CP (and SP) Correction: Robert II, King of Scots and his Three (?) Wives
The...@aol.com
Hello All,
In looking about for additional evidence concerning certain
Scots nobility and their relationships to the Stewarts (and each
other), I found the text of the dispensation (December 1347) for
the marriage of Robert Stewart (later Robert II, King of Scots)
and his wife Elizabeth Mure.
I assumed no surprises would arise from scanning the
dispensation: yet another reason to hold off on assumptions.
The text commences as follows (the notes/notations are those
of the author, Andrew Stuart):
' " Clemens Epus, Servus Servor. Dei, Venerabili Fratri..
Episcopo Glasguen. Salutem, &c.
OBLATA nobis pro parte dilecti filij nobilis viri
Roberti Dni de Stratgnf*, Militis, et dilecte in Christo
filie nobilis mulieris Elizabeth Mox (sic) tue Dioc.
petitio continebat, quod dudm ipsis Roberto, et
Elizabeth ignorantibus quod dicta Elizabeth, et dilecta
in Christo filia nobilis mulier Ysabella Boucellier*,
domicella ejusdem Dioc. in tertio et quarto, ac Elizabeth
et Robertus prefati in quarto consanguinitatis gradibus
sibi invicem attinerent, idem Robertus dictam Ysabellam
primo, et postmodum predictam Elizabeth carnaliter
cognovit, et quod ipse Robertus et Elizabeth diu
cohabitantes, prolis utriusque sexus multitudinem
procrearunt.
...............
............... "
* There is reason to think that the word Strathgnf, thus
written, has by mistake been written in the record in
place of the word Strath-grif, which was the ancient
name of the lordship of Renfrew, belonging to the
Stewarts of Scotland;...
* Forte Boutellier. ' [1]
That this is the dispensation for Robert Stuart and Elizabeth
Mure is quite certain: the latter part of the text refers to David
II, King of Scots (and uncle of Robert Stewart) as "filio nostro
David Regi Scotie illustri, cujus dictus Robertus nepos
existit,..".
That being said, who on earth was Isabel/Isabella 'Boutellier'?
It appears that Robert Stewart was involved in an earlier union
with one Isabel 'le Botiller' (or 'le Boteler'; 'Butler' ?), and
that besides the unresolved matter of Robert and Elizabeth Mure
being related in the 4th degree, that Elizabeth Mure and Isabel
'le Botiller' were related 'in tertio et quarto', i.e., in the 3rd
and 4th degrees.
An avenue that may yield the solutions to both sets of
relationships lies in the known ancestry of Robert II, which
others of the list may have further leads in tracking down,
to-wit:
[NOTE: the following chart is conjectural, and is presented
to illustrate the known and possible relationships under
discussions]
Richard de Burgh = Giles/Egidia de Lacy
Lord of Connaught I
d. bef 17 Feb 1242/3 I
________________________I____
I I
Walter de Burgh Margery = Theobald le Botiller
Earl of Ulster; d. 1271 de Burgh I d. bef 3 Aug 1248
I _____________I______________
I I I
James = Giles/Egidia Theobald le = Joan 'fitz NN
Stewart I de Burgh Botiller I John' I
____I d. 1285 I I
I _________I I
I I I
Walter = 1) Marjory Edmund Butler = Joan [either Adam
Stewart I Bruce Justiciar of I Fitz- Mure or Joan
I Ireland, d.1321 I Gerald Danielston]
I _________I I
I I I
I NN Butler/le Botiler I
I [? James, Earl of Ormond ?] I
I ___I _____________I
I I I
Robert II of Scots = 1) Isabel = 2) Elizabeth = 3) Euphemia
d. 1390 'Botiler' I Mure I of Ross
I I
V V
All comment, criticism and relevant documentation/references are
certainly welcome.
Cheers,
John *
NOTES TO POST:
[1] Andrew Stuart, Genealogical History of the Stewarts: from
the earliest period of their authentic history to the present
times (London: Printed for A. Strahan, and T. Cadell Jun.
and W. Davies, in the Strand, 1798), pp. 418 et seq.
* John P. Ravilious
Peter Stewart
What is your basis for suggesting that Robert and Isabel were related
to each other, and that Robert's carnal knowledge of her can be
considered a marriage by genealogists when it plainly wasn't by the
pope?
The dispensation from Clement VI was dated 22 November, not "December"
as Andrew Stuart wrongly said.
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Peter,
Thanks for your post, including the correction as to the date.
In your post, you asked as follows:
1. ' What is your basis for suggesting that Robert and Isabel
were related to each other,...'
My suggestion had little to do with Robert and Isabella being
related or not. My chart illustrated a possible basis for
the relationship of Isabella 'Boutiller' and Elizabeth
Mure, which coincidentally (due to the 'le Botiller' origin
suggested) would also resolve the 4th degree relationship
between Robert II and Elizabeth Mure.
The dispensation neither indicated such a relationship, nor
did it indicate there was none; there was no need.
A. The closest relationship between Robert II and Isabella
'Boutiller', if my chart is correct, would be in the 4th
and 5th degrees (in terms of consanguinity);
B. There was no need to refer directly to this relationship
as the dispensation was for Robert II and Elizabeth,
NOT Isabella;
C. The problematic relationship as to affinity was that
which Robert had 'acquired' by virtue of his prior
relationship with Isabella: this would place Elizabeth
Mure and Robert II in the 3rd and 4th degrees of
affinity ('tertio et quarto') cited in the
dispensation text.
2. ' .. and that Robert's carnal knowledge of her can
be considered a marriage by genealogists when it plainly
wasn't by the pope? '
I believe most genealogists follow the initial transaction
of a marriage, not whether a dispensation was requested (or
not) or mandated (or not). It is notable when a dispensation
is involved, but that has to do with church recognition of
a marriage (i.e., allowing the couple 'to remain in marriage')
or permission for a non-marital union to be solemnized with
marriage.
There was evidently no issue of the union between Robert and
Isabella, and there definitely was between Robert and Elizabeth (the
dispensation refers directly to this). So, there was no dispensation
at issue re: the union between Robert and Isabella - we don't even
know if Isabella was still alive in 1347. This does not prove or
disprove whether such a union occurred.
Cheers,
John
Nathaniel Taylor
> A. The closest relationship between Robert II and Isabella
> 'Boutiller', if my chart is correct, would be in the 4th
> and 5th degrees (in terms of consanguinity);
>
> B. There was no need to refer directly to this relationship
> as the dispensation was for Robert II and Elizabeth,
> NOT Isabella;
>
> C. The problematic relationship as to affinity was that
> which Robert had 'acquired' by virtue of his prior
> relationship with Isabella: this would place Elizabeth
> Mure and Robert II in the 3rd and 4th degrees of
> affinity ('tertio et quarto') cited in the
> dispensation text.
The text referred explicitly to the *consanguinity* between Isabel and
Elizabeth, and only implicitly to the *affinity* thereby created between
Elizabeth and Robert.
Degrees of affinity were calculated differently, with different
'degrees' based essentially on the number of different types of
connection one must get through to link two people, rather than the
number of generations of blood kinship involved in part of an
'affinity'. Any canonically close cousin of a former mistress would be
considered as linked, I believe, in the 'second degree of affinity';
there were different thresholds recognized at different times in the
13th century and later, as to whether 3d or 2d degree affinities were
sufficient grounds to reject a marriage.
> 2. ' .. and that Robert's carnal knowledge of her can
> be considered a marriage by genealogists when it plainly
> wasn't by the pope? '
>
> I believe most genealogists follow the initial transaction
> of a marriage, not whether a dispensation was requested (or
> not) or mandated (or not). It is notable when a dispensation
> is involved, but that has to do with church recognition of
> a marriage (i.e., allowing the couple 'to remain in marriage')
> or permission for a non-marital union to be solemnized with
> marriage.
>
> There was evidently no issue of the union between Robert and
> Isabella, and there definitely was between Robert and Elizabeth (the
> dispensation refers directly to this). So, there was no dispensation
> at issue re: the union between Robert and Isabella - we don't even
> know if Isabella was still alive in 1347. This does not prove or
> disprove whether such a union occurred.
I don't understand your two paragraphs of throat-clearing here. The
title of the thread suggested you saw this union between Robert & Isabel
Butler as a previous marriage, and this is what Peter so tersely
dismissed.
Robert and Isabel may never have intended to marry. All that was
necessary to create the potentially damning affinity in canon law was a
sexual liaison, even if it were of the most transitory and
unsatisfactory kind.
Nat Taylor
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com wrote in message news:<de.405fada...@aol.com>...
> Friday, 7 November, 2003
>
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> Thanks for your post, including the correction as to the date.
>
> In your post, you asked as follows:
>
> 1. ' What is your basis for suggesting that Robert and Isabel
> were related to each other,...'
>
> My suggestion had little to do with Robert and Isabella being
> related or not.
Well, as I see the chart it actually did, since a relationship was
posited. The fact that this was unnecessary is not a point in its
favour.
> My chart illustrated a possible basis for
> the relationship of Isabella 'Boutiller' and Elizabeth
> Mure, which coincidentally (due to the 'le Botiller' origin
> suggested) would also resolve the 4th degree relationship
> between Robert II and Elizabeth Mure.
>
> The dispensation neither indicated such a relationship, nor
> did it indicate there was none; there was no need.
>
>
> A. The closest relationship between Robert II and Isabella
> 'Boutiller', if my chart is correct, would be in the 4th
> and 5th degrees (in terms of consanguinity);
>
> B. There was no need to refer directly to this relationship
> as the dispensation was for Robert II and Elizabeth,
> NOT Isabella;
>
> C. The problematic relationship as to affinity was that
> which Robert had 'acquired' by virtue of his prior
> relationship with Isabella: this would place Elizabeth
> Mure and Robert II in the 3rd and 4th degrees of
> affinity ('tertio et quarto') cited in the
> dispensation text.
I'm sorry, I don't follow this - since the blood relationship between
Elizabeth Mure and Isabel was worthy of the pope's notice in this
context, as bringing about an affinity to Robert in addition to
consanguinity, then why wouldn't also a known blood relationship
between Robert and Isabel bring about a seperate line of affinity
worth specifying?
> 2. ' .. and that Robert's carnal knowledge of her can
> be considered a marriage by genealogists when it plainly
> wasn't by the pope? '
>
> I believe most genealogists follow the initial transaction
> of a marriage, not whether a dispensation was requested (or
> not) or mandated (or not). It is notable when a dispensation
> is involved, but that has to do with church recognition of
> a marriage (i.e., allowing the couple 'to remain in marriage')
> or permission for a non-marital union to be solemnized with
> marriage.
Again, I don't follow your reasoning. Genealogists can't conjure a
marriage into existence if there was no basis for it in the first
place: how do you know that Robert and Isabel were ever eligible to
contract a union with each other? All we are told is that they were
known to have had a carnal relationship at some stage. If they had
been free to marry each other at the time, this fact would more likely
than not have figured in the papal decision.
> There was evidently no issue of the union between Robert and
> Isabella, and there definitely was between Robert and Elizabeth (the
> dispensation refers directly to this). So, there was no dispensation
> at issue re: the union between Robert and Isabella - we don't even
> know if Isabella was still alive in 1347. This does not prove or
> disprove whether such a union occurred.
Eh? Where else have you seen a pope refer to a dead woman in terms
such as "dilecta in Christo filia nobilis mulier...domicella ejusdem
Dioc."?
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Nat,
Thanks for your post, and observations.
You stated, in making this post,
" The title of the thread suggested you saw this
union between Robert & Isabel Butler as a previous
marriage..."
I would draw your attention to the (?) in the thread
title; as indicated, I in fact identified this union as
(questionably) a previous marriage. It may well have been
a marriage (without Papal blessing) - or not; we do not
know. The wording of the dispensation for Robert Stewart
and Elizabeth Mure, by its silence on the subject, makes it
plain that the union between Robert Stewart and Isabella
'Boutellier' was merely a matter of 'carnal knowledge' - but
then that would be the take on any relationship that was not
(A) a bona fide marriage, or (B) a marriage requiring a
dispensation that was not obtained, before or after the
marriage.
That Robert Stewart and Elizabeth Mure had been married
already (sans dispensation) is probable; the only reason for
obtaining a dispensation in 1347 was the political
predicament of Scotland at the time (Robert standing close
to the succession, with his uncle and monarch David II being
both childless and an English prisoner). Had the problems
of 1346/7 not been what they were, likely the need for a
dispensation here would have been less dramatic.
My interpretation was, and still is: a marriage may have
occurred (sans dispensation) between Robert Stewart and
Isabella 'Boutiller', likely a result of the diplomatic
'rapprochment' between Scotland and England following the
Treaty of Northampton (1328). David, then Prince of
Scotland, was married to Joan, Edward III's 7-year old
sister.
A. The probability that David's nephew Robert (aged
say 12 at the time) was married off to a daughter
of the Butler family of Ireland is not far-fetched.
B. That the family of the Earl of Ormond (or any other
high-ranking member of the Butler family) would
have accepted having their daughter sent off to
Scotland as a mistress IS far-fetched.
A marriage probably occurred. Proof is wanting;
likelihood is not.
Cheers,
John
Reedpcgen
completed the "marriage," so if they only knew each other carnally (as the word
'married' is not used here), it would imply there was no betrothal.
Even a betrothal without carnal knowledge would have caused problems, so it
seems to indicate there was neither a betrothal nor marriage, from what I've
seen.
Paul
Todd A. Farmerie
This is perhaps a question you can't answer, but would the church
likely have taken notice of an extramarital carnal relationship
if it did not produce a preganacy (I know that, short of someone
walking into the room and discovering them together, that was the
general standard for fornication in Colonial New England, but it
was obviously a different place and time).
taf
Reedpcgen
>likely have taken notice of an extramarital carnal relationship
>general standard for fornication in Colonial New England, but it
>was obviously a different place and time).
>
'Indiscretions' were generally not noticed, unless it was a high profile case
and the public knowledge of such indiscretion was already known. There are a
number of cases where the Pope was considering such things, but if it was not
generally well known by the public, mercy could be given.
Were marriage was concerned, if the bishop or some other ecclesiastic involved
knew of carnal knowledge, it should be made public. Pregnancy was not
necessarily a concern (unless the question of legitimacy was involved).
Paul
Rosie Bevan
affinity occurred, could jeopardise the legitimacy of a later marriage. The
following is the treatment of one such example.
8 Kal 1345
"To the bishop of Lincoln. Renewal of the mandate to absolve Thomas le
Mareschale from the excommunication which he has incurred by intermarrying
with Isabella de Foxle, he having carnally known her sister, the fact being
known only to his confessor, and he, who was the king's donsel, being unable
to come to the Roman court. Thomas and Isabella were to be dispensed so as
to remain in their marriage which they contracted and their past and future
offspring to remain legitimate. A chaplaincy of 8 marks was to be founded by
them, Isabella was not bounded to pay the conjugal
debt, and if Thomas survived her he was to remain unmarried. As however they
have submitted that their means are too small to found a chaplaincy, and
Isabella too modest to extract the conjugal debt, the said debts may be
exacted by Thomas, and the chaplaincy commuted for other good works at the
bishop's discretion."
[Calender of Papal Letters, v.2 p.167]
As Isabel Boucellier was still living, and there is no mention of a marriage
to Robert Stewart in the context of the dispensation, it is unlikely that
she and Robert were ever married.
Cheers
Rosie
Peter Stewart
> Friday, 7 November, 2003
<snip>
>
> A. The probability that David's nephew Robert (aged
> say 12 at the time) was married off to a daughter
> of the Butler family of Ireland is not far-fetched.
>
> B. That the family of the Earl of Ormond (or any other
> high-ranking member of the Butler family) would
> have accepted having their daughter sent off to
> Scotland as a mistress IS far-fetched.
>
> A marriage probably occurred. Proof is wanting;
> likelihood is not.
You are on a downhill gallop - try to ease back gently. It's only by
your conjecture (likelihood wanting) that "Ysabella Boucellier" has
been identified as a member of the earl of Ormond's family. As the
pope called this woman "domicella" of the Glasgow diocese, it seems
highly improbable to me that she had been sent there at all, for
marriage or liaison, rather than simply being a native of the place.
Remember that "Mure" was rendered "Mox" by the papal chancery (also in
the register kept at Avignon): so what gave rise to "Boucellier" is
far from certain.
Peter Stewart
The...@aol.com
Dear Rosie, Peter, Paul, Todd, et al.,
Many thanks for your good posts on the issue of the
marriage (or lack thereof) between Robert Stewart and
Isabella 'Boutellier'. Your comments and observations
are certainly relevant, and appreciated.
Certainly, as I said, the likelihood of the family of
Isabella (English or Anglo-Irish by my guess) accepting
a situation short of marriage is minimal. But then, of
course, we have the example of Alix of France, the
intended of the young Richard 'Coeur-de-Lion', whose
situation never gave rise to a marriage (in England or
Poitou) despite the dissatisfaction of her
highly-placed family. We evidently have a high-born
lady, residing in the diocese of Glasgow ca. 1345-1350
(confined or not) who lost her 'place in line' to
Elizabeth Mure.....
That being said, as to the primary genealogical issue
at hand, does anyone of the list have a reference,
database, etc. with relevance to the various
Butler/Botiller/Boteler families of the day where we
might look for traces of the mysterious Isabella?
Good luck, and good hunting (to us all).
John *
* John P. Ravilious
Nathaniel Taylor
> Saturday, 8 November, 2003
>
>
> Dear Rosie, Peter, Paul, Todd, et al.,
>
> Many thanks for your good posts on the issue of the
> marriage (or lack thereof) between Robert Stewart and
> Isabella 'Boutellier'. Your comments and observations
> are certainly relevant, and appreciated.
>
> Certainly, as I said, the likelihood of the family of
> Isabella (English or Anglo-Irish by my guess) accepting
> a situation short of marriage is minimal. But then, of
> course, we have the example of Alix of France, the
> intended of the young Richard 'Coeur-de-Lion', whose
> situation never gave rise to a marriage (in England or
> Poitou) despite the dissatisfaction of her
> highly-placed family. We evidently have a high-born
> lady, residing in the diocese of Glasgow ca. 1345-1350
> (confined or not) who lost her 'place in line' to
> Elizabeth Mure.....
This post still seems to rest on a misconception that this Isabel must
have been married or affianced to Robert to earn a mention in the
dispensation. In fact medieval marriage litigation, and marriage
dispensations, are full of references to liaisons. Even if this Isabel
is from a noble family (and this is not necessarily true), then this
does not discourage the simple conclusion that her affair with Robert
was just an affair: there are many examples of non-marital cohabitation
or short liaisons between nobles with no pressure to marry. Medieval
families were simply not as discomforted by this as modern (or at least
Victorian) ones. Even if this Isabel were a close relative of an earl,
it is by no means true that her family would not 'accept a situation
short of marriage', to judge from many medieval examples.
There is simply no leg on which one might build from this document a
theory of a marriage or betrothal.
Nat Taylor
Reedpcgen
>it is by no means true that her family would not 'accept a situation
>short of marriage', to judge from many medieval examples.
>
>There is simply no leg on which one might build from this document a
>theory of a marriage or betrothal.
>
>Nat Taylor
I wholeheartedly second this (my focus of study has been in England, rather
than Scotland).
Also, one runs into great danger when transposing our modern concepts or
expectations onto medieval beings (especially when all we can hope to know are
superficial details - not internal motives and situations).
Paul
Phil Moody
between the betrothed couple to determine if the marriage was acceptable to
both parties. IIRC, this lasted about six months, in which time they had
normal relations, that all married couples do. After this period of time,
either party could refuse to legitimize the union with no adverse
repercussions; although sometimes a child was born from this trial marriage.
Cheers,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 4:45 PM
Subject: Re: CP (and SP) Correction: Robert II, King of Scots and his Three
(?) Wives
Nathaniel Taylor
moody...@cox.net ("Phil Moody") wrote:
> If I am not mistaken, in Scottish culture, there was a period of cohabitation
> between the betrothed couple to determine if the marriage was acceptable to
> both parties. IIRC, this lasted about six months, in which time they had
> normal relations, that all married couples do. After this period of time,
> either party could refuse to legitimize the union with no adverse
> repercussions; although sometimes a child was born from this trial marriage.
I am not very familiar with Scottish secular customs of any period, but
what you describe here would directly contradict medieval canon law
norms. As Paul has already pointed out, anything considered a
'betrothal' under canon law is ipso facto made into a valid canonical
marriage by any subsequent sexual relations (if as 'betrothal' we are
considering a 'desponsatio' contracted with 'verba de futuro'). In what
period, and among what social strata, was what you describe a common
practice?
It is theoretically possible that Robert and Isabel could have had
sexual relations while cohabiting, with some totally informal,
off-the-record idea that they were experimenting with some sort of
marital compatibility, completely under any canon-law radar. But there
is no evidence to differentiate this from the perfectly common medieval
scenario of either a short-term affair or long-term but entirely
non-marital concubinage.
Nat Taylor
Phil Moody
custom pre-dating the Feudal system.
http://www.electricscotland.com/webclans/kin.htm
Similar misconceptions have prevailed regarding Highland marriage-customs.
This was, perhaps, to be expected. In a country where a bastard son was often
found in undisturbed possession of the chiefship or property of a clan, and
where such bastard generally received the support of the clansmen against the
claims of the feudal heir, it was natural to suppose that very loose notions
of succession were entertained by the people; that legitimacy conferred no
exclusive rights; and that the title founded on birth alone might be set aside
in favour of one having no other claim than that of election. But this,
although a plausible, would nevertheless be an erroneous supposition. The
person here considered as a bastard, and described as such, was by no means
viewed in the same light by the Highlanders, because, according to their law
of marriage, which was originally very different from the feudal system in
this matter, his claim to legitimacy was as undoubted as that of the feudal
heir afterwards became. It is well known that the notions of the Highlanders
were peculiarly strict in regard to matters of hereditary succession, and that
no people on earth was less likely to sanction any flagrant deviation from
what they believed to be the right and true line of descent. All their
peculiar habits, feelings, and prejudices were in direct opposition to a
practice, which, had it been really acted upon, must have introduced endless
disorder and confusion; and hence the natural explanation of this apparent
anomaly seems to be, what Mr Skene has stated, namely, that a person who was
feudally a bastard might in their view be considered as legitimate, and
therefore entitled to be supported in accordance with their strict ideas of
hereditary right, and their habitual tenacity of whatever belonged to their
ancient usages. Nor is this mere conjecture or hypothesis. A singular custom
regarding marriage, retained till a late period amongst the Highlanders, and
clearly indicating that their law of marriage originally differed in some
essential points from that established under the feudal system, seems to
afford a simple and natural explanation of the difficulty by which
genealogists have been so much puzzled.
"This custom was termed hand-fasting, and consisted in a species of contract
between two chiefs, by which it was agreed that the heir of one should live
with the daughter of the other as her husband for twelve months and a day. If
in that time the lady became a mother, or proved to be with child, the
marriage became good in law, even although no priest had performed the
marriage ceremony in due form; but should there not have occurred any
appearance of issue, the contract was considered at an end, and each party was
at liberty to marry or hand-fast with any other. It is manifest that the
practice of so peculiar a species of marriage must have been in terms of the
original law among the Highlanders, otherwise it would be difficult to
conceive how such a custom could have originated; and it is in fact one which
seems naturally to have arisen from the form of their society, which rendered
it a matter of such vital importance to secure the lineal succession of their
chiefs. It is perhaps not improbable that it was this peculiar custom which
gave rise to the report handed down by the Roman and other historians, that
the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain had their wives in common, or that it
was the foundation of that law of Scotland by which natural children became
legitimized by subsequent marriage; and as this custom remained in the
Highlands until a very late period, the sanction of the ancient custom was
sufficient to induce them to persist in regarding the offspring of such
marriages as legitimate."
Best Wishes,
Phil
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nathaniel Taylor" <nathani...@earthlink.net>
To: <GEN-MED...@rootsweb.com>
Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 8:41 PM
Subject: Re: CP (and SP) Correction: Robert II, King of Scots and his Three
(?) Wives
Reedpcgen
>Terry Mair is correct, the custom is called Hand-fasting. It is a Highland
>custom pre-dating the Feudal system.
>
If it PREdates the feudal system, are you talking the medieval period?
As Nat stated, this directly contadicts Canon law. Locals might have gotten
away with it in the highlands, but the king was high profile, and would not be
granted such leisure were expectant marriage was concerned.
>the ancient inhabitants of Great Britain
>and as this custom remained in the
>Highlands until a very late period,
Until what period, but still, do we have evidence of it among high profile
perons such as dukes and earls (let alone the king)?
Paul
Nathaniel Taylor
reed...@aol.com (Reedpcgen) wrote:
I would add: is there evidence that this was practiced among the Lowland
nobles, as opposed to Highland chiefs, in the 14th century?
Nat Taylor
Doug McDonald
There are claims of it. Some claim that the daughter
Margaret, of the first Earl of Huntly, daughter of
a daughter of Cumming of Altyre, and wife of Kilravock,
was offspring of such a union (i.e. between Huntly and
the daughter of Altyre) though there is little evidence,
and probably she was just Huntly's mistress. OF course,
this was highlands.
Doug McDonald
Gordon Johnson
wrote:
** Two further points: 1. As the Latin for Butler (the occupation) is
Pincerna, and the records were in Latin, why Boucellier?
2. Boucellier (or similar spelling) does not appear in Scottish
records, so as Mure was so weirdly written as Mox, Boucellier might in
fact have been, say, Boswell (which in another contemporary record
appears as Bozvyl], or if the c is indeed a "t", it could be Bothwell;
both of which were prominent Scottish families; or even Buittle.
Gordon.
KinHelp - Scottish Historical & Genealogical Services
Website: http://www.kinhelp.co.uk
Pre-1700 is our speciality.