Why Walter Stewart of Morphie was not born "about 1422/1424"

[wjhonson]

On Leo's great site here
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00006146&tree=LEO

we see that Walter Stewart of Morphie who was the youngest son of his
father Walter Stewart, Master of Fife (executed on castle hill,
Stirling 24 May 1426)

Leo is however showing his birth as 1422/1424

Walter Stewart and Janet Erskine have a dispensation dated 24 Apr 1421
and I suppose this is being used as a starting date assuming Walter is
legitimate.

However in 1479 the three brothers Andrew, Arthur and Walter received
a letter of legimation. Obviously Walter would not have been included
if he had in fact been legitimate already.

In addition, if he had been fully legitimate, he would represent a
senior line to Mary Queen of Scots!

Will

[James Dempster]

On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:31:57 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <wjho...@aol.com>
wrote:

He may well be of such a senior line. The legitimation of Walter
Stewart has long been considered by historians of Scotland to have
been done for political reasons rather than reasons of he
illigitimacy. To put it succinctly it was better for his personal
survival to be considered a legitimated bastard Albany Stewart rather
than a legitimate one with a claim to the throne.

James

[M Sjostrom]

On 24 huhti, 15:08, James Dempster <talksinsenten...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> The legitimation of Walter
> Stewart has long been considered by historians of Scotland to have
> been done for political reasons rather than reasons of he
> illigitimacy. To put it succinctly it was better for his personal
> survival to be considered a legitimated bastard Albany Stewart rather
> than a legitimate one with a claim to the throne.
>
> James

the sort of conspiracy theory which James Dempster employs in this,
is more like something which descendants of the said Walter would want to
believe in,
rather than a realistic occurrence.

The survival factor would have been important just after 1425 (when Walter
obviously was still a child, whenever he was born)
but in the 1470s, it surely had lost pretty much all of its meaning.

In the 1470s, the rulers of the country were already a few generations
distanced from those who had deep reasons to hate the Albany.
and actually, rulers in late 1400s even assigned high positions (such as,
chancellorships) to Albany descendants. There was no deep vehemence
remaining on sole account of lineage, seemingly.
Moreover, the rulers in the latter half of 1400s, were agnatic males who
anyway were genealogically snior to any Albany legitimiates, even if there
had existed such. So, there is no sensible successional motivation for such
a conspiracy theory.....

Besides, people in late 1400s, would anyway have known or been access to
hear, the truth (of the legitimacy), even if these had tried to mask it - if
the legitimate line had been a real threat to kings. There was really not
much point to try to pretend it.

Whereas, in 1450s, Iseabail, dowager duchess of Albany, suo jure the
countess of Leamhnachd (Levenax, Lennox) deceased - and she had no
legitimate-line progeny of her body to inherit her.
This is a very well known outcome or premise of that inheritance conflict.

some illegitimate Albany descendant was actually allowed by the then rulers
to enjoy grandma Iseabail's lands - hat is a point which further debunks the
conspiracy theory.

but, as there was no legitimate-line descendants of Iseabail, the heirs of
her younger sisters attestedly received the inheritance ultimately.

this means that this Baltair (Walter) was also illegitimate.

I deem that all attempts to claim that Janet Erskine would have been mother
of this Baltair (Walter), laird of Morphie, highly likely are false.
No respectable genealogy should present the filiation to Janet Erskine as
true.
The filiation to her, is chiefly based on a conspiracy theory. No
contemporary record gives any testimony of such motherhood.

another point:
either Iseabail Stiubhart, wife of laird of Buchanan, was herself
illegitimate, or her own progeny did not survive long enough. Because they
did not receive the said duchess, countess Iseabail's inheritance
http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00006141&tree=LEO

[John P. Ravilious]

====================

Dear 'M',

There is likely more to James' theory (preference of an
illegitimate life vs. a legitimate death) which merits further
research. I highly recommend such an endeavour.

As to the matter of inheriting lands of Countess Isabel in Lennox
or elsewhere, the apparent failure of same does not support your
contention of illegitimacy for any or all of the issue of Sir Walter
Stewart of Lennox (ex. 1425). Sir Walter was found guilty of treason,
attainted and executed on 24 May 1425; his father Murdoch, grandfather
Duncan, Earl of Lennox, and brother Alexander followed him to the
block the next day. Duke Murdoch was also attainted (I understand the
escaped son James was as well): this means that no inheritance of
lands to which Murdoch, Walter or James were previously entitled or
could have inherited could be claimed by another person as heir of any
of the three. This element of attainder, the 'corruption of blood',
would have prevented any legitimate issue of Sir Walter Stewart of
Lennox from claiming such an inheritance, including the Earldom of
Lennox. The rights which Andrew Stewart, Lord Avondale (himself
likely illegitimate), acquired in Lennox were by royal grant, not by
inheritance.

If there is any element concerning the alleged legitimacy or
illegitimacy of Walter Stewart of Morphie which might prove the
matter, this would likely have to do with the lands of Morphie (Easter
or Wester) which Walter Stewart held. It has been argued that these
were Erskine lands, which would bolster the claim that Walter was
Janet's son: I have yet to find definitive proof of this.

Cheers,

John

[John P. Ravilious]

On Apr 24, 8:08 am, James Dempster <talksinsenten...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Apr 2010 02:31:57 -0700 (PDT), wjhonson <wjhon...@aol.com>

> James- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

==================

Dear James,

See below.

John

[Douglas Richardson]

Great post, John. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this matter.

Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah

[macfhio...@gmail.com]

Actually, A.J. Stuart in his book Stuarts of Castle Stuart (1858) claims that some of Sir Walter Stewart's sons were born legitimate, but their legitimacy was deliberately concealed by their father to save their lives. This branch of the royal Stewart dynasty descended from Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany, was targeted by their cousin King James I of Scotland upon his return from England where he he had been held hostage by the English kings. Murdoch Stewart, Duke of Albany was charged with treason, and was executed along with his legitimate descendants, ad his aging father-in-law, the Earl of Lennox. Those descendants of Murdoch, Duke of Albany who were spared the axe were all bastards- or had been declared as such. Murdoch's son, Sir Walter Stewart, Master of Fife, had numerous sons. Most of these were bastards born to his mistress Celestine Campbell. But his youngest two sons, including Walter, Baron of Morphie were legitimately born to Sir Walter's marriage to Janet Erskine. This marriage received papal dispensation in 1421. They were infants at the time of their father's execution in 1425. In 1479, a parliamentary Act of Legitimation was passed in favour of Walter of Morphie and at least one of his brothers. According to A.J. Stuart, this Act merely confirmed a fact which already existed, namely that these Stuart brothers were born legitimate. If A.J. Stuarts claims are true, then this line, the Stuarts of Doune, is the only surviving legitimate line of the Royal House of Stuart. This family is now represented by the Earl of Moray, and the Earl Castle Stewart. This line is junior to that of Mary Queen of Scots, who was descended from King Robert III, the elder brother of Robert, Duke of Albany.

[Kelsey Jackson Williams]

I'm not sure we should look for some Henry VII-esque plan to root out ever member of an entire family behind the 1425 executions. More likely these were simply the adult males of the Albany kinship group who could conveniently be captured and made an example of.

As for Sir Walter's sons, however, there's no doubt whatsoever that they were born in circumstances which saw them generally recognised to be illegitimate. A. J. Stuart - like plenty of Victorian genealogists before him - has misunderstood what letters of legitimation mean in this context. They mean, without a shadow of a doubt, that the persons named were considered illegitimate and that the letters then altered their legal status to that of a legitimate child. The documents you're referring to are calendared in the published Register of the Great Seal (ii. nos. 1066-1068) as follows (all dated 28 August 1472, not 1479):

1066. "Rex dedit literam legitimationis Andree Domino Avandale".

1067. "Rex dedit literam legitimationis Arthuro Stewart fratri And. dom. Avandale".

1068. "Rex dedit literam legitimationis Waltero Stewart fratri And. dom. Avandale et Arthuri Stewart".

In other words, while you're right that a papal dispensation was granted for the marriage of the elder Sir Walter and Janet Erskine in 1421, it seems clear that Walter Stewart of Morphie was nonetheless born out of wedlock.

All the best,
Kelsey

[macfhio...@gmail.com]

You are right about the legal purpose behind the Acts of Legitimation, but as Darryl Lundy's website "Thepeerage.com" points out, if it can be proved that Walter of Morphie was the child of Janet Erskine born before 1425, then he was legitimate. If the location of his remains is known, DNA analysis would quickly establish the facts. It is quite possible that children were born to Sir Walter and Janet Erskine between 1421 and 1425- when he was executed- unless she was too young to bear children. Archeologists and geneticists would need to be hauled in. The scientists from the King Richard III dig would be very useful.

[Kelsey Jackson Williams]

I'm afraid it's not quite that simple and I'll try to address your points one at a time.

First, we cannot be sure that Walter Stewart, son of Earl Murdoch, ever actually married Janet Erskine. The only contemporary evidence we have for her existence comes from the papal dispensation already discussed. The calendar entry for this can be found in the _Calendar of Papal Registers Relating to Great Britain and Ireland_, vii. 176:

"To the bishop of St. Andrews. Mandate to dispense Walter Stewart of Leuenax, donsel, and Janet (Joneta) de Erskyn, damsel, daughter of Robert de Erskyn, knight, of the dioceses of Glasgow and St. Andrews, to marry notwithstanding that they are related in the third degree of kindred. Oblate nobis."

A dispensation of this nature made it legal for the parties to be married despite the impediment of their consanguinity, but it's *not* evidence that the marriage went ahead. If the marriage did happen, however, that still doesn't help your case. Walter Stewart (the younger) was, as already established, illegitimate, so could hardly have been born to Walter the Elder and Janet Erskine if they were married in the eyes of the church.

As for whether or not "DNA analysis would quickly establish the facts", you might want to consult the current thread about these sorts of claims which has been rumbling on for some time, though since we've no idea where Walter Stewart of Morphie is buried that would, in any case, be a moot point.

tl;dr - the documentary evidence simply does not support Walter Stewart being the legitimate son of Walter the elder, whether by Janet Erskine or anyone else.

All the best,
Kelsey

[J.L. Fernandez Blanco]

Darryl Lundy's website "Thepeerage.com" is not a reliable source, AFAIK.

[Paulo Canedo]

Actually, it has lots of citations.

[taf]

Not really the same thing, though - having a lot of citations vs. being reliable? Certainly having sources is part of the equation, but how they are used is also critical. Have the sources themselves been weighed for reliability or just collected? Are they actually documenting the critical claims or just decorating them? etc.

In my experience with the site, I tend to agree with Mr. Fernandez Blanco, particularly for the period you are talking about here. Thepeerage.com for this period tends to just copy what is in Burke, and Burke is problematic.

taf

[John Higgins]

And many of the citations on thepeerage.com are just references to emails that the site developer has received. Thus, no way to determine the validity of the information in the emails.

The site can be useful as a finding tool, but I wouldn't cite it as a source for any data that I keep.