Baltar mac Amlaib = 'Walter macFaslane') was the bridegroom.... But he was securely married with Dhonnchadh's mother the countess Mairead a Leamhnachd (survived to over 1380s).
Does anybody have the exact text content of the 1373 dispensation ???
M.Sjostrom
roots of Aigneis a Innsegall
=========================
by her Montgomerie husband, Aigneis had among others sons named: Alexander and Robert.
These are not nicely explained by close direct ancestry of her Montgomerie husband.
On the other hand, it is customary that also mother's family's onomastics becomes visible among her children - if there are several. Aigneis had three surviving sons.
Names like Ranald, Rory, Iain/John, Angus, would be her paternal family onomastics, had she been daughter of Eoin the younger.
Names like Gilla Easbaig (Archibald) and Cailean (Colin) would be her maternal family onomastics, had she been daughter of Ealann Caimbeul.
Names like Donnchadh would be her step-father onomastics, had her mother been that one who married Lennox.
Any good explanation for why none of these male-name onomastics are present among known sons of Aigneis ??
Which would be a plausible 'The Isles' family for Aigneis be daughter of, had names Alexander and Robert come from there ?? Is there any such Isles family ?
Were they possibly just sucking up either the king or the Duke of Albany, when making a yunger son 'Robert' ?
John P. Ravilious
============================
Dear M.,
The wife of Eoin/John mac Donald and (2ndly) Duncan, Earl of
Lennox was (in English) Helen Campbell, but this could easily have
been rendered Elen or Elena, hence Eleanora. She was evidently the
namesake of her paternal grandmother Helen de Menteith, a daughter of
Sir John de Menteith the well-known 'betrayer of Wallace' (younger
brother of Alexander, Earl of Menteith). Scots Peerage has this
mangled as 'Helena, daughter of Sir John Mor, son of the Earl of
Lennox [SP I:325].
The complete Latin text should be in A. Theiner, ed., Vetera
Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum, no. 348. Munro, Acts of the Lords
of the Isles (p. 243, no. B27) indicates an English rendering of
"Duncan, son of Walter Aulani, and Elena, daughter of Gillespat
Cambel, formerly wife of John de Insulis". If your extract is from
Andrew Stuart's Genealogical History or another source, it seems to be
only a small part of the Latin. As you note, Walter mac Aulay was
married to the Countess Margaret, not to Helen.
Cheers,
John
John P. Ravilious
Comments interspersed.
On Jan 15, 1:59 am, "M.Sjostrom" <q...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> roots of Aigneis a Innsegall
> =========================
>
> by her Montgomerie husband, Aigneis had among others sons named: Alexander and Robert.
> These are not nicely explained by close direct ancestry of her Montgomerie husband.
===================================
Alexander, eldest son of Sir John Montgomery and Agnes 'de
insulis', was named for his paternal grandfather Alexander de
Montgomery, the first husband of Elizabeth de Eglinton. This is yet
another correction to Scots Peerage thanks to Andrew B. W. MacEwen
(see the SGM archives). Among the items of evidence, "Alexandro de
Mongomry" was a witness to a charter of Thomas Stewart, Earl of Angus
to Sir Hugh de Eglinton of the lands of Ormdale in Cowall, dated at
Edinburgh 25 May 1360 [Hist. Man. Comm., Tenth Report, Eglinton MSS.
pp. 6-7, No. 2, also in Fraser, Memorials of the Montgomeries, II:3-4,
No. 4]. Alexander died before 2 Jan 1363/4, when his widow Elizabeth
had dispensation to married John Wallace of Craigie.
The second son Robert does not have an observable namesake, but
then we only know of one son of Alexander de Montgomery and Elizabeth
de Eglinton. The early pedigree of the Montgomeries of Eaglesham is
unresolved to date. There were no other known sons: there may well
have been others, but as to numbers and names we would only be
guessing.
================================
>
> On the other hand, it is customary that also mother's family's onomastics becomes visible among her children - if there are several. Aigneis had three surviving sons.
>
> Names like Ranald, Rory, Iain/John, Angus, would be her paternal family onomastics, had she been daughter of Eoin the younger.
>
> Names like Gilla Easbaig (Archibald) and Cailean (Colin) would be her maternal family onomastics, had she been daughter of Ealann Caimbeul.
>
> Names like Donnchadh would be her step-father onomastics, had her mother been that one who married Lennox.
>
> Any good explanation for why none of these male-name onomastics are present among known sons of Aigneis ??
>
> Which would be a plausible 'The Isles' family for Aigneis be daughter of, had names Alexander and Robert come from there ?? Is there any such Isles family ?
>
> Were they possibly just sucking up either the king or the Duke of Albany, when making a yunger son 'Robert' ?
================
See the foregoing explanation.
Cheers,
John
M.Sjostrom
elaboration of the early Montgomerie pedigree (1300s) appears to be here:
http://groups.google.com/group/soc.genealogy.medieval/msg/c075cdcb952502a0
British standard literature has again displayed its non-reliability
M.Sjostrom
onomastics among kids of Aigneis a Innsegall
=======================================
Okay, now I am practically satisfied with the onomastical background of those sons.
Alexander, the heir, obviously was baptized as namesake of the paternal grandfather.
Robert, probably the second surviving, is in my view a demonstration of their close ties to the Duke of Albany, to whose circle this young family presumably belonged like the bride's stepfather the mormaer Dhonnchadh so belonged, and the Caimbeul family of the bride's mother so belonged. also, the name Robert to a younger son would be their reminder of their famed ancestral uncle, king Robert the Bruce. This naming is natural, particularly if the boy Robert was among youngest sons, some elder sons having obtained paternal and maternal close onomastics.
Hugh, that supposed son may possibly actually have been the bridegroom's brother. Anyway, his name obviously comes from knight Hugh of Eglinton, whose inheritance made the family so well-off.
That a daughter was baptized as Anne/Agnes, seemingly namesake of the young mother, is not implausible - though, names of grandmothers should have existed in the brood... [In some other (but not necessarily scots) tradition, a daughter would have been baptized as namesake of the mother, only if the mother died in that very childbirth...]
The full absence of maternal onomastics among the kids, has -by default- the usual explanation: one or a coupla sons were so named, but they died young, not showing in records. Such 'maternal-side' names, at least one, should have been given to an elder son, but there actually is room for sons who died young, between Alexander and the young Robert.
M.Sjostrom
what sort of dispensation, if any, had William Cunyngham, of Craigends (murdered on 11 Aug 1533) obtain to marry Giles Campbell of Loudoun ??
marriage around 1500-1520, I think.
according to the idea of Anne/Agnes Montgomerie being mother of both: Alexander Cunyngham, 1st Lord Kilmaurs and Earl of Glencairn; and of George Campbell, laird of Loudoun,
this couple would have been second cousins of each other
http://genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00383350&tree=LEO&parentset=0&display=standard&generations=5
Very clearly within forbidden degrees of consanguinity.
Jared & Christina Olar
100-year-old standard reference works have been superseded at various points
by more recent findings. You have not established (since it is impossible
to do so) that because older standard works are sometimes in error, that
means they can not be relied on at all.
Jared L. Olar
----- Original Message -----
From: "M.Sjostrom" <qs...@yahoo.com>
To: <gen-me...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 9:13 AM
Subject: Kin of the Earl of Lennox: Stewart of Garlies,and Campbell of
Loudoun
>
Jared & Christina Olar
Jared L. Olar
-----------
"Quarry the granite rock with razors, or moor the vessel with a thread of silk, then may you hope with such keen and delicate instruments as human knowledge and human reason to contend against those giants, the passion and the pride of man." -- John Henry Cardinal Newman
John P. Ravilious
> what sort of dispensation, if any, had William Cunyngham, of Craigends (murdered on 11 Aug 1533) obtain to marry Giles Campbell of Loudoun ??
>
> marriage around 1500-1520, I think.
>
> according to the idea of Anne/Agnes Montgomerie being mother of both: Alexander Cunyngham, 1st Lord Kilmaurs and Earl of Glencairn; and of George Campbell, laird of Loudoun,
> Very clearly within forbidden degrees of consanguinity.
=========================
Dear M.,
There is a reply to this query in another post today: see the
thread <Dispensations (and lack thereof) as genealogical evidence>.
Cheers,
John
M.Sjostrom
according to SP, vol 5, p 341, the 1373 dispensation was for "John of the Isles, Helen's first husband, and Duncan were related in the third and fourth degrees of affinity"
assuming that neither Eion 'John' nor Dhonnchadh 'Duncan' had been themselves married before their marriages to Ealan Caimbeul (in which case they should not themselves actually have 'affinitys'), the affinity refers to Ealann. And thusly, between John and Duncan, there was consanguinity of those degrees.
* I have understood that a person did not have forbidden affinites via any other kinspeople's marriages than just via his/her own marriage, except of course the spouses of one's kinspeople. So, a person was not forbidden to marry a step-parent's child, that was not a forbidden affinity.... right ? One was just forbidden to marry that step-parent.
This leads to the idea that there was a consanguinity, cousinage, between Eoin and Dhonnchadh, one side 3rd degree, the other side 4th degree.
A great-grandparent of one was great-great-grandparent of the other.
ancestral tables:
1 Dhonnchadh, b prob bef 1350
2 Baltair of Faslane
3 Mairead countess of Leamhnachd, b in est 1320s
4 Amhlaibh (of Faslane)
5 ?
6 Domhnall a Leamhnachd, b prob bef 1300
7 ?
--
1 Eoin, b in est 1340
2 Eoin the good, b in est 1310
3 Amie of Garmoran, b in est 1315
4 Aonghas 'Oig', b in est 1280
5 Aine ni Cathain, b in est 1290
6 Ruaidhri, of Garmoran, b in est 1260
7 ?
8 Aonghas 'Mhor', of Islay, b in est 1230
9 ??? a Caimbeul, inghen Cailein Mhor, b in est 1270
10 lord of Cathan, b in est 1250
11 ?
12 Ailean 'macRuaidhri' (of North isles??), b in est 1220
13 ?
This reveals a pattern that probably, generally grandparents of Dhonnchadh were a generation younger than grandparents of Eoin.
Which, if roughly correct, makes it likelier that the 3rd degree was on the side of Eoin, and the 4th degree on the side of Dhonnchadh.
In other words, likely that a great-grandparent (see listed ones 8-12) of Eoin was a great-great-grandparent of Dhonnchadh.
It is however practically certain that SUCH a great-great-grandparent of Dhonnchadh cannot have been a daughter of Cailean Mhor. Between c1270 and c1320 is all too short a time to have four generations born.
But, of course, for example those macSomhairle lordlings of various isles (Aonghas 'Mhor' or Ailean mac Ruaidhri), were quite plausible fathers of a lady to marry to some branch of the Leamhnachd mormaer dynasty, that one near Dumbarton, Faslane or such.
Which all makes me to evaluate that it's likely that the Lennox family had some blood descent from kinglet Somhairle mac Gillebride and his wife Ranghild Olavsdottir of Mann.
M.Sjostrom
I see however still a big problem in that chronology. I do not like that much tightness, as it means such a precarious situation for the reconstructed lineage.
Niall, mormaer of Charraig, was succeeded by his daughter 'Marjorie', who thusly presumed as eldest daughter. Marjorie married FIRSTLY (in or before 1266) Aedan a Cill Conchubair (Kilconquhar) -and seemingly produced in that marriage the daughter who became mother of the Randolphs- estimatedly in around 1270. There seem to be considerations to say that mormaer Niall was a young man still in 1250s. The eldest daughter Marjorie's own birth has been estimated by some to have occurred as late as in 1257 ! I would however say that Marjorie was born tad earlier, but from such other considerations I would be wary to place her birth earlier than in 1250.
The chronology from the Charraig wife of Cailean 'Mhor' goes to bee (too) tight.
Cailean 'Mhor' Caimbeul's (second) wife, the supposed Afraig a Charraig, should have been younger than said Marjorie, thusly born later than 1250. It is tight to place her much earlier than in 1255, and before 1251 is really a stretch...
It is therefore VERY tight to have a daughter born to her as early as in 1268, besides if Marjorie was elder (and had her Cillconchubair daughter as fairly young), Afraig's daughter should presumably be tad younger than the Cill Conchubair daughter. Mostly because custom was that younger daughter married only after elder daughter. 1268 is relatively tight in being that early.
And then a 1285 birth of Aonghas 'Oig', of Islay, is again very tight.
Simply, his supposed GRANDMOTHER having been born after 1250 (less than 35 years earlier), this just feels so tight, and therefore close to implausibility.
Less than 35 years is very tight for having two generations. In female line, say 40 years would be much more acceptable.
To place Aonghas Oig's birth to as late as in 1285, is another stretch. He seemingly was active and thusly presumably adult, in very first years of 1300s (WHAT is the earliest attestation of him?). Already in mid-1290s, he seemingly had succeeded to a veritable portion of his father's territories (such as, Kintyre), and we hear nothing of him having been really young at that stage. [Had he been but a tiny child, then presumably his elder brother, Alasdair 'Oig' the MacDonald would have usurped/taken those.]
------------------
John P. Ravilious
======================
Dear M.,
I must disagree as to the chronological problem you see. Adam de
Kilconquhar and Marjory of Carrick were married probably in 1265, and
possibly before. The first charter I find with Adam as Earl of
Carrick was dated 20 Feb 1265/6. This is a charter of Adam, lord of
Kilconquhar, Earl of Carrick [" Ad' d'n's de kylconchat . Comes de
karryc ..."] to the priory of North Berwick concerning the advowson of
Kilconquhar, sealed by himself and by Gamelin, Bishop of St. Andrews
and dated at Kilconquhar, 20 Feb 1265/6 ["Decimo kalend' marcii: Anno
g'r'e . millesimo . Ducentisimo . sexagesimo . Sexto"] [1]. How old
Marjory was at that date is a guess at best.
If you place Marjory as being born in 1250 or later, then you
would have her aged 15 or younger at the time of her marriage. Women
in the medieval period were married young, and were having children
rather young to start with - that was what marriage was all about,
after all.
Cheers,
John
NOTES
[1] Cosmo Innes, ed., Carte Monialium de Northberwic, prioratus
Cisterciensis B. Marie de Northberwic (Edinburgh: printed for the
Bannatyne Club, 1847), pp. 18-20, no. 19.
M.Sjostrom
certainly, the marriage in about 1280s (IF it's chronologically and generationally plausible) between a daughter of knight Cailean Mhor, of Menstrie, and the already somewhat elderly Aonghas Mhor, lord of Islay (Hyle), is plausible along political circumstances of those days.
Aonghas Mhor is recorded as supporter of the Bruces, and supporter of the Bruce claim to the throne of Scotland. They were allies in 1280s.
knight Cailean Mhor (and his Caimbeuls) are recorded as supporters of the Bruce, the Cailean Mhor actually as a stalwart proponent of the Bruces. Also he seems to have been close relative of the Bruces via marriage (John has argued that knight Cailean's second wife had been Afraig, sister of 'Marjorie' who was wife of the then younger Roibeart a Bruis).
The lords of Islay (1250s-1290s Aonghas Mhor as chief) appear to me to have been long-time sorta opponents against centralizing government of Scotland, and against normannization, and probably were in the earlier camp of the meicUilleam claimant dynasty, i.e the Moray dynasty tradition).
A lord in the Bruce camp would very plausibly, if single again such as widower, marry daughter of another lord in the Bruce camp.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cailean_Mor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angus_Og_of_Islay
Aonghas Og, dc 1330, was attestedly one of the Bruce's staunchest allies, during his reign (1306-28 or so). Aonghas Og in that way basically continued the stance taken by his father Aonghas Mhor. However that's not a proof about who was his mother [often is seen that a son aligns differently than what his avuncular ties should be].
--------------------------
knight Cailean 'Mhor' Caimbeul ('Colin Mor'), of Menstrie, b. est 1240 killed 1296
* possibly by second wife, supposedly Afraig a Charraig, daughter of the Mormaer of Charraig (Carrick):
o 2 [supposed daughter], married:
+ Aenghus 'Mor', Lord of Islay d. 1296
# 3 Aenghus 'Oigh', Lord of The Isles d. Abt 1330/1336
* Aine ni Cathan (Aigneis)
-----------------------
Aonghas Og starts to be active in very early years of 1300s, at latest. I think there is mentions of him in about 1301, giving an impression he already was adult. Mentions in documents which display his brother (Alasdair Og) and some others of Inner Hebrides, lords, to align themselves in the Scottish independence fight factions.
When is he attested for the *first times* in contemporary documents ????