Aoidh (Ethelred) Heth (MacEth), EARL OF MORAY - Could Ethelred have been the husband of Lulach's daughter?

*Or*, somebody pulled it out of their ear. People do that, you know. :-)

My gut says that's not the case here. The "solution" is just too messy.

Bear in mind the specific historical problem here. If someone wanted to connect later MacDuffs to the earlier folks the easiest solution would be to make Shakespeare's MacDuff a dynast from the line of King Dubh, and present that MacDuff as the ancestor of the later MacDuffs.

If someone wanted to tart it up a bit, it would have been easy to come up with a story about Ethelred dying young and leaving an infant son, maybe toss in a bit of romantic agony because Ethelred has a wife but is an Henry VI character with a genuine religious vocation and inclination to celibacy, then Ethelred's brother succeeds to the throne, and the infant son ends up with the MacDuff inheritance only.

To get a good story, there is no need to go through the additional complexity of bringing in a phantom Aed. No need to trash the whole thing at the very beginning by asserting that Ethelred was disinherited. No need to invent a phantom Duff mac Eth to be a new name-father.

I also think the tradition is likely to be earlier than the Victorians and probably also earlier than Sir Walter Scott. Their inventions tend to be simpler and flashier. As well, they start having access to old charter material so they don't make the mistake of wandering into territory where historical records can disprove the story.

I think we're on two different tracks at the same time here. One track is, "Who was Lulach's wife, what was her name, what was their daughter's name?". The other is "Macduff, Man or Myth?" They may, or may not, have bearing on each other.

This is *so not* relevant to the topic, but some of the stuff Scott wrote turns out *not* to have been pulled out of his ear. The "witch Urfried/Ulrica" who called upon "Zernebock" in "Ivanhoe", for instance. He didn't make that up - he knew that the disinherited Saxon heirs and their households had bugged out to Kiev, where they *could* have come in contact with old Slavic traditions and folk tales. "Zernebock" is a bad translation of "Chernobog", a Slavic "black god" who is often equated to you-know-who. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobog

When I think about the seams in this story, I see the identification of Aed with Ethelred. I can envision as scenario where there could have been an original tradition that named Aed as the MacDuff ancestor in this period. Then perhaps sometime in the 16th or 17th centuries someone notices that the MacDuff arms appear to show they are senior to the royal family. That starts a hunt for some way to account for it, then someone notices Ethelred and connects him to the Aed of their tradition.

I'm not advocating this theory. Just pointing out that it seems a reasonable position to take until we know more. I'd hate to see it become the foundation for a "Geni version" without extensive investigation.

Had to be sometime well after Shakespeare, IMHO. The traditions were too well set by his time (even by the 14th century, methinks).

It would take someone of an iconoclastic turn of mind to come up with something like that. 18th century, maybe?

> I think we're on two different tracks at the same time here.

To me it's the same track but the MacDuff problem is so central that the rest can't be answered without it.

The names themselves are different in different versions. No amount of argument is going to prove one version (in my opinion).

The real issue (I think) is whether the traditional relationships are correct -- that Lulach was son of Gruoch, that he married a daughter of the Mormaer of Angus, and they had a daughter who married Ethelred. Perhaps there are other versions, but this is one I remember.

And this is really only important insofar as these relationships illustrate the politics of the time and of the next few generations. Pull out Ethelred's (undocumented) marriage and you get a different constellation of relationships.

Speaking of iconoclasm, here's a cute example: https://archive.org/stream/historicdoubtsre02what#page/n3/mode/2up

The author, tongue stuck firmly in cheek, uses empirical reasoning to "prove' that Napoleon is a myth. :-D

Lulach as son of Gruoch : extremely probable.
Married a daughter of the mormaer of Angus : somewhat likely (he certainly married *someone*, as he had a legitimate son to lay claim to the throne).
Daughter married Ethelred of Dunkeld : WAY beyond UNlikely. That's something right out of Gustave Anjou (not that I think he was responsible, but it's his type of chicanery - find a near-match and then force a fit).

> Had to be sometime well after Shakespeare

No, I disagree. The tradition could easily pre-date Shakespeare because it shows no particular influence from him, and he doesn't use the character of Macduff in a way that would lend itself to using this particular tradition.

What do Shakespeare's witches tell us? For Banquo the witches say "thou shalt get kings though thou be none". That reflects the idea of Shakespeare's time that the Stewart kings were descended from Banquo. Resonance with history.

But for Macduff the witches say only "none of woman born shall harm Macbeth". Then Macduff the c-section baby is Macbeth's nemesis. Maybe Shakespeare could have made a play on Macduff's line having been kings but now not. That could have provided a nice mirroring but it wouldn't have contributed to the story.

Maybe there is some distant reflection of the MacDuff tradition in Shakespeare's slaughter of Macduff's family, but the TA who wouldn't let me do my final paper on Macduff didn't think so. From her vast knowledge as a grad student, she didn't think there was enough of Macduff in Shakespeare to make a case for anything ;)

While I was bopping around the Web in search of clues, I came across this: http://www.undiscoveredscotland.co.uk/usebooks/fleming-eastneuk/cha... It concerns a corner of Scotland with a strong association with "Macduff", and the writer is at pains to point out that while John of Fordun may have heavily fictionalized him, he probably didn't invent him out of whole cloth.

The "Lady Macduff" incident echoes the actual siege and slaughter of Gillecomgain in his castle in 1032 - Macbeth *may* have been responsible for that, or it may have been Malcolm II (a real Teflon king, even his worst deeds just slide right off). In any case, Macbeth married the widow, one Gruoch, who either wasn't home at the time, or escaped/was allowed to escape the flames.

Sometimes it seems to me that Shakespeare was recycling his earlier theme of the Unrighteous King and his Downfall, with a more mature understanding. His Richard III is a melodrama villain who only lacks a waxed mustache to curl as he sneers. His Macbeth seems more like a real person, a basically well-intentioned man tempted into wrongdoing, who then finds there is no going back and no escaping what he has set in motion.

> Daughter married Ethelred of Dunkeld : WAY beyond UNlikely

Again, I disagree. Perfectly logical. Start with the fundamental theory of political alliances. It would have made very good sense for the House of Dunkeld to grab Lulach's daughter and bring a claim on her inheritance into their centrifuge. A son of Malcolm III married to a sister of Maelsnectan? Perfectly logical.

The problem I see, which is perhaps your point, is that it's hard to make the dates work. Any daughter of Lulach would have to be born before 1058 but I put Ethelred's birth at about 1072. Quite an age difference, although not impossible if the point of the marriage was purely political.

Perhaps, just for fun, we can imagine ur-Aed, before conflation with Ethelred, being the husband of Lulach's daughter ;)

Nope, if the Dunkelds were going to do that at all, they'd have married her to Duncan, who was much closer to her age. They didn't.

The main reason I chose 16th to 17th centuries as a possible date for a theoretical MacDuff manuscript history this is "always" the way it turns out. Old, unpublished manuscript written by a household priest. Access to muniments that have since been burned in this fire or that. Consistent with meager surviving sources but otherwise unprovable.

Another reason for thinking about this time period is that the act putting Scottish heraldry on its current footing was 1672. That act, which required registration of all coats of arms. If there was ever a time when someone would be noticing the MacDuffs were using a version of the royal arms, this would be it.

> they'd have married her to Duncan

Yep, he would have been an excellent choice.

Private User: =The "Lady Macduff" incident echoes the actual siege and slaughter of Gillecomgain in his castle in 1032 - Macbeth *may* have been responsible for that, or it may have been Malcolm II (a real Teflon king, even his worst deeds just slide right off). In any case, Macbeth married the widow, one Gruoch, who either wasn't home at the time, or escaped/was allowed to escape the flames.=

Interesting thought. I've always favoured the theory that it was most likely Macbeth, King of Scots in revenge for his cousins doing away with his own father.

I think it's worth emphasising that the 'Clan' MacDuff and Earldom of Fife resided in Fife, not with the Moraymen and Macbeth. Gruoch 'Lady MacBeth' is NOT Lady MacDuff (although a relative). I realise you know this, but I'm just wanting it in black and white

Suggestions that the Moravians were collateral Duff descendents from way back seem plausible, but the traditional (ie unattested by Sources) line back from Ruadrí mac Domnall, Mormaer of Moray isn't claiming that.

In terms of the name similarity as proof. I'm focusing on this because this seems to be the only actual connection that links the two:

*Geography doesn't: Fife vs Moray (& if I recall correctly, the Grampians in between)
*Titles don't: The Abbot of Dunkeld is a rather conspicuous title to have been left off when Aed is signing charters
Dates don't: Ethelred likely dead between 1093 & 1107; Aed signing Charters between c. 1115 to c.1130

MacKay clan tradition doesn't: Lulach's daughter marries her cousin Aed of Ross

I'd like to say that the balance of facts makes it almost impossible to defend a proposition that these two profiles are the same man: Ethelred, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld and Áed, Mórmaer of Moray

This doesn't prove that Ethelred, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld did not have a child by Lulach's daughter, Tul / Olith, of Moray though.

Doesn't prove anything either way, Sharon, but do you really want to cast Tul as a "Mrs. Robinson" seducing a mere adolescent? :-)

Justin said: >The main reason I chose 16th to 17th centuries as a possible date for a theoretical MacDuff manuscript history this is "always" the way it turns out. Old, unpublished manuscript written by a household priest. Access to muniments that have since been burned in this fire or that. Consistent with meager surviving sources but otherwise unprovable.<

Strictly speaking the "Book of Deer" was something like (but not exactly) that. Last "annotated" in the 12th century, it disappeared and was forgotten, to languish in private collections until Cambridge University bought one of said collections - and even then it took nearly another century before anyone realized the importance of the marginalia and got them into print.

the "Book of Deer" (Sharon take note) is the only known reference to a "Domnall mac Ruairi" at about the right period and the right level of importance to be the alleged second brother of Findlaech.

=the "Book of Deer" (Sharon take note) is the only known reference to a "Domnall mac Ruairi" at about the right period and the right level of importance to be the alleged second brother of Findlaech.=

Very interesting. Found this on the Book of Deer on the net. http://www.ucc.ie/celt/online/G102007/text001.html

I think the traditional genealogy line we have on Geni is taken from Genelaig Albanensium - 11thC acc. to Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormaer_of_Moray

Any explicit MacDuff connection is noticeable by its absence in both of these.

=Sharon, but do you really want to cast Tul as a "Mrs. Robinson" seducing a mere adolescent? :-)=
From what I know about adolescent boys - it could just as likely have been the other way around :-)

=Doesn't prove anything either way= More importantly for this discussion, though is that it doesn't disprove it. As we're trying to connect the threads of legendary tradition to historical facts, I'm trying to figure out what we're left with if we remove the impossible.

1) I'd say it's pretty impossible that Ethelred and Aed are the same person.
So, on Geni those profiles should not be allowed to be merged.

So
2) Next questions:

Who was the husband / lover of Lulach's daughter? Or who was the father of Angus, Mórmaer of Moray? & his brother? Malcolm MacEth, Earl of Ross (also rumoured to be the child of Alexander)

And how does Gille Míchéil MacDuff, Earl of Fife (recently added to the tree here) fit in? Is this the MacDuff clan tradition?

Geography isn't a lot of help either - most of the references, when they can be identified, are to places in the vicinity of Old Deer, near the extreme northeastern tip of (what is now) Aberdeenshire. But it's well north and east of areas traditionally associated with Fife, and beyond that deponent sayeth not.

Geography does discount an Ethelred-"Tul" liaison. If she was hiding out in Moray with the rest of her family (which she probably was), and if he was hanging out in Dunkeld or Dunfermline, in Fife, that's a rather long hike for a quickie. ;-)

This is probably the time to bring up the source/information reliability scales. Wikipedia (yeah, I know, but this is *basic* stuff) has a good short explanation:

Intelligence source and information reliability rating systems are used in intelligence analysis.

A system commonly employed rates the reliability of the source as well as the information. The source reliability is rated between A (history of complete reliability) to E (history of invalid information), with F for source without sufficient history to establish reliability level. The information content is rated between 1 (confirmed) to 5 (improbable), with 6 for information whose reliability can not be evaluated.[1]

For example, a confirmed information from a reliable source has rating A1, an unknown-validity information from a new source without reputation is rated F6, an inconsistent illogical information from a known liar is E5, a confirmed information from a moderately doubtful source is C1.

The evaluation matrix as described in the Field Manual FM 2-22.3 (see also Admiralty code:

Source reliability
Rating Description
A Reliable No doubt about the source's authenticity, trustworthiness, or competency. History of complete reliability.
B Usually reliable Minor doubts. History of mostly valid information.
C Fairly reliable Doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
D Not usually reliable Significant doubts. Provided valid information in the past.
E Unreliable Lacks authenticity, trustworthiness, and competency. History of invalid information.
F Cannot be judged Insufficient information to evaluate reliability. May or may not be reliable.

Information reliability
Rating Description
1 Confirmed Logical, consistent with other relevant information, confirmed by independent sources.
2 Probably true Logical, consistent with other relevant information, not confirmed.
3 Possibly true Reasonably logical, agrees with some relevant information, not confirmed.
4 Doubtfully true Not logical but possible, no other information on the subject, not confirmed.
5 Improbable Not logical, contradicted by other relevant information.
6 Cannot be judged The validity of the information can not be determined.

(The Book of Deer marginalia range from A1 - known, verified person - to B2 - person probably existed, but not verified.)

> Gruoch 'Lady Macbeth' is NOT Lady MacDuff

Repeating this bit for clarity. The standard story is that two lines descended from Malcolm I alternated the kingship.

The line from Malcolm's son Kenneth II, ended with an heiress Bethoc, who was mother of Duncan I and grandmother of Malcolm III.

The line from Malcolm's son Dubh were the MacDuffs. This line ended with Gruoch, who married MacBeth.

So, Gruoch seems to have been the MacDuff "heiress". At least, that's the theory because it would explain MacBeth's claim to the throne. If Gruoch's line had been alternating the kingship with Duncan's line, then it was their turn when Duncan died. And, it would explain why Gruoch's son Lulach was also king.

I don't see anything that directly ties Gruoch's line to either Morary or Fife. Her father was Boedhe (Boite) and her grandfather was Kenneth III. In the version I'm looking at there are no mormaerships for either of them.

After Lulach's death, what happened to the MacDuff inheritance? Did the lands remain tied to the MacDuff clan or were the lands separated from the representation? Did one or both pass through one of Lulach's children to the later MacDuffs? Or were the later MacDuffs collaterals of Gruoch who took up the representation, perhaps without the lands? And, was the inheritance, their clan territory. in Fife or Moray?

Politics also appears to mitigate against it at first glance - because the Moravian men were enemies of the Dunkeld royals. Oengus is killed battling them. Malcolm continues the fight. Why would they marry one of their women to their enemy?.

But then, on the other hand: Macbrth's own mother, Donada, was a Dunkeld princess married to Findlaech of Moray.
Ingiborg - Thorfinn's widow (?) marries Malcolm Canmore even though her husband had been warring against him. (Was she part of the spoils of war?)

And then we have this piece of info: The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, s.a. 1078, reports that "In this year Máel Coluim seized the mother of Máel Snechtai [Lulach’s son] ...and all his treasures, and his cattle; and he himself escaped [only] with difficulty
That could place Tul/Olith in the Dunkeld court for any length of time.

On Gruoch. That she was a Macduff is not in doubt. That she was Lady MacDuff is completely wrong. She was the wife of the Mornaer of Moray - two of them in fact.