Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of Huntington (1207-37)
WJho...@aol.com
1981
Table 12 shows
John "The Scot" (1207-1237) Earl of Chester and Huntingdon
m 1222
Helen (-1253)
d of Llewellyn Pr of Wales
www.genealogics.com says that this Helen was b 1234
and married Malcom MacDuff b bef 1228, 7th Earl of Fife and then
Donald, 6th Earl of Mar b est 1240
It's apparent this cannot be the same person, but were there really two
Helen dau of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales running around in this time period?
Thanks
Will Johnson
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
You appear to be confusing two different daughters of Llywelyn, Prince
of North Wales.
Prince Llywelyn had a legitimate daughter by his wife, Joan of England,
named Ellen, which Ellen married (1st) John of Scotland, Earl of
Chester and Huntingdon, and (2nd) Robert de Quincy, Knt. Ellen has
many modern descendants.
There was also an unnamed daughter of Prince Llywelyn who married
before 6 July 1237 (as his 1st wife) Malcolm, 7th Earl of Fife, Knt.
This daughter's name is not known, but Andrew B.W. MacEwen, the expert
on all things Scottish, suspects she is possibly the same person as
Prince Llywelyn's known legitimate daughter, Susanna. Many years
later, Earl Malcolm married a much younger 2nd wife named Ellen, who
survived him at his death in 1266. Ellen afterwards married (2nd)
Donald, Earl of Mar (died shortly after 25 July 1297), by whom she had
five children. She was living as late as Feb. 1294/5. It is commonly
assumed Ellen is the same woman as Earl Malcolm's first wife, but the
chronology proves this is impossible. This Ellen is also a complete
different person than Llywelyn's legitimate daughter, Ellen, discussed
above.
You can find further details of Llywelyn's children in my book,
Plantagenet Ancestry (2004). Contact me privately by e-mail or through
my website if interested in ordering a copy of the book. I recommend
you acquire my book as it will help you avoid some of the more common
problems you find in the secondary literature and in online sources. I
provide an extensive list of sources and a massive bibliography.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Leo van de Pas
amongst others two daughters by different mothers, Elen and Helen, one
married as you say the other married to the Earl of Chester----yes, they are
two different persons.
Leo
Leo van de Pas
I hope you try out the different seach facilities as they may produce better
results.
John "The Scott" Earl of Chester and Huntingdon, if you want to find him, go
to Name Search. I would go direct to Title and overwrite Starts With and
make that Contains,
enter Earl of Chester and no more, and see what you get. I suggest you
change Starts with because you are not sure whether he is 1st Earl of
Chester or something like that. By going straight for the title and ignoring
John and "The Scott" you are using aspects of his identification which are
certain as to how it is recorded. You can also add John by first name, but
if you leave first name blank you get all people who were Earl of Chester
and that at times can be interesting and helpful as well.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
----- Original Message -----
From: <WJho...@aol.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 12:54 PM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of Huntington
(1207-37)
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> If you had looked a bit further, you would have seen I have Llewelyn
with
> amongst others two daughters by different mothers, Elen and Helen,
one
> married as you say the other married to the Earl of Chester----yes,
they are > two different persons.
> Leo
No, Leo, this is yet another major gaffe on your part. Llywelyn,
Prince of North Wales, only had one daughter named Ellen, not two. She
married John of Scotland, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon, and Robert de
Quincy. She did not marry Malcolm, Earl of Fife.
As I stated in my last post, Ellen, the surviving 2nd wife of Malcolm,
Earl of Fife, was not Llywelyn's daughter at all.
There are two references to Earl Malcolm's first wife, the daughter of
Llywelyn, neither of which mention her given name:
l. Stephenson, Chronica de Mailros [Chronicle of Melrose] (1835): 142
(wife of Malcolm, 7th Earl of Fife, identified as daughter of Llywelyn,
Prince of North Wales).
2. Innes, Carte Monialium de Northberwic (1847): 16-17 (document
dated 6 July 1237 mentions "Maurice, servant of the Countess of
Fife").
Earl Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, was clearly a much younger 2nd
wife. After his death in 1266, Ellen married (2nd) Donald, Earl of
Mar, by whom she had five children. She was living as late as Feb.
1294/5. It is not possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same
woman as Earl Malcolm's wife back in the 1230's and still be of child
bearing age in 1270. Not even close.
I carefully stated these facts in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
which book Leo has in his personal library. As such, Leo has no excuse
for continuing this major blooper about Ellen, 2nd wife of Earl
Malcolm, being Llywelyn's daughter.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
> ----- Original Message -----
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of Huntington
(1207-37)
> "Leo van de Pas" wrote:
> > If you had looked a bit further, you would have seen I have Llewelyn
> with
> > amongst others two daughters by different mothers, Elen and Helen,
> one
> > married as you say the other married to the Earl of Chester----yes,
> they are > two different persons.
>
> > Leo
>
> No, Leo, this is yet another major gaffe on your part. Llywelyn,
> Prince of North Wales, only had one daughter named Ellen, not two. She
> married John of Scotland, Earl of Chester and Huntingdon, and Robert de
> Quincy. She did not marry Malcolm, Earl of Fife.
====As my message above shows I have Llywelyn with a daughter called Elen
and one called Helen. As we by now know, spellings cannot be relied upon and
people regularly had children with the same or almost the same first name,
especially when different mothers were involved, and in this case one is
most probably illegitimate.
>
> As I stated in my last post, Ellen, the surviving 2nd wife of Malcolm,
> Earl of Fife, was not Llywelyn's daughter at all.
>
> There are two references to Earl Malcolm's first wife, the daughter of
> Llywelyn, neither of which mention her given name:
====="As I stated, Ellen the surviving 2nd wife of Malcolm, Earl of Fife,
was not Llywelyn's daughter at all." She was not his daughter? But then we
get "There are two references to Earl Malcolm's first wife, the daughter of
Llywelyn, neither of which mention her given name." First wife is his
daughter but the second is not. But the Complete Peerage Volume V page 373
only gives one wife. And so does the Scot's Peerage.
See further below :
>
> l. Stephenson, Chronica de Mailros [Chronicle of Melrose] (1835): 142
> (wife of Malcolm, 7th Earl of Fife, identified as daughter of Llywelyn,
> Prince of North Wales).
>
> 2. Innes, Carte Monialium de Northberwic (1847): 16-17 (document
> dated 6 July 1237 mentions "Maurice, servant of the Countess of
> Fife").
==== Thin ice here. On 6 July 1237 the Countess of Fife has a servant. Which
Countess is referred to? Uncle's wife or nephew's wife?
>
> Earl Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, was clearly a much younger 2nd
> wife. After his death in 1266, Ellen married (2nd) Donald, Earl of
> Mar, by whom she had five children. She was living as late as Feb.
> 1294/5. It is not possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same
> woman as Earl Malcolm's wife back in the 1230's and still be of child
> bearing age in 1270. Not even close.
====I fully agree with almost all of this segment, except, had Richardson
studied my website as he proclaims to do, he would have seen that I have
Helen wife of Malcolm of Fife and Donald of Mar as born 1234 -?- Her son
Colbran as born in 1246. If, and we can only say if, as we do not know for
sure when Helen was born in or before 1234, she was 12 (indeed very young,
probably too young) when she gave birth to her first child, and in 1270 she
was, guessing, about 36.
The remark about his two references that the wife of the Earl of Fife and
then the Earl of Mar was not recorded with her first name, by the look of
those two quotes Richardson may well be right, but again the quote of 1237
was that the first or the second wife (if there was a first and second wife)
or was it the uncle's or nephews?
If we go to CP V Page 373 under Malcolm Earl of Fife we find : he married
Helen daughter of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales. He died in 1266. His widow
married Donald Earl of Mar. Richardson tells the Earl of Fife had two wives.
CP V 373 only gives one wife. Volume XIV does not change this. The Countess
of Fife in 1237 could this possibly have been Malcolm's aunt, Maud widow of
Malcolm 4th Earl of Fife which Earl died in 1228.
>
> I carefully stated these facts in my book, Plantagenet Ancestry (2004),
> which book Leo has in his personal library. As such, Leo has no excuse
> for continuing this major blooper about Ellen, 2nd wife of Earl
> Malcolm, being Llywelyn's daughter.
===== I think Richardson should not use emotional language when he cannot
cope if others do. Lets quote the Scot's Peerage under Fife : "Malcolm
having married Helen, a daughter of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales. She survived
him, and married, secondly Donald Earl of Mar. There is also a remark I do
not understand about their son Colban. Colban was knighted in 1264 when only
in his teens as he was in nonage when he succeeded his father two years
later. What is meant by nonage? Do they mean under age?
Again Scot's Peerage only gives one wife for the Earl of Fife.
Mike Welch kindly and generously gave both me and Spencer Hines a free copy
of Richardson's book. I never asked for it. This entry in his book, as
quoted by Richardson, to me seems flawed as the question remains, was there
one wife of two wives for the Earl of Fife. Only Richardson says so, I
cannot find another source (to which I have access) who tells this.
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
Canberra, Australia
>
Hans Vogels
You're writing faster than you should. Take your time to read
carefully what someone writes. Will was not confusing two daughters.
He stated clearly the facts in his post. He noticed different marriage
partners for Helen daughter of Prince Llywelyn in two
literature/information sources. Nothing more and nothing less.
With regards,
Hans Vogels
"Douglas Richardson royala...@msn.com" <royala...@msn.com> wrote in message news:<1113967246.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>...
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <royalances...@msn.com>
> To: <GEN-MEDIEVA...@rootsweb.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:31 PM
> Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of
Huntington
> (1207-37)
> ====As my message above shows I have Llywelyn with a daughter called
Elen
> and one called Helen. As we by now know, spellings cannot be relied
upon and
> people regularly had children with the same or almost the same first
name,
> especially when different mothers were involved, and in this case one
is
> most probably illegitimate.
Historians of the 20th Century have standardized and modernized various
name forms such as Ellen/Helen. The reason why this is done is to
avoid confusion. In your database, you refer to one daughter of
Llywelyn as Ellen and another as Helen. It's the same given name and
should be treated the same. It's not the name form that can not be
relied upon. It's your handling of the name forms, Leo. Also, the
different name forms are not an issue of legitimacy or illegitimacy
either, as you allege. Spelling of one's given name in medieval
records was not dependant in any way on one's legitimacy.
Andrew MacEwen, the resident expert on all things Scottish, believes
that Malcolm, Earl of Fife's unnamed first wife was possibly the same
person as Llywelyn's legitimate daughter, Susanna. The evidence to
prove this is lacking, however. Certainly Earl Malcolm was a strong
supporter of the English cause. He was one of guarantors of a treaty
with the English at York in 1237, and of another treaty in 1244. In
the reign of Alexander III, he was one of the faction of King Henry
III, and was appointed one of the Regents of Scotland and guardians of
the young King and Queen in 1255. All these actions would be readily
explained if Earl Malcolm's wife was a niece of King Henry III of
England, as Mr. MacEwen supposes.
Please understand that although Mr. MacEwen thinks that Earl Malcolm's
first wife could be the same person of Llywelyn's daughter, Susanna,
this is still only a theory. Further evidence is needed to prove or
disprove this possibility. Mr. MacEwen is absolutely certain, however,
that Earl Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, is a separate and distinct
woman from Earl Malcolm's first wife. I concur with Mr. MacEwen on
this point.
> ====="As I stated, Ellen the surviving 2nd wife of Malcolm, Earl of
Fife,
> was not Llywelyn's daughter at all." She was not his daughter? But
then we
> get "There are two references to Earl Malcolm's first wife, the
daughter of
> Llywelyn, neither of which mention her given name."
> First wife is his daughter but the second is not. But the Complete
> Peerage Volume V page 373 only gives one wife. And so does the Scot's
> Peerage
Yes, you are correct. The first wife of Earl Malcolm was Llywelyn's
daughter but the second is not.
> See further below :
> > l. Stephenson, Chronica de Mailros [Chronicle of Melrose] (1835):
142
> > (wife of Malcolm, 7th Earl of Fife, identified as daughter of
Llywelyn,
> > Prince of North Wales).
> > 2. Innes, Carte Monialium de Northberwic (1847): 16-17 (document
> > dated 6 July 1237 mentions "Maurice, servant of the Countess of
> > Fife").
> ==== Thin ice here. On 6 July 1237 the Countess of Fife has a
servant. Which
> Countess is referred to? Uncle's wife or nephew's wife?
Yes, the Countess mentioned in the 1237 record could possibly be Earl
Malcolm's uncle's widow, Margaret de Tony. However, during the period
of her widowhood, Countess Margaret is associated with several French
charters. Also, if I recall correctly, she was buried in France. Mr.
MacEwen thinks the uncle's widow probably resided in France in this
time period. If so, then the Countess of Fife mentioned in the
Scottish record dated 1237 would presumably be Earl Malcolm's own wife,
not his uncle's widow.
> > Earl Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, was clearly a much younger
2nd
> > wife. After his death in 1266, Ellen married (2nd) Donald, Earl of
> > Mar, by whom she had five children. She was living as late as Feb.
> > 1294/5. It is not possible chronologically for Ellen to be the
same
> > woman as Earl Malcolm's wife back in the 1230's and still be of
child
> > bearing age in 1270. Not even close.
> ====I fully agree with almost all of this segment, except, had
Richardson
> studied my website as he proclaims to do, he would have seen that I
have
> Helen wife of Malcolm of Fife and Donald of Mar as born 1234 -?- Her
son
> Colbran as born in 1246. If, and we can only say if, as we do not
know for
> sure when Helen was born in or before 1234, she was 12 (indeed very
young,
> probably too young) when she gave birth to her first child, and in
1270 she
> was, guessing, about 36.
The arrangement of statements in Melrose Chronicle suggests that the
marriage of Earl Malcolm of Fife to Llywelyn's daughter (name unknown)
took place almost immediately after Malcolm inherited the earldom of
Fife from his uncle in 1228. Unfortunately there is little known
about Earl Malcolm's private life in this period and no exact date is
given in Melrose Chronicle for this marriage. As stated above, Mr.
MacEwen supposes that Earl Malcolm's 1st wife may be the same person as
Prince Llywelyn's legitimate daughter, Susanna, who was being held in
England in 1228. The year 1228 is the same year that Earl Malcolm
inherited the earldom from his uncle in Scotland. If a marriage was
arranged at this point between Susanna and the young Earl of Fife, it
would explain Susanna's disappearance from subsequent English and Welsh
records after 1228.
> The remark about his two references that the wife of the Earl of Fife
and
> then the Earl of Mar was not recorded with her first name, by the
look of
> those two quotes Richardson may well be right, but again the quote of
1237
> was that the first or the second wife (if there was a first and
second wife)
> or was it the uncle's or nephews?
> If we go to CP V Page 373 under Malcolm Earl of Fife we find : he
married
> Helen daughter of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales. He died in 1266. His
widow
> married Donald Earl of Mar. Richardson tells the Earl of Fife had two
wives.
> CP V 373 only gives one wife. Volume XIV does not change this. The
Countess
> of Fife in 1237 could this possibly have been Malcolm's aunt, Maud
widow of
> Malcolm 4th Earl of Fife which Earl died in 1228.
Earl Malcolm was clearly of age when his uncle died in 1228, and there
is no reason to suppose that he did not marry immediately at that point
to Llywelyn's daughter. In any case, I don't believe the chronology
permits Earl Malcolm's wife in the 1230's to be the same woman as his
widow, Ellen, who had five children by another man after Earl Malcolm's
death in 1266. Earl Malcolm's widow, Ellen, was almost certainly born
AFTER Earl Malcolm married his 1st wife. If so, she would clearly have
been a much younger 2nd wife for Earl Malcolm.
> ===== Lets quote the Scot's Peerage under Fife : "Malcolm
> having married Helen, a daughter of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales. She
survived
> him, and married, secondly Donald Earl of Mar. There is also a remark
I do
> not understand about their son Colban. Colban was knighted in 1264
when only
> in his teens as he was in nonage when he succeeded his father two
years
> later. What is meant by nonage? Do they mean under age?
It is Scots Peerage, Leo, not Scot's Peerage.
In general, I find young men of noble birth were often knighted
when they were about twenty. If Colban was knighted in 1264, I would
place his birth at about 1244, or possibly earlier. This is purely a
guesstimate. As I recall, Colban's supposed mother's second husband,
Donald, Earl of Mar, was knighted at about the same time as Colban. If
true, this would suggest that Colban and his alleged step-father were
very close in age. If correct, it seems unlikely to me that Earl
Donald's wife, Ellen, was the same woman as Colban's mother. This is
all the more true when we know that the union of Earl Donald and Ellen
was blessed with at least five children. Whatever the case, Ellen is
almost certainly not the same person of Earl Malcolm's 1st wife who was
the daughter of Prince Llywelyn.
> Again Scot's Peerage only gives one wife for the Earl of Fife.
Yes, the multiple wives for Earl Malcolm is a correction for both Scots
Peerage and Complete Peerage, courtesy of Andrew B.W. MacEwen. Mr.
MacEwen is a veritable fountain of knowledge when it comes to Scottish
noble families of the medieval period. I believe he plans to publish
an article on this matter at some point in the future.
> Mike Welch kindly and generously gave both me and Spencer Hines a
> free copy of Richardson's book.
I'm glad to see that Leo van de Pas has finally come out of the closet
and acknowledged that Mike Welch is a real person. Thank you, Leo.
Leo van de Pas
and first makes positive statements but when queried it becomes less so.
"I carefully stated these _facts_ in my book" Glossing over his reply the
word fact has disappeared:
Andrew MacEwen believes----was possibly the----the evidence is
lacking---Mr.MacEwen supposes---Mr.MacEwen thinks----could be---only a
theory---the countess (in 1237) could be the uncle's wife----would
presumably be---Melrose Chronicle suggests---
In fairness to every one who bought his book he should have been less
_certain_ in his book as now it emerges that the _fact_ he mentioned is only
a guess. It is still not explained why both the Complete Peerage and Scots
Peerage, believing in only one wife, should be overruled by the believes of
Andrew MacEwen and Douglas Richardson. As long as there is doubt, the doubt
should have been expressed and the _believe_ should not have been stated as
_fact_.
I have been given to believe that Colban was in his teens when knighted as
stated in Scots Peerage. This means that Colban could have been born around
1249 and his mother's other son born in 1270 only 21 years apart and if his
mother was about 15 when giving birth to her first about 36 by the birth of
the other son.
Because historians standardise you insist I do the same? Why? I _try_ to
represent what I find and let others do the standardising if they want to.
I think in future you should be on safer grounds when using words like
blooper, coming a cropper because so far your _facts_ are lacking.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 1:24 AM
Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of Huntington
(1207-37)
> My comments are interspersed below. DR
>
> "Leo van de Pas" wrote:
> > See below.
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: <royala...@msn.com>
> > To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2005 5:31 PM
> > Subject: Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John E of
> Huntington
> > (1207-37)
> >
> > ====As my message above shows I have Llywelyn with a daughter called
> Elen
> > and one called Helen. As we by now know, spellings cannot be relied
> upon and
> > people regularly had children with the same or almost the same first
> name,
> > especially when different mothers were involved, and in this case one
> is
> > most probably illegitimate.
>
> > ====="As I stated, Ellen the surviving 2nd wife of Malcolm, Earl of
> Fife,
> > was not Llywelyn's daughter at all." She was not his daughter? But
> then we
> > get "There are two references to Earl Malcolm's first wife, the
> daughter of
> > Llywelyn, neither of which mention her given name."
>
> >First wife is his daughter but the second is not. But the Complete
> Peerage Volume V page 373 only gives one wife. And so does the Scot's
> Peerage.
>
> Yes, you are correct. The first wife of Earl Malcolm was Llywelyn's
> daughter but the second is not.
>
> > See further below :
> > >
> > > l. Stephenson, Chronica de Mailros [Chronicle of Melrose] (1835):
> 142
> > > (wife of Malcolm, 7th Earl of Fife, identified as daughter of
> Llywelyn,
> > > Prince of North Wales).
> > >
> > > 2. Innes, Carte Monialium de Northberwic (1847): 16-17 (document
> > > dated 6 July 1237 mentions "Maurice, servant of the Countess of
> > > Fife").
> >
> > ==== Thin ice here. On 6 July 1237 the Countess of Fife has a
> servant. Which
> > Countess is referred to? Uncle's wife or nephew's wife?
>
> Yes, the Countess mentioned in the 1237 record could possibly be Earl
> Malcolm's uncle's widow, Margaret de Tony. However, during the period
> of her widowhood, Countess Margaret is associated with several French
> charters. Also, if I recall correctly, she was buried in France. Mr.
> MacEwen thinks the uncle's widow probably resided in France in this
> time period. If so, then the Countess of Fife mentioned in the
> Scottish record dated 1237 would presumably be Earl Malcolm's own wife,
> not his uncle's widow.
>
> > > Earl Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, was clearly a much younger
> 2nd
> > > wife. After his death in 1266, Ellen married (2nd) Donald, Earl of
> > > Mar, by whom she had five children. She was living as late as Feb.
> > > 1294/5. It is not possible chronologically for Ellen to be the
> same
> > > woman as Earl Malcolm's wife back in the 1230's and still be of
> child
> > > bearing age in 1270. Not even close.
> >
> > ====I fully agree with almost all of this segment, except, had
> Richardson
> > studied my website as he proclaims to do, he would have seen that I
> have
> > Helen wife of Malcolm of Fife and Donald of Mar as born 1234 -?- Her
> son
> > Colbran as born in 1246. If, and we can only say if, as we do not
> know for
> > sure when Helen was born in or before 1234, she was 12 (indeed very
> young,
> > probably too young) when she gave birth to her first child, and in
> 1270 she
> > was, guessing, about 36.
>
> The arrangement of statements in Melrose Chronicle suggests that the
> marriage of Earl Malcolm of Fife to Llywelyn's daughter (name unknown)
> took place almost immediately after Malcolm inherited the earldom of
> Fife from his uncle in 1228. Unfortunately there is little known
> about Earl Malcolm's private life in this period and no exact date is
> given in Melrose Chronicle for this marriage. As stated above, Mr.
> MacEwen supposes that Earl Malcolm's 1st wife may be the same person as
> Prince Llywelyn's legitimate daughter, Susanna, who was being held in
> England in 1228. The year 1228 is the same year that Earl Malcolm
> inherited the earldom from his uncle in Scotland. If a marriage was
> arranged at this point between Susanna and the young Earl of Fife, it
> would explain Susanna's disappearance from subsequent English and Welsh
> records after 1228.
>
> > The remark about his two references that the wife of the Earl of Fife
> and
> > then the Earl of Mar was not recorded with her first name, by the
> look of
> > those two quotes Richardson may well be right, but again the quote of
> 1237
> > was that the first or the second wife (if there was a first and
> second wife)
> > or was it the uncle's or nephews?
> >
> > If we go to CP V Page 373 under Malcolm Earl of Fife we find : he
> married
> > Helen daughter of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales. He died in 1266. His
> widow
> > married Donald Earl of Mar. Richardson tells the Earl of Fife had two
> wives.
> > CP V 373 only gives one wife. Volume XIV does not change this. The
> Countess
> > of Fife in 1237 could this possibly have been Malcolm's aunt, Maud
> widow of
> > Malcolm 4th Earl of Fife which Earl died in 1228.
>
> Earl Malcolm was clearly of age when his uncle died in 1228, and there
> is no reason to suppose that he did not marry immediately at that point
> to Llywelyn's daughter. In any case, I don't believe the chronology
> permits Earl Malcolm's wife in the 1230's to be the same woman as his
> widow, Ellen, who had five children by another man after Earl Malcolm's
> death in 1266. Earl Malcolm's widow, Ellen, was almost certainly born
> AFTER Earl Malcolm married his 1st wife. If so, she would clearly have
> been a much younger 2nd wife for Earl Malcolm.
>
> > ===== Lets quote the Scot's Peerage under Fife : "Malcolm
> > having married Helen, a daughter of Llewellyn, Prince of Wales. She
> survived
> > him, and married, secondly Donald Earl of Mar. There is also a remark
> I do
> > not understand about their son Colban. Colban was knighted in 1264
> when only
> > in his teens as he was in nonage when he succeeded his father two
> years
> > later. What is meant by nonage? Do they mean under age?
>
> As a general rule, I find young men of noble birth were often knighted
> when they were about twenty. If Colban was knighted in 1264, I would
> place his birth at about 1244, or possibly earlier. This is purely a
> guesstimate. As I recall, Colban's supposed mother's second husband,
> Donald, Earl of Mar, was knighted at about the same time as Colban. If
> true, this would suggest that Colban and his alleged step-father were
> very close in age. If correct, it seems unlikely to me that Earl
> Donald's wife, Ellen, was the same woman as Colban's mother. This is
> all the more true when we know that the union of Earl Donald and Ellen
> was blessed with at least five children. Whatever the case, Ellen is
> almost certainly not the same person of Earl Malcolm's 1st wife who was
> the daughter of Prince Llywelyn.
>
> > Again Scot's Peerage only gives one wife for the Earl of Fife.
>
> Yes, this is a correction for both Scot's Peerage and Complete Peerage,
> courtesy of Andrew B.W. MacEwen. Mr. MacEwen is a veritable fountain
> of knowledge when it comes to Scottish noble families of the medieval
> period. I believe he plans to publish an article on this matter at
> some point in the future.
>
> > Mike Welch kindly and generously gave both me and Spencer Hines a
> free copy
> > of Richardson's book.
>
> I'm glad to see that Leo van de Pas has finally come out of the closet
> and acknowledged that Mike Welch is a real person. Thank you, Leo.
>
WJho...@aol.com
royala...@msn.com writes:
<< All these actions would be readily
explained if Earl Malcolm's wife was a niece of King Henry III of
England, as Mr. MacEwen supposes. >>
Joan wasn't illegitimate?
Will
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I've clearly stated my conclusion that Malcolm, Earl of Fife, had two
wives. The first marriage to Prince Llywelyn's unnamed daughter took
place about 1228. The marriage is recorded in Melrose Chronicle right
after it is stated that Earl Malcolm succeeded his uncle as earl in
1228. Malcolm was of age in 1228 and, under normal circumstances,
would have taken a wife immediately on his succession to the earldom of
Fife, provided he was not married or contracted to marry already.
The marriage of Malcolm to his 2nd and surviving wife, Ellen, took
place much later. There is no doubt whatsoever that Ellen was far
younger than Earl Malcolm. Earl Malcolm was born before 1207, yet
Ellen was still having children as late as c. 1275! If Ellen was the
same age as Earl Malcolm, she would have been at least 70 year old when
she had her last children. This is impossible.
If Leo can provide some examples of 70 year old women having children,
I'll be glad to consider his arrangement. Otherwise, this is surely a
major error on his part.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Joan, wife of Prince Llywelyn, was a legitimated daughter of King John.
Leo van de Pas
should not appear. What if early in life a marriage was _contracted_ but had
not been consummated?
Then there was no marriage. Still, why do have CP and SP only one wife, and
both claim her to be Helen daughter of Llewellyn and both claim she
contracted a second marriage?
Llewelyn of Wales had a stroke in 1237 and died in 1240. Helen could have
been born, just a guess, up to 1237.
William 5th Earl of Mar succeeded in 1243, and presuming he was an adult,
his son Donald could have been born in, or before or after 1243. Which would
make him about the same guessed age as Helen, especially as he was a second
husband he could have been younger.
Duncan Earl of Fife married in 1159-1160, again we must guess, his eldest
son Malcolm can be born about 1162 to 1170. Once a son was born how much
urgency was there for a second son (Duncan)? Duncan could have been born
guess 1165/6-1175. As the heir married how much urgency was there for the
second son Duncan to marry? I found a record of Duncan's son Malcolm acting
as an 'adult' in 1237. If he was 20 he could have been born in, after, or
before 1217. How sure are we that this Malcolm was an adult in 1228?
If_again if_Malcolm married in 1228 (or only contracted) could this have
been an unknown first wife which would give Richardson two wives for him,
but then we have to keep on asking the question, Why do CP and SP maintain
he married only once and that wife was Helen daughter of Llewelyn?
I really believe that Richardson accepted too much guess work as fact. And
as someone who sells _facts_ I think this is not acceptable. If he had
expressed doubts and maintained _this is possible_ he would have allowed
people to make up their own mind. Having stumbled onto this _cropper or
blooper_ to use Richardson's vernacular, how many more are there in his
book? As these kinds of doubts have been expressed by others about
Richardson's book, is it strange I will only look at his book as a last reso
rt?
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
> "could have,"
> "just a guess"
>
> "presuming"
> "we must guess"
> "could have been"
> "guess"
Where is Leo's evidence for even one 70 year old woman giving birth to
children in this time period?
His answer: "could have," "just a guess," "presuming," we must guess,"
"could have been," and "guess." Whew! That's quite a pile!
Andrew B.W. MacEwen is entirely right: Earl Malcolm's 2nd wife, Ellen,
is clearly much, much younger than he was. By my estimates, Ellen was
at least 30 years younger than Earl Malcolm. Ellen is NOT and can not
be the same wife as Llywelyn's daughter who Malcolm married as his 1st
wife back about 1228.
Leo van de Pas
woman of 70 giving birth. Understanding Richardson is a church going person,
surely he has read the bible? I have pointed out the possibility that Helen
could have been born as late as 1237, making her 33 in 1270. Helen has to be
stretched to have been born earlier, but how much earlier? We do not know
because we do not have _facts_. Richardson claims he has and I am
irresponsible for not copying his facts on my website. I wonder, who is the
one _without excuse for continuing this major blooper about Ellen_?
In his earlier message Richardson admitted that this entry in his book is
conjecture, and guess work. He should be honest enough to have recorded that
this was_the most likely scenario_ not fact.
I feel so sad about what Richardson is doing. By trying to expose me as the
one with having bloopers and coming a cropper, he only exposed himself. What
is even sadder, he keeps on clinging to his _facts_ how much confidence will
this instill in people in regards to his next book? I think his Plantagenet
Ancestry is a superb _production_ which no doubt has much good in it, but by
exposing his _facts_ have feet of clay, he is destroying confidence people
could/should have in him.
By clinging stubbornly in public to his facts and not allowing the
possibility that _it could be different_ he only makes it worse. Own up.
----- Original Message -----
From: <royala...@msn.com>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:26 AM
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John
E of Huntington (1207-37)
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
"Leo van de Pas" wrote:
> Ignoring all my points, points not facts, Richardson wants to hear
about a
> woman of 70 giving birth. Understanding Richardson is a church going
person,
> surely he has read the bible?
Yes, I've read the Bible (it's correct to capitalize the word Bible,
Leo). But I'm not sure what it has to do with female fertility in 13th
Century Scotland. Unless you're talking about the miracle birth of
Isaac in the Old Testament and the miracle birth of Jesus in the New
Testament. Are you suggesting Ellen, widow of Earl Malcolm, gave birth
miraculously to five separate children by her 2nd husband, Donald, Earl
of Mar? Really? Why haven't we heard of this before?
I have pointed out the possibility that Helen
> could have been born as late as 1237, making her 33 in 1270.
Ellen could well have been born as late as 1237, Leo. But then she
would not have been the daughter of Llywelyn that Earl Malcolm married
back in 1228. Now would she? She wouldn't even have been born yet!
> stretched to have been born earlier, but how much earlier? We do not
know
> because we do not have _facts_. Richardson claims he has and I am
> irresponsible for not copying his facts on my website. I wonder, who
is the
> one _without excuse for continuing this major blooper about Ellen_?
Yes, this is a major blooper for your database. You have a woman
married before she was even born. That takes more faith than I
possess, Leo.
> In his earlier message Richardson admitted that this entry in his
book is
> conjecture, and guess work. He should be honest enough to have
recorded that
> this was_the most likely scenario_ not fact.
Actually it isn't a "likely scenario" at all. My conclusions are
based on the known facts, sound observation, and normal human
fertility.
> I feel so sad about what Richardson is doing. By trying to expose me
as the
> one with having bloopers and coming a cropper, he only exposed
himself. What
> is even sadder, he keeps on clinging to his _facts_ how much
confidence will
> this instill in people in regards to his next book? I think his
Plantagenet
> Ancestry is a superb _production_ which no doubt has much good in it,
but by
> exposing his _facts_ have feet of clay, he is destroying confidence
people
> could/should have in him.
Thank you for the complement about the Plantagenet Ancestry book.
> By clinging stubbornly in public to his facts and not allowing the
> possibility that _it could be different_ he only makes it worse. Own
up.
Funny I was thinking the same thing about you, Leo. Stubborn, hard
headed Dutchman that you are.
Austin W. Spencer
Pas") wrote:
>Douglas Richardson presents himself as a very confident and certain person
>and first makes positive statements but when queried it becomes less so.
>
>"I carefully stated these _facts_ in my book" Glossing over his reply the
>word fact has disappeared:
>Andrew MacEwen believes----was possibly the----the evidence is
>lacking---Mr.MacEwen supposes---Mr.MacEwen thinks----could be---only a
>theory---the countess (in 1237) could be the uncle's wife----would
>presumably be---Melrose Chronicle suggests---
>
>In fairness to every one who bought his book he should have been less
>_certain_ in his book as now it emerges that the _fact_ he mentioned is only
>a guess. It is still not explained why both the Complete Peerage and Scots
>Peerage, believing in only one wife, should be overruled by the believes of
>Andrew MacEwen and Douglas Richardson. As long as there is doubt, the doubt
>should have been expressed and the _believe_ should not have been stated as
>_fact_.
Douglas Richardson's case rests on a chain of circumstantial evidence apparently
transmitted to him by Andrew MacEwen, and I believe that it becomes much clearer
when the chronology is preserved.
1. Llywellyn had a legitimate daughter Susanna who last appears in 1228.
[4/20/2005 11:24 AM]
2. The Melrose chronicle reports the marriage of Malcolm, Earl of Fife, right
after his accession. We know from other sources that this occurred in 1228. The
sequence, according to Richardson, is typical for a man of his time, place, and
rank. In addition, the chronicle clearly identifies his bride as Llywelyn's
daughter. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM]
3. There is a reference to a servant of the Countess of Fife dated 6 July 1237.
The record does not give her forename, and Richardson identifies her with the
woman Malcolm had married in ca. 1228. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM] Upon further inquiry,
he also suggests that the previous count's widow was unlikely to be named in a
*Scottish* document of 1237. [4/20/2005 11:24 AM] Therefore, Malcolm's wife is
the more probable candidate. We may presume that the countess is the daughter of
Llywelyn, whom Malcolm had married as early as 1228.
4. It is well known that after Malcolm died in 1266, his widow Ellen married
Donald, Earl of Mar, and had issue by him. In Richardson's words, "It is not
possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same woman as Earl Malcolm's wife
back in the 1230's and still be of child bearing age in 1270." [4/20/2005 3:31
AM]
This last observation is on target; only Richardson's imprecise language fails
him. He might have noted that the interval between his estimated date of
marriage and his death, some 38 years, exceeds his wife's likely reproductive
interval -- *if* she truly married Malcolm shortly after his accession. But she
could have married him as late as 6 June 1237 in order to be mentioned as a
countess of Fife, and without necessarily contradicting the Melrose chronicle.
We simply haven't heard enough about the early events in Malcolm's tenure to
date this marriage with any greater confidence. And if Ellen was married closer
to that date, and closer to the age of seven years, it is possible to imagine
Ellen in her forties when, according to Richardson, the last of her children by
Donald was born as late as ca. 1275. [4/20/2005 5:06 PM]
I see little reason to dispute the latter date, given the timing of Ellen's
remarriage and the number of her children. Even so, the chronological evidence
alone does not absolutely rule out the standard filiation. So, before we can
accept this as a corrective to CP and SP, we need to know *even more* about the
circumstances: whether they militate against Malcolm's wife being identical with
Susanna, being relatively young, married as late as 1237, retaining a servant
named Maurice (which name, if I recall, had some vogue in Ireland and Wales) at
that date, and perhaps only consummating her marriage some years afterward.
>I have been given to believe that Colban was in his teens when knighted as
>stated in Scots Peerage. This means that Colban could have been born around
>1249 and his mother's other son born in 1270 only 21 years apart and if his
>mother was about 15 when giving birth to her first about 36 by the birth of
>the other son.
>
>Because historians standardise you insist I do the same? Why? I _try_ to
>represent what I find and let others do the standardising if they want to.
>
>I think in future you should be on safer grounds when using words like
>blooper, coming a cropper because so far your _facts_ are lacking.
If Richardson's vice has been to read too much into the sequence of statements
in the Melrose chronicle, the vice of Leo van de Pas has been to cling
stubbornly to the facts presented in CP and SP. A lot of scholarship has been
published since then, much of it not readily accessible to him. And the
condition of the early Scottish records, as reported by MacEwen, makes it
incumbent upon researchers to consider all possible interpretations thereof.
Austin W. Spencer
Gordon Banks
the wife was capable.
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
We need to be sure that we're talking about the same train of events,
if we're going to come to some agreement here. The source for Earl
Malcolm's marriage to Llywelyn's daughter is Melrose Chronicle, which
source places the marriage at or about 1228. This date and source were
overlooked by Complete Peerage's account of Earl Malcolm. Just why
this took place, I have no idea. Complete Peerage's failure to
properly assess the available evidence is what has lead us to having
this discussion today.
Now, if we accept 1228 as the date of Earl Malcolm's marriage to Prince
Llywelyn's daughter (which Mr. MacEwen thinks is very reasonable), but
we assume the marriage was contracted only and not consumated until
later, it is apparent that Llywelyn's daughter would have been born no
later than 1221. Age seven was the legal age to contract a valid
marriage in medieval times. That being the case, then it is impossible
for Llywelyn's daughter to be the same person as Earl Malcolm's
surviving wife, Ellen. If Ellen was Llywelyn's daughter, she would
have been a minumum of 54 (not in her 40's as you say) when she gave
birth to her last child by Donald, Earl of Mar. This is not possible.
I conclude therefore that there were at least two wives, not one.
> I see little reason to dispute the latter date, given the timing of
Ellen's
> remarriage and the number of her children. Even so, the chronological
evidence
> alone does not absolutely rule out the standard filiation.
Yes, it does. The chronological evidence makes it impossible for Earl
Malcolm's surviving wife, Ellen, to be the same woman as his first
wife, the daughter of Llywelyn, presuming we accept a date for Earl
Malcolm's first marriage as in or about 1228.
So, before we can
> accept this as a corrective to CP and SP, we need to know *even more*
about the
> circumstances: whether they militate against Malcolm's wife being
identical with
> Susanna, being relatively young, married as late as 1237, retaining a
servant
> named Maurice (which name, if I recall, had some vogue in Ireland and
Wales) at
> that date, and perhaps only consummating her marriage some years
afterward.
>
> >I have been given to believe that Colban was in his teens when
knighted as
> >stated in Scots Peerage. This means that Colban could have been born
around
> >1249 and his mother's other son born in 1270 only 21 years apart
and if his
> >mother was about 15 when giving birth to her first about 36 by the
birth of
> >the other son.
Earl Malcolm's son and heir, Colban, is stated to have been a minor by
Complete Peerage at the time of Earl Malcolm's death in 1266. Complete
Peerage may well be right, but it gives no source for this statement.
If correct, it is barely possible for Earl Malcolm's surviving wife,
Ellen, to have been his mother. On the other hand, it is also possible
for Colban to have been the son of Earl Malcolm's first wife,
Llywelyn's daughter. So now we have a quandry.
My own feeling is that Earl Malcolm had three wives, not two. The
first wife was Llywelyn's daughter. She died without surviving male
issue. The second wife was the mother of Colban and his known brother.
The last wife was Ellen, who was clearly much younger than Earl
Malcolm. Ellen survived Earl Malcolm. This three wives scenario
seems to fit the facts better than the two wives arrangement we have at
present. In any case, the one wife scenario is utterly impossible.
> >Because historians standardise you insist I do the same? Why? I
_try_ to
> >represent what I find and let others do the standardising if they
want to.
> >
> >I think in future you should be on safer grounds when using words
like
> >blooper, coming a cropper because so far your _facts_ are lacking.
Yes, it's true, I recommend that people follow modern historians'
standardization and modernization of names. But, I do not insist on
it. You are free to do what you wish.
> If Richardson's vice has been to read too much into the sequence of
statements
> in the Melrose chronicle, the vice of Leo van de Pas has been to
cling
> stubbornly to the facts presented in CP and SP. A lot of scholarship
has been
> published since then, much of it not readily accessible to him. And
the
> condition of the early Scottish records, as reported by MacEwen,
makes it
> incumbent upon researchers to consider all possible interpretations
thereof.
I look for the good in people and I usually find it. You've been civil
and polite throughout this discussion, until you began to discuss my so
called "vice." It is not necessary for you to pass judgement on me in
order to discuss 13th Century Scottish nobles.
> Austin W. Spencer
Chris Phillips
> We need to be sure that we're talking about the same train of events,
> if we're going to come to some agreement here. The source for Earl
> Malcolm's marriage to Llywelyn's daughter is Melrose Chronicle, which
> source places the marriage at or about 1228. This date and source were
> overlooked by Complete Peerage's account of Earl Malcolm. Just why
> this took place, I have no idea. Complete Peerage's failure to
> properly assess the available evidence is what has lead us to having
> this discussion today.
This 1228 date seems to be the crux of the chronological argument. As this
is based on an inference from the way that the text of the Melrose Chronicle
is arranged, it would be interesting to see the text - as you've suggested -
and gauge how secure the inference is.
Having said that, even if she was married later than 1228, if the daughter
of Llewellyn is the countess mentioned in 1237, it still seems very unlikely
that she could be the same woman who went on to have 5 children after 1266.
> Earl Malcolm's son and heir, Colban, is stated to have been a minor by
> Complete Peerage at the time of Earl Malcolm's death in 1266. Complete
> Peerage may well be right, but it gives no source for this statement.
> If correct, it is barely possible for Earl Malcolm's surviving wife,
> Ellen, to have been his mother. On the other hand, it is also possible
> for Colban to have been the son of Earl Malcolm's first wife,
> Llywelyn's daughter. So now we have a quandry.
>
> My own feeling is that Earl Malcolm had three wives, not two. The
> first wife was Llywelyn's daughter. She died without surviving male
> issue. The second wife was the mother of Colban and his known brother.
> The last wife was Ellen, who was clearly much younger than Earl
> Malcolm. Ellen survived Earl Malcolm. This three wives scenario
> seems to fit the facts better than the two wives arrangement we have at
> present. In any case, the one wife scenario is utterly impossible.
Going by the chronological information in CP, it seems that Colbran must
have been born in or after - but not long after - 1245. CP says that Colbran
was a minor at his father's death in 1266, but also that Colbran's son
Duncan was aged 8 at Colbran's death in 1270 - implying he was born in 1261
or 1262.
I don't really understand the chronological problem in Colbran being the son
of Llewellyn's daughter, even if she was married as early as 1228, provided
she was reasonably young when she was married. Is there another reason apart
from chronology for introducing the idea of three successive marriages?
Chris Phillips
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinW...@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Thursday, April 21, 2005 8:53 PM
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John
E of Huntington (1207-37)
=====Plantagenet Ancestry Page 744. Susanna of Wales. In 1228 her custody
was granted by King Henry III of England to Nicholas de Verdun, of Alton,
Staffordshire, and Clementine, his wife. Note: Susanna's subsequent history
is unknown; however, Andrew MacEwen suggests that she may well be Llywelyn's
unidentified daughter next below who married Malcolm, 7th Earl of Fife.
After 1228 there are no facts known about her, Andrew MacEwen suggests, and
he may well be correct, but then he could also be wrong. Does the Melrose
chronicle _really_ state Malcolm married? I understand it was asked whether
someone can produce the text and translate it from the Latin. It seems to me
we know a Melrose Chronicle exists but we do not know what is in it. Whether
typical or not, does this make it a concrete fact that Malcolm _did in fact_
marry? Two things happended in 1228, custody of Susanna is given to Nicholas
de Verdun and Malcolm becomes Earl and is _typically_ married. Shouldn't
this mean that he did _not_ marry Susanna as then the question arises why
give custody to one person while she marries another.
Plantagenet Ancestry again,
Possible child of Joan of England by Llywelyn (making her a possible full
sister of Ellen)
---of Wales married before 6 July 1237 (as his 1st wife) Malcolm 7th Earl of
Fife.
This is _established_ by a reference, but what have we been given as
reference? Document dated 6 July 1237 mentions "Maurice, servant of the
Countess of Fife"
How many facts can we extract from that? I would say, we can accept that
Maurice was alive. But was the Countess? What if Maurice was a very old man
in 1237 and could have been the servant of
1.Ada or Ela, said to be a niece of Malcolm IV, was married to Duncan, Earl
of Fife, this Duncan died in 1203.
2.Maud wife of Malcolm, Earl of Fife. This Earl died in 1228.
3.Helen of Wales married to Malcolm, Earl of Fife
These three ladies are all mentioned in the Complete Peerage and most likely
in Scots Peerage as well (I haven't looked). Plantagenet Ancestry totally
ignores the first name Helen as wife of Malcolm. Why? CP and SP have no
problems with that name.
>
> 2. The Melrose chronicle reports the marriage of Malcolm, Earl of Fife,
right
> after his accession.
======Again, does this chronicle state that Malcolm married right after his
accession?
Have you seen it? I would love to see an e-mail containing the details of
this chronicle.
Richardson asked for this chronicle and also if someone could translate it
from Latin.
We know from other sources that this occurred in 1228.
===We know from other sources that Malcolm succeeded his uncle in 1228 but
does this require he got married immediately as well? Just because it is
customary does not mean it happened.
The
> sequence, according to Richardson, is typical for a man of his time,
place, and
> rank. In addition, the chronicle clearly identifies his bride as
Llywelyn's
> daughter. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM]
====Again this chronicle. What if Susanna was the intended bride but she
died and they never married, returning us to the other possible daughter
named Helen by CP and SP and who may have been younger, much younger than
Susanna and therefor the marriage took place years later?
>
> 3. There is a reference to a servant of the Countess of Fife dated 6 July
1237.
> The record does not give her forename, and Richardson identifies her with
the
> woman Malcolm had married in ca. 1228. [4/20/2005 3:31 AM]
====As I said before: in 1237 Maurice the servant was alive but which
Countess of Fife was intended and was she alive?
Upon further inquiry,
> he also suggests that the previous count's widow was unlikely to be named
in a
> *Scottish* document of 1237.
======Why? Basically a widow of an Earl is not mentioned!!! It is the
servant who is mentioned and the 'Countess of Fife' is only mentioned to
identify Maurice. There may have been two people named Maurice, one was the
servant of the Countess of Fife (alive or death) and the other wasn't.
[4/20/2005 11:24 AM] Therefore, Malcolm's wife is
> the more probable candidate. We may presume that the countess is the
daughter of
> Llywelyn, whom Malcolm had married as early as 1228.
======Probable candidate, we may presume, these do not sound like facts,
only possibilites.
>
> 4. It is well known that after Malcolm died in 1266, his widow Ellen
married
> Donald, Earl of Mar, and had issue by him. In Richardson's words, "It is
not
> possible chronologically for Ellen to be the same woman as Earl Malcolm's
wife
> back in the 1230's and still be of child bearing age in 1270." [4/20/2005
3:31
> AM]
>
> This last observation is on target; only Richardson's imprecise language
fails
> him.
=====How do we know that Malcolm had a wife in the 1230s?
He might have noted that the interval between his estimated date of
> marriage and his death, some 38 years, exceeds his wife's likely
reproductive
> interval -- *if* she truly married Malcolm shortly after his accession.
====As you say *if*
But she
> could have married him as late as 6 June 1237 in order to be mentioned as
a
> countess of Fife, and without necessarily contradicting the Melrose
chronicle.
===Again, who says that in 1237 there was a live Countess of Fife? Maurice
was alive but that doesn't mean _a_ Countess of Fife was.
> We simply haven't heard enough about the early events in Malcolm's tenure
to
> date this marriage with any greater confidence.
====Exactly!
And if Ellen was married closer
> to that date, and closer to the age of seven years, it is possible to
imagine
> Ellen in her forties when, according to Richardson, the last of her
children by
> Donald was born as late as ca. 1275. [4/20/2005 5:06 PM]
>
> I see little reason to dispute the latter date, given the timing of
Ellen's
> remarriage and the number of her children. Even so, the chronological
evidence
> alone does not absolutely rule out the standard filiation. So, before we
can
> accept this as a corrective to CP and SP,
==== I don't think we have any information at all acceptable to correct CP
and SP.
we need to know *even more* about the
> circumstances: whether they militate against Malcolm's wife being
identical with
> Susanna, being relatively young, married as late as 1237,
=====We have no facts associating Susanna with Malcolm. All we know is that
she was handed to Nicholas de Verdun in the year Malcolm became Earl. As far
as I am concerned the year 1237 and the Earl of Fife being married do not
co-incide.
retaining a servant
> named Maurice (which name, if I recall, had some vogue in Ireland and
Wales) at
> that date, and perhaps only consummating her marriage some years
afterward.
>
<snip>.
>
> If Richardson's vice has been to read too much into the sequence of
statements
> in the Melrose chronicle,
======Again, has the Melrose chronicle been produced? What does it say?
the vice of Leo van de Pas has been to cling
> stubbornly to the facts presented in CP and SP. A lot of scholarship has
been
> published since then, much of it not readily accessible to him. And the
> condition of the early Scottish records, as reported by MacEwen, makes it
> incumbent upon researchers to consider all possible interpretations
thereof.
====I lack access to an enormous amount of information, but what I am really
doing is ask : Convice me!! I would like to be convinced!! But so far I have
not seen anything anywhere near _fact_
Best wishes
Leo van de Pas
>
> Austin W. Spencer
>
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
I had a long talk today with Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine, the resident
expert on all things Scottish. The talk was very illuminating. I
asked Mr. MacEwen numerous questions and he had a ready answer for
nearly all of them. Clearly Mr. MacEwen has done his homework.
Basically he says that the only source that states that Malcolm, Earl
of Fife, married a daughter of Llywelyn is the Melrose Chronicle. Mr.
MacEwen has not one but two editions of the Melrose Chronicle in his
personal library. At my request, he examined both of them for me. He
read me the Latin and it was very easy to follow. Under the year 1230
it is stated that Earl Malcolm senior died and that he was succeeded by
his nephew "nepos", the younger Malcolm, who afterwards ["postea"]
married the daughter of Llywelyn. Since the senior Earl Malcolm is
thought to have died in 1228 or 1229 (sources vary on the exact date
according to Andrew), it seems likely that the death of the senior
Malcolm took place in 1228 or 1229 and that the younger Earl Malcolm
married the daughter of Llywelyn in or before 1230.
Melrose Chronicle is written in different hands, so Mr. MacEwen is
uncertain as to the exact dating of this particular entry. However,
the entry would appear to date prior to 1266, when the chronicle was
stopped, and possibly as early as 1230 itself. Mr. MacEwen says there
is a discussion regarding the dating of the various written hands which
is published in the "facsimile" edition of the Melrose Chronicle.
As for the evidence of Earl Malcolm's second wife, Ellen, he says there
is no record of Ellen as his wife in the earl's lifetime. He said
that the Scotichronicon records that Earl Malcolm's widow married
Donald, Earl of Mar. He didn't provide the date, but it can be easily
found in Scots Peerage or Complete Peerage. He added that there is a
rent roll dated 1290 in which Ellen, Countess of Mar, is named. He
said a transcript of the rent roll was published in Stevenson's
Illustrations of Scottish History. It is commonly assumed that Ellen,
Countess of Mar, named in the 1290 record is the same woman as Earl
Malcolm's surviving widow. Mr. MacEwen has no problem with that. Mr.
MacEwen continued to explain that for reasons he has not understood,
all secondary sources in turn identify Earl Malcolm's widow as being
the same woman as his earlier wife, the daughter of Llywelyn. On this
score, Mr. MacEwen says "This is impossible."
Mr. MacEwen says that the Earls of Fife were the premier comital family
of Scotland in this time period. As such, they would have had
sufficient status to contract a marriage to a legitimate daughter of
Prince Llywelyn. Since Llywelyn had a legitimate daughter named
Susanna available in the right time period to marry Earl Malcolm, Mr.
MacEwen has considered it a distinct possibility that this Susanna was
Earl Malcolm's first wife. However, there are no contemporary records
at all which provide the given name of either of Earl Malcolm's wives
during the earl's lifetime.
Mr. MacEwen said there is little in print written on the early Earls of
Fife. He knows of one article by Geoffrey Barrow which is entitled
"Earls of Fife in the 12th Century," which appeared in Proceedings of
the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 83 (1953): 51-62. Other than
that, nothing.
He said that when earlier scholars decided that Ellen, Countess of Mar,
named in 1290 record must be Earl Malcolm's earlier wife, there was
some apparent confusion between her and Llywelyn's proven legitimate
daughter, Ellen, wife of John of Scotland and Robert de Quincy. It was
finally decided that the two Ellen's must be separate and distinct
women. Yet, there seems to have been no effort made to check the
chronology to see if the unnamed wife Earl Malcolm married in 1228/30
was the same person as the wife we know as Ellen who subsequently
married Donald, Earl of Mar. It was more or less assumed the two wives
were the same person.
Mr. MacEwen says the chief problem in resolving the issue of the wives
of the early Earls of Fife is that the cartulary of their chief
foundation, Culross, was destroyed in a fire before any abstracts were
ever made from it. The destruction of this one cartulary is surely an
enormous loss. Had it survived, there presumably would have been
successive charters issued by each of the Earls of Fife, along with
dutiful reference to their wives and mothers.
Regarding my three wives scenario, Mr. MacEwen said he had considered
that possibility as well. However, given there is so little known
about Earl Malcolm's life, he thought it best to stick to the two wives
scenario and leave it at that. He stated emphatically that Earl
Malcolm's second surviving wife, Ellen, was clearly much younger than
Earl Malcolm and that it is impossible chronologically for Ellen to be
the same person as the daughter of Llywelyn.
Mr. MacEwen is not sure why the chronological issue over the two wives
was overlooked for so long. He said as far as he knows he's the first
person to have spotted the problem. I asked him about the possibility
of writing an article on this subject as a correction to Complete
Peerage and Scots Peerage. He said he has material in his files for
many articles and this is just another potential article. All the
same, he is working on several other articles at present. He
complained how much time they take to get them finished and done well.
He asked if I was interested in writing an article on the matter
myself. I said no, I also have more material than I have time to
handle. He closed by wishing me well with my Magna Carta Ancestry book
and we signed off.
Austin W. Spencer
<royala...@msn.com> wrote:
>Dear Newsgroup ~
>
>I had a long talk today with Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine, the resident
>expert on all things Scottish. The talk was very illuminating. I
>asked Mr. MacEwen numerous questions and he had a ready answer for
>nearly all of them. Clearly Mr. MacEwen has done his homework.
>
>Basically he says that the only source that states that Malcolm, Earl
>of Fife, married a daughter of Llywelyn is the Melrose Chronicle. Mr.
>MacEwen has not one but two editions of the Melrose Chronicle in his
>personal library. At my request, he examined both of them for me. He
>read me the Latin and it was very easy to follow. Under the year 1230
>it is stated that Earl Malcolm senior died and that he was succeeded by
>his nephew "nepos", the younger Malcolm, who afterwards ["postea"]
>married the daughter of Llywelyn. Since the senior Earl Malcolm is
>thought to have died in 1228 or 1229 (sources vary on the exact date
>according to Andrew), it seems likely that the death of the senior
>Malcolm took place in 1228 or 1229 and that the younger Earl Malcolm
>married the daughter of Llywelyn in or before 1230.
>
>Melrose Chronicle is written in different hands, so Mr. MacEwen is
>uncertain as to the exact dating of this particular entry. However,
>the entry would appear to date prior to 1266, when the chronicle was
>stopped, and possibly as early as 1230 itself. Mr. MacEwen says there
>is a discussion regarding the dating of the various written hands which
>is published in the "facsimile" edition of the Melrose Chronicle.
[big snip]
Many thanks for this very helpful discussion. I am afraid, however, that you did
not quite understand my hypothetical "in her 40s" age estimate. I fully agree
that Ellen cannot have married for the first time in 1228; but I predicated the
hypothetical on a minimum age at marriage *and* a first marriage much later than
1228. I admit that this was stretching things quite a bit, but -- I thought --
no further than the chronicle and legal formalities would allow. In any case,
your first reply addressed the age factor, but not the date factor. If we cannot
agree on the interval that transpired between Malcolm's accession and marriage,
that puts the case for more than one wife in some doubt, though not very much.
Among other countervailing reasons, Llywelyn could in principle have had a
duaghter in ca. 1230, with or without his wife, whose only son was born in ca.
1208. But how likely is it that such a daughter was born to Llywelyn?
I was rather inclined to accept your argument to begin with; but it disturbed me
that there was no evident attempt to date the Melrose Chronicle entries. You
might say that I was afraid CP and SP would out eventually. And Mr. MacEwen's
judgment that the one-wife hypothesis is "impossible" demanded amplification.
The weight of the evidence is in your favor, but it would still help greatly if
we could date Malcolm's marriage more precisely.
Austin W. Spencer
Leo van de Pas
Many thanks for this.
A few more facts apparently are emerging but do they clinch the deal?
"The Melrose Chronicle is the only source that states that Malcolm, Earl of
Fife married a daughter of Llywelyn". I don't think anyone doubted this in
the first place.
Also I don't think anyone questions when Malcolm (the uncle) died, 1228 or
1229.
It is such a pity that the Melrose Chronicle cannot be dated. "However, the
entry would appear to date prior to 1266, when the chronicle was stopped,
and possibly as early as 1230 itself".
This gives a time span of 36 years. Which could allow one wife for the
younger Malcolm who then marries again and has more children. What a pity
and I had hoped we could be certain and put it all behind us, one way or the
other.
Many thanks for sharing this.
Leo van de Pas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Austin W. Spencer" <AustinW...@cox.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Friday, April 22, 2005 4:37 PM
Subject: Re: Fact of Fiction? Re: Helen verch Llewelyn of Wales married John
E of Huntington (1207-37)
Peter Stewart
news:1114141590.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Dear Newsgroup ~
>
> I had a long talk today with Andrew B.W. MacEwen of Maine, the resident
> expert on all things Scottish. The talk was very illuminating. I
> asked Mr. MacEwen numerous questions and he had a ready answer for
> nearly all of them. Clearly Mr. MacEwen has done his homework.
<snip>
> Mr. MacEwen said there is little in print written on the early Earls of
> Fife. He knows of one article by Geoffrey Barrow which is entitled
> "Earls of Fife in the 12th Century," which appeared in Proceedings of
> the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, 83 (1953): 51-62. Other than
> that, nothing.
Rubbish. These two statements are flatly at odds - if Andrew MacEwan is such
an expert in this subject, he certainly ought to be aware of John
Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland, Crown, Lordship
and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_, edited by Alexander Grant &
Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).
Peter Stewart
Tim Powys-Lybbe
<snip>
> John Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland,
> Crown, Lordship and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_,
> edited by Alexander Grant & Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).
And the article even appears in a footnote on an internet site, as
found by Google at:
http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/mcdonald.htm
The footnote shows that the article is 18 pages long so hardly
insubstantive.
It also appears in a list of books on Scottish women, compiled by Prof
E. Ewan (though not MacEwan) on:
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~eewan/booktop.html
--
Tim Powys-Lybbe t...@powys.org
For a miscellany of bygones: http://powys.org
Peter Stewart
"Tim Powys-Lybbe" <t...@powys.org> wrote in message
news:c9288e5...@south-frm.demon.co.uk...
> In message of 22 Apr, "Peter Stewart" <p_m_s...@msn.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> John Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland,
>> Crown, Lordship and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_,
>> edited by Alexander Grant & Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).
>
> And the article even appears in a footnote on an internet site, as
> found by Google at:
>
> http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/mcdonald.htm
>
> The footnote shows that the article is 18 pages long so hardly
> insubstantive.
It's far from insubstantial - any expert on Scottish history or genealogy in
this period, and well-informed amateurs, must have read it.
Thanks for posting this link, by the way - apart from the misguided attempt
to label the line of Scottish kings descended from Malcolm III as "Canmore
dynasty" (from his personal but not hereditary byname Ceannmor), this is
interesting.
Peter Stewart
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1114109489.7...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
<chomp>
> Yes, it's true, I recommend that people follow modern historians'
> standardization and modernization of names. But, I do not insist on
> it. You are free to do what you wish.
So why on earth isn't Leo free to do as he wishes with the name Basset?
<snip>
> I look for the good in people and I usually find it.
By means of the attraction of opposites?
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
>
> Rubbish. These two statements are flatly at odds - if Andrew MacEwan
is such
> an expert in this subject, he certainly ought to be aware of John
> Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland, Crown,
Lordship
> and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_, edited by Alexander
Grant &
> Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).
>
> Peter Stewart
Mr. MacEwen has probably seen it, Peter. He specifically mentioned
MacDuff of Fife to me in our conversation.
Mr. MacEwen is a gentleman and a scholar, which you are not.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancesty.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1114182829.9...@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> Rubbish. These two statements are flatly at odds - if Andrew MacEwan
> is such
>> an expert in this subject, he certainly ought to be aware of John
>> Bannerman's paper 'MacDuff of Fife' in _Medieval Scotland, Crown,
> Lordship
>> and Community: Essays Presented to GWS Brown_, edited by Alexander
> Grant &
>> Keith J Stringer (Edinburgh, 1993).
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> Mr. MacEwen has probably seen it, Peter. He specifically mentioned
> MacDuff of Fife to me in our conversation.
So why on earth did you quote him as citing only another paper, adding
"apart from that, nothing"?
Just can't stop yourself from lying, perhaps?
He could hardly have conversed about the earls of Fife without mentioning
MacDuff. The point is he failed - according to your breathless, adulatory
report - to mention John Bannerman's study in this context.
> Mr. MacEwen is a gentleman and a scholar, which you are not.
And I have never claimed to be - your judgement on this is, of course, quite
worthless anyway.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
>
> And I have never claimed to be - your judgement on this is, of
course, quite
> worthless anyway.
>
> Peter Stewart
Gosh, Peter, if my posts are so worthless, why do you keep reading
them? Could it be you like me after all? Say it's so.
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1114213245.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Peter Stewart wrote:
>>
>> And I have never claimed to be - your judgement on this is, of
> course, quite
>> worthless anyway.
>>
>> Peter Stewart
>
> Gosh, Peter, if my posts are so worthless, why do you keep reading
> them? Could it be you like me after all? Say it's so.
Can't you EVER get anything straight?
I said your judgment was worthless, not your posts. Every now & then, as
I've said before, the kind of hack-work you are competent to undertake will
turn up useful information, and it is occasionally possible to discern this
through the surrounding blather & falsehood.
Peter Stewart
Douglas Richardson royalancestry@msn.com
Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Website: www.royalancestry.net
Peter Stewart
<royala...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1114235162....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> So now you think my posts have great value? I knew you liked me.
>
> Best always, Douglas Richardson, Salt Lake City, Utah
Richardson is now trying to see how much idiocy he can cram into a single
sentence. His second effort above must take the prize, at least for the time
being.
Can anyone tell him of another newsgroup where he could find people who
might enjoy his games?
Peter Stewart