SP Addition: the Ancestry of Margaret Danielston (conjectured)
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
The account in SP concerning Sir William Cunningham of Kilmaurs
(d. bef 27 Dec 1415) states in part, with regard to his 1st (or only)
wife Margaret de Danielston,
" She died some time before July 1409, when he had a Papal
Dispensation to marry Marjory (Mary) Stewart, widow of James
Kennedy, notwithstanding Margaret his first wife was related
to Marjory in the second and third degrees. " [1]
As unhelpful as most dispensation texts can be, the fact that
this dispensation involves a relationship in the second degree of
consanguinity, and someone with as (reasonably) well-known ancestry
as Mariota (als Mary) Stewart, daughter of Robert III, King of Scots,
would appear to be susceptible to resolution.
As to Mary Stewart’s ancestry, that on her father’s side appeared
least likely to yield the sought-for relationship, unless there was
an otherwise unknown marriage of a Stewart or Mure to Sir Robert de
Danielstoun, father of Margaret - the accounts in SP indicated no
reasonably likelihood of the former, and the Mure family at this
generation is little researched to date. The ancestry of Mary
Stewart’s mother, Annabela Drummond, appeared to provide a potential
avenue, and to that end I reviewed my notes and the SP account for
the Drummonds.
Interestingly, the account concerning Sir John Drummond provides
the probable link. This account includes details and theories
concerning Sir William de Montfichet of Auchterarder, Cargill and
Kincardine (Menteith), who was the father of Mary de Montfichet,
evidently (but not proven to have been) the wife of Sir John
Drummond, and mother of Annabela Drummond. An interesting part of
this account concerns Mary de Montfichet and her sisters: it appears
that (most likely following the Baliol successes in 1332/3) Sir
William de Montfichet, or his daughters, supported the cause of
Edward Baliol and the English, resulting in the forfeiture of their
lands ca. 1345, or at least before the capture of David II at the
Battle of Neville’s Cross (1346). Concerning the other two sisters,
SP states that "on account of their adherence to the English
interest, her sisters, Devorgilla or Dornagilla, and Margaret, were
forfeited, and their possessions were given to Duncan and William
Napier and to Hew Danielston,..." [2]
Sir Hugh de Danielston (fl. 1345) may have been the same Sir Hugh
who swore allegiance to King Edward I at Berwick in 1296; he may also
have been his son. It appears most likely he was the father of Sir
John de Danielston, who was son-in-law of Malcolm Fleming, Earl of
Wigtown (d. 1357), and Sheriff of Dumbarton and keeper of Dumbarton
Castle in 1359. Sir John de Danielston had a young son and heir,
Robert (the future Sir Robert) ca. 1345, who would become one of the
hostages for the return of King David II in the 1350’s [3].
It appears (without direct evidence) that Mary de Montfichet was
married to Sir John Drummond, as set forth in SP and widely accepted
elsewhere. I would suggest that likewise, probably as a result of
returning to the peace of King David II subsequent to the
forfeiture, that the younger daughter Margaret de Montfichet was
married to the young Robert de Danielston and thereby restored to her
share of her father’s lands (while not depriving the loyal Danielston
family of their earlier reward). If this in fact occurred, and
Margaret de Danielston (one of Sir Robert’s coheirs) was her
daughter, the resulting relationship between Margaret de Danielston
and Mary/Mariota Stewart would in fact have been in the 2nd and 3rd
degrees of consanguinity, as follows:
[NOTE: the relationships appear most likely, but direct
evidence is lacking. This chart reflects conjectured
relationships thus: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , or (?) for marriages]
Sir William de Montfichet = NN
of Auchterarder and Cargill I
I
_______________________________________I___
I I I
Mary = Sir John Devorguille Margaret =(?) Sir Robert de
I Drummond (unmarried ?) I Danielston
I d. 1360 I d. 1397
I I
____I____________________ I_ _ _ _ _
I I I I
Sir Malcolm Sir Annabela = Robert III I
Drummond John I K of Scots I
d. ca 1402 I d. 1406 I
I I
___________________________I__ __________I____
I I I I I I
James I <siblings> MARY/MARIOTA MARGARET Elizabeth
K of Scots = 1) George = Sir William = Robert
d. 1437 Douglas, Cunyngham Maxwell
E of Angus d. bef Dec of
2) Sir James 1415 Calderwood
Kennedy
3) Sir William
Graham
The foregoing conjecture is obviously based on indirect evidence,
and further research is certainly merited. Should anyone have
additional documentation, comment or criticism, that would be
welcome.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] SP IV:230, sub _Cunningham, Earl of Glencairn_. The dispensation
is cited as from ‘Papal Registers, Petitions, i. 639.’
[2] SP VII:35-36, sub _Drummond, Earl of Perth_, which states in part
concerning Sir John Drummond:
" He is, however, named in a charter by King David II., granting
to him all the lands which belonged to Mary de Montefixo, eldest
daughter and heir of William de Montefixo, or Montefichet,
knight, lying in the sheriffdoms of Perth and Stirling, which
she resigned at Dumbarton. The writ is dated at Dumbarton
21 February 1366-67 <4>. But it is doubtful if this date is
correct. Lord Strathallan states that the lands resigned by
Mary de Montefichet were Auchterarder, Cargill, and Kincardine.
She was the eldest of three daughters, co-heiresses or Sir
William Montefichet, and Lord Strathallan affirms that King
David, in dividing their father’s estate among his daughters,
gave her the greatest share, while on account of their
adherence to the English interest, her sisters, Devorgilla or
Dornagilla, and Margaret, were forfeited, and their possessions
were given to Duncan and William Napier and to Hew Danielston,
which gifts, according to Lord Strathallan, were dated at
Dumbarton in 1366 <5>. This appears to corroborate the
charter cited, but an examination on Devorgilla’s forfeiture
was made on 3 May 1358 <6>, while the charter to Danielston
appears with others dated about 1345, and that to Duncan
Napier is side by side with a writ of 1341 <7>. There is
also a note of the grant to John Drummond of Mary Montefichet’s
lands, along with other charters dated about 1345 <8>. There
is therefore a strong presumption that the division of lands
indicated by Lord Strathallan took place much earlier than
1366. Further evidence tends to the same result. Auchterarder
belonged to the Montefichets, and so also did Cargill <1>,
which, according to the writ of 1366, were only resigned in
that year. Yet on 30 April 1364 King David II. granted to
Malcolm Drummond (son of John) the services of the free
tenants of the baronies of Cargill and Auchterarder in
Perthshire, and of Kincardine, co. Stirling <2>. This implies
that these lands were then already in Malcolm’s possession,
and that the Crown now granted him the superiority. In such
case the resignation of the lands by Mary Montefichet must
have been made much earlier, probably about or before 1345,
and the grant of 1366, if correctly dated, must have been
a repetition. "
Notes to SP text, p. 35:
<4> Note of Charter at Drummond Castle.
<5> Genealogy of the House of Drummond, 69.
<6> Robertson’s Index, 61, 3; Haddington Coll.
<7> Robertson’s Index, 59, 1; 47, 27.
<8> Robertson’s Index, 33, 31.
Notes to SP text, p. 36:
<1> Robertson’s Index, 19, No. 96; cf. Charter of Cargill by
King William the Lion to Richard de Montefichet, between
1189 and 1196. Copy in Gen. Reg. Ho.
<2> Drummond Charter; copy in Gen. Reg. Ho.
[3] William Metcalfe, A History of the County of Renfrew:
'On July 13, 1354, the son and heir of Sir John Denniston was
named as one of the hostages for King David II, and on October 3,
1357, "Robert filz et heire a sire Robert de Danyelstone" was
delivered into the custody of Sir Richard Tempest as hostage.'
[Metcalfe p. 120, noting 'Either there is a mistake here,..., for
in 1359 the Sir John just mentioned was still alive.' Metcalfe
cites Bain iii. 288, Foedera iii.281; Bain, iii.434]
* John P. Ravilious
Alex Maxwell Findlater
is noted as "William Lord of Kergill in Scotland, next heir to the
lady Devorgoll, Lady of Lilleford in Co Northet". This Devorguilla
was the widow of Sir David Olifard of Bothwell, son of the Justiciar
and senior line of the Olifards. Lilleford is of course the origin of
the name Olifard (that well-known Irish sept o'Lilfard). She is also
mentioned in CDS Vol II (No 725): on 3rd February 1295/6, King Edward I
instructs that Thomas de Milton, clerk, should be presented to the
living, for reasons enclosed in an attached schedule, which I quote in
full:
Dereveregulla widow of David Olifard holds the manor of Lilleford for
life by lease from Walter de Moray, who reserved the advowsons of the
church, which he, and his heir since his death, have given thrice
without challenge. Now Dereveregulla has sued a writ of quare impedit
against William de Moray, Walter's heir, unjustly, as if the
advowsons belonged to the King, because the lands held by Scottish
magnates in England have been taken in the King's hand.
I take it that Devorguilla was the last wife of Sir David Olifard, that
the lands of Bothwell had descended to the Murrays through the accepted
marriage of his daughter to Sir William Murray, pater, and that she had
previously been married to a Mushet of Cargill, from whom the Drummonds
descend. Her name would explain the use of Devorguilla in the Mushet
family, if she were the mother of William de Mushet.
This does not, of course, establish her parentage, but it does place
her.
The...@aol.com
Dear Alex,
Thanks for that interesting and informative post.
The name 'Devorgilla' amongst the issue of Sir William de
Montfichet is striking, and certainly provides linkage in the
documents you cited. While unfortunately the VCH text re:
Lilford, Notts. is not on-line, I did find this afternoon the
VCH text for Oakington, co. Cambs [1]. This does not mention the
Montfichet family, but all other details (incl. the widow
Dervorguilla as 'the Lady of Lilford') are confirmed by your
findings.
The best probability I see here is that Dervorguilla, wife
of (1) Sir David de Olifard and (2) Sir William de Montfichet,
is that Dervorguilla was a member of the Abernethy family, and
(if so) most likely a sister of Sir Hugh de Abernethy (d. bef
1293). This is based on chronology, proximity (Abernethy is
located in between Auchterarder, 24 km WSW of Abernethy, and
Cargill, 17 km N of Abernethy), and onomastics, due to the
marriage of Dervorguilla, dau. of Uhtred of Galloway, to
Laurence de Abernethy.
The chart I posted yesterday should be modified as follows:
[NOTE: the relationships appear most likely, but direct
evidence is lacking. This chart reflects conjectured
relationships thus: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , or (?) for marriages]
Laurence de Abernethy = Dervorguilla of Galloway
d. ca. 1244 I
____I__________________
I I I
Patrick de Abernethy Hugh William
(dvp before 1244)
I_____________
_ _ _ _ _ _ I________________
I I I
(2) Sir William de = Dervorguilla Sir Hugh de Marjory
Montfichet I Abernethy
I d. 1293
I
Sir William de Montfichet = NN
of Auchterarder and Cargill I
I
______________________________I____________
I I I
Mary = Sir John Devorguille Margaret =(?) Sir Robert de
I Drummond (unmarried ?) I Danielston
I d. 1360 I d. 1397
I I
____I____________________ I_ _ _ _ _
I I I I
Sir Malcolm Sir Annabela = Robert III I
Drummond John I K of Scots I
d. ca 1402 I d. 1406 I
I I
___________________________I__ __________I____
I I I I I I
James I <siblings> MARY/MARIOTA MARGARET Elizabeth
K of Scots = 1) George = Sir William = Robert
d. 1437 Douglas, Cunyngham Maxwell
E of Angus d. bef Dec of
2) Sir James 1415 Calderwood
Kennedy
3) Sir William
Graham
The attachment of Dervorguilla to the Abernethy family may
also help to explain (if weakly) why she adhered to the English
cause ca. 1296, as we also have Sir Alexander de Abernethy (her
alleged nephew) supporting the English position beyond the year
1310.
Should you (or anyone else of the list) have additional
documentation or criticism re: the above, that would be most
welcome indeed.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES
[1] VCH Cambridge, IX:195-199, concerning Oakington:
' It had been held in demesne since the early 12th century by
the Olifards of Lilford (Northants.), (Footnote 17) including
probably Hugh Olifard by 1130, (Footnote 18) William Olifard, a
vassal of the king of Scots, c. 1155–70, (Footnote 19) and John
Olifard, c. 1175– 80. (Footnote 20) It then passed to
descendants of William's brother David (d. c. 1170), settled in
Scotland, and was considered a dependency of Lilford. David's
son Walter, lord before 1216, (Footnote 21) was succeeded by his
son and namesake, who c. 1235 held 2½ hides at Oakington as 1
knight's fee, (Footnote 22) and died in 1242. His son and heir
David, lord by 1244, (Footnote 23) died without issue, probably
before 1250. Oakington remained for her life with his widow
Dervorguilla, who occupied it until the 1290s. In 1279 the whole
Olifard demesne, 1½ hides, was held under 'the lady of Lilford'
in fee farm. (Footnote 24) The heir was Walter of Moray
(d. 1284), son of David's sister, (Footnote 25) whose son
William (d. s.p. 1300) conveyed his right in Oakington with
Lilford between 1296 and 1299 to Anthony Bek, bishop of Durham,
(Footnote 26) lord there c. 1302. (Footnote 27) '
footnotes to VCH text:
' 15 e.g. Liber de Bernewelle, 241; Bk. of Fees, ii. 938.
16 Close R. 1242–7, 206; cf. Rot. Hund. (Rec. Com.), ii. 449.
17 For the Olifards, Scots Peerage, ed. J. B. Paul, vi.
522– 9; Farrer, Honors and Knights' Fees, i. 354–5.
18 Pipe R. 1130 (H.M.S.O. facsimile), 48; cf. ibid. 85.
19 Pipe R. 1156–8 (Rec. Com.), 166; 1163 (P.R.S. v), 38;
1170 (P.R.S. xvi), 198.
20 Ibid. 1177 (P.R.S. xxvi), 185; 1180 (P.R.S. xxix), 35;
1181 (P.R.S. xxx), 95.
21 Rot. Litt. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i. 286.
22 Liber de Bernewelle, 241; cf. B.L. Add. MS. 5805, f. 50.
23 Close R. 1242–7, 206.
24 Rot. Hund. ii. 449; cf. Cal. Chanc. Wts. i. 66–8, 107.
25 For the Morays, Scots Peerage, ii. 122–5.
26 Cal. Chanc. Wts. i. 68, 107; cf. Cal. Pat. 1292–1301, 184;
Cal. Inq. p.m. iv, pp. 502–3.
27 Feud. Aids, i. 148.
* John P. Ravilious
Jwc...@aol.com
There is also the Baliol adherence to be
considered in the same manner , For if Devorguilla, daughter of Uchtred, Lord of
Galloway married Laurence de Abernethy as You have set forth, the following are
also true:
Roland of Galloway was her brother
his son Alan of Galloway was 1st cousin of Devorguilla (Abernethy) (Mushet/
Montfichet) Olifard
Devorguilla (de Galloway) de Baliol, wife of John de Baliol was 2nd cousin to
William de Montfichet
Mary (Montfichet) Drummond, Devorguilla Montfichet and Margaret (Montfichet)
Danielston were 3rd cousins of King John de Baliol of the Scots.
Sincerely,
James W Cummings
Dixmont, Maine USA
Alex Maxwell Findlater
I was not aware that Laurence de Abernethy's wife was Devorguilla of
Galloway, I just had Devorguilla. Can you give a citation for that, if
it's not in SP. If the date of their son Patrick's death is a bit
early at ca 1244, she might have married Laurence after the death of
Nicholas de Stuteville, ygr of Liddell in 1233. (I think that was a
conjecture of Keith Stringer.) Otherwise she seems a bit old to be
Roland's daughter and still to be able to bear children at the right
time.
It is rather late here, so I don't propose to open the SP and pore over
it for some hours, given that I have to work tomorrow! However, this
is all good thinking and I am delighted at the news from Cambridge.
Good luck
Alex
Alex Maxwell Findlater
John P. Ravilious
I have not seen the documentation myself; the identification of
Dervorguilla (wife of Laurence de Abernethy) as dau. of Uhtred, lord of
Galloway is one made, or confirmed, by Andrew B. W. MacEwen. This
identification is not new at this date; you can see the same (with
unfortunate errors, incl. (1) the omission of the generation of Patrick
de Abernethy, and (2) placing Dervorguilla as a dau. of Roland instead
of Uhtred) at Ray Walls' website, specifically at
http://www.raywalls.net/pedigree.php?personID=I4169&tree=Child01
~ By the bye, I show Dervorguilla (wife of Nicholas de Stuteville)
as a daughter of Roland, and a niece of the Dervorguilla who m.
Laurence de Abernethy.
The next time I am in contact with Andrew (MacEwen) I'll inquire
as to the documentation to this identification.
Cheers,
John
al...@mindspring.com
Doug Smith
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
In a discussion with Hal Bradley off-list, it was pointed out the
the chronology of the last genealogical chart posted is a bit
stretched, evidently at the 'Sir William de Montfichet' generation.
Prompted by this observation, I went back to my notes which show that
David de 'Mufchet' and his brother Richard swore allegiance to Edward
I of England at Berwick, 28 August 1296, but there is no trace of
either (1) William de Montfichet, or (2) Dervorguilla (as either de
Abernethy, Olifard or de Montfichet).
It appears that the pedigree requires amendment due to the
following:
1) William de Montfichet, "William Lord of Kergill", was
Dervorguilla's heir in 1287, and had evidently succeeded
his father by that date. He was, however, not living (as
appears most likely) in 1296.
2) Sir William de Montfichet, or ' Willelmus de Montefixo ',
was a Surety of the Arbroath Declaration, 6 April 1320
(Barrow pp. 424-8). Further, 'Willelmo de Monte Fixo', knight,
was a witness (together with John de Menteith, Malise of
Strathearn and others) to a charter from Murdoch, earl of
Menteith for the gift to Walter de Menteith of the lands of
Thom and Lanarkynys in Menteith, and fishing rights in the
river Teith, ca. 1330 [Red Book of Menteith II:225-7].
He was clearly the last of the Montfichet line, and distinct
from the William de Montfichet of 1287.
While not the only possibility, it appears most likely that David
and Richard de Montfichet (or one of the two) were the elder sons of
the William de Montfichet of 1287, one of whom was Lord of Cargill (in
the Earldom of Angus) in 1296. Further, while Sir William de
Montfichet (fl. 1320 et seq.) could have been the son and heir of the
Lord of Cargill who fl. in 1296 (whether David or Richard), it is also
possibly (and less strenuous on the chronology) that he was a younger
brother of David and/or Richard, and too young to have been a signatory
at Berwick in 1296.
The de Montfichet chart has been therefore 'amended' as follows:
[NOTE: the relationships appear most likely, but direct
evidence is lacking. This chart reflects conjectured
relationships thus: _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , or (?) for marriages]
Laurence de Abernethy = Dervorguilla of Galloway
d. ca. 1244 I
____I__________________
I I I
Patrick de Abernethy Hugh William
(dvp before 1244)
I_____________
_ _ _ _ _ _ I________________
I I I
(2) Sir William de = Dervorguilla Sir Hugh de Marjory
Montfichet I Abernethy
I d. 1293
I
Sir William de Montfichet = NN
"William Lord of Kergill", 1287 I
d. bef 28 Aug 1296 I
_____________________________I_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
I I I
David Richard Sir William de Montfichet
adult in 1296 adult in 1296 of Cargill, Auchterarder & c.
fl. 1320; d. bef 1345
_________________I
______________________________I____________
I I I
Mary = Sir John Devorguille Margaret =(?) Sir Robert de
I Drummond (unmarried ?) I Danielston
I d. 1360 I d. 1397
I I
____I____________________ I_ _ _ _ _
I I I I
Sir Malcolm Sir Annabela = Robert III I
Drummond John I K of Scots I
d. ca 1402 I d. 1406 I
I I
___________________________I__ __________I____
I I I I I I
James I <siblings> MARY/MARIOTA MARGARET Elizabeth
K of Scots = 1) George = Sir William = Robert
d. 1437 Douglas, Cunyngham Maxwell
E of Angus d. bef Dec of
2) Sir James 1415 Calderwood
Kennedy
3) Sir William
Graham
Cheers,
John
John P. Ravilious
Thanks for those kind words.
Thanks also to Hal Bradley, and every else working at keeping me
honest.
Cheers,
John
al...@mindspring.com wrote:
> Great work John!
>
> Doug Smith
al...@mindspring.com
SP vol 7 sub Saltoun calls Patrick (d. bef 1254) Hugh (d. 1293)
William (d. 1296) and Marjory (and poss. Henry) all children of
Laurence de Abernathy. It says Patrick dvp but did not say he dsp.
This chronological stretched and your insertion of the generation of
Patrick makes sense. Is there a particular reference for this or is
Andrew B. W. MacEwen's work as well? Again, thank you.
Doug Smith