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

Of Macbeth's claim to the throne: He, like Malcolm & Thorfinn was also a grandson of Malcolm.

There are two oddities here.

First, MacBeth's name means son of Boedhe (Beth), who is supposed to have been his father-in-law. It seems to be clear he was really son of Findlaech mac Ruaidri, mormaer of Moray. There are no Boedhe's in his line from whom he could have have taken his name, so if it really was his name it must either be a "title" or he and Gruoch have been reversed in the genealogies. But If the latter were true, then MacBeth would be a MacDuff ;)

There is some debate about the Kenneth who was father of Boedhe. He is generally thought to be Kenneth III who was a MacDuff, son of the original Dubh, but some people think Boedhe's father was Kenneth II. If that were true then he would have been an uncle of Bethoc, a first cousin of Duncan, and not a MacDuff at all. Note the probably meaningless similarity of the names Boedhe (Beth) and Bethoc.

The infamous "Ethelred charter", over which we were wrangling for so long, would be C3 at best and may be as low as D5. There's absolutely no way that what we have was written/transcribed before c. 1100 -- it's clearly an after-the-fact memorandum of an earlier transaction (see: Latin tenses used, and more importantly the relative ages of Alexander and David), its style is inconsistent with other known charters of the period, and it has some inconsistencies (who was "comes de Fyf", David listed before Alexander instead of after him as one would expect, etc).

It sheds little if any light on the question of Ethelred's floruit, other than that he was probably deceased as of the memorandum ("vir venerandae memoriae", man of revered memory).

*If* it's authentic, the extant manuscript may date as late as the first years of the reign of David I (c. 1124-1128). (And if it's not, all bets are off.)

Justin, a *first* name is not necessarily a patronymic. The habit of naming people "son of" whatever as a given name was *well* entrenched in Celtic lands and had long since ceased to have any reference to paternity. "Mac Bethad" means "son of life", or "righteous man", and there were several persons bearing that name prior to Macbeth of Moray. *None* of them were sons of anyone named "Beth--".

David and Alexander being mixed up suggests they might be adults and reigning together?
But, again, we can't prove conclusively that it was an error.
It's irritating that we can't, but it's a fact.
Time to move on..?

On the possibility of Boite as Malcolm II's brother - the one difficulty is that it makes Gruoch a generation older than Macbeth.

My understanding of Macbeth is that it was his name - hence Macbeth not MacBeth. But who really knows.

Can I take us back to the question of who the key figure is for MacDuff traditions as Ethelred's son?

Some other non-paternal "Mac" examples: Mac Caille, "son of the wood"; Mac Con, "son of the wolf/dog" (hi Michael!); Mac Cuillinn, "son of the holly" (hi Jacqueli!), Mac Dara, "son of the oak", Mac Raith, "son of grace"; etc. (O Corrain & Maguire, "Irish Names". Mr O Corrain has been heavily involved with the CELT translation and digitization of Gaelic language documents project.)

"Boite" in any case is *not* the same name as "Bethad".

At this point I'm pulling my own "authority card" - as a warranted SCA herald, though a very junior one, I *have* to know something about medieval names and how they work. O Chorrain & Maguire is considerd a "standard reference" for Irish and early Scots names.

Is that like a Get Out Of Jail Free card? :-)

> Of Macbeth's claim to the throne: He, like Malcolm & Thorfinn was also a grandson of Malcolm.

Some caution here. We don't actually know anything about the claim asserted by MacBeth. The traditional story presents him as a villain. He's a grandson through his mother of Malcolm, so "obviously" he's just some royal cousin who grabbed the throne.

However, his apologists point out that he would have had a better claim through his wife. If her family had been alternating the throne with Duncan's family for several generations and it was their turn, then MacBeth's claim to succeed Duncan would have been very strong. Not to say that he didn't help Duncan into the grave.

This feature of (apparently) alternating rulers between two lines of the same family is actually very common in medieval Scotland. I'm a bit skeptical of elevating to an accepted custom. I think it could easily be explained as generations long disputes playing out in the days before primogeniture. One line grabs the title, then the other line grabs it back, and it goes back and forth until one or the other wins decisively.

Gruoch's claim would be better still if her father was the son of Kenneth *II* rather than III - that would make him Malcolm II's brother and her Malcolm's niece. And Malcolm opened the door to that by permitting inheritance through the female line (tanistry was, supposedly, reckoned through the *male* line) - not that he had any choice in the matter.

That raises the question of why he didn't just off Boite the way he did so many other male claimants - was Boite ineligible for some reason?

> That she was a Macduff is not in doubt. That she was Lady MacDuff is completely wrong.

She was not Lady MacDuff in Shakepeare. Obviously. But that's one of the arguments for thinking Shakespeare's Macduff is an invented figure. If she was heiress of Clan MacDuff and wife of MacBeth, then why would MacDuff side with Malcolm? So, Shakespeare is an idiot.

But I have an answer for that -- the real MacDuff might have a collateral of Gruoch, perhaps playing a very typical kind of politics in order to recover the MacDuff lands for himself.

On second thought that would make Macbeth and Gruoch first cousins once removed (if his mother was indeed a daughter of Malcolm). That's a bit close for comfort.

Yes, I agree. It could just be that it turned out that way.
As to being the villain - given that grandpa Malcolm had had every male competitor - including small children - killed, it's hard to imagine what Macbeth could do to beat that for villainy.
Duncan was an impetuous leader with no battle sense, who kept warring on multiple fronts and losing. It could equally be said that Macbeth saved Scotland from him, and Macbeth's reign was a period of stability and wealth. He and Thorfin go to Rome where he is exceedingly generous with money.

However, back to the question of Lulach;s grandchildren. Which one is the supposed MacDuff ancestor?

Our knowledge of the period is really too sketchy to be assuming that Gruoch was "heiress" to Fife in any respect.

Cross posting.
She wasn't Lady MacDuff - nevermind Shakespeare. She lived with the Moravians. Neither of her husbands are called Lord MacDuff, and neither is her son.

> a *first* name is not necessarily a patronymic

You won't get any argument from me on any of this, Maven. It's perfectly reasonable to suppose that Macbeth was the guy's given name. But, I think it's also perfectly reasonable to notice that his name is (coincidentally?) a name that dovetails with his father-in-law.

As an SCA herald you'll know that Gaelic names and nicknames often become titles, and vice versa. The old genealogies aren't always clear about what is happening when. With no direct evidence, it's not possible to exclude any reasonable possibility.

Coincidence also occurs very, very often (guys with sisters named Mary marrying women named Mary, etc.).

Mac Bethad mac Ainmere, principal judge of Armagh (d. 1014), was the son of Ainmere, not of any "Beth--".

> She wasn't Lady MacDuff - nevermind Shakespeare.

I'm missing something in your argument, Sharon.

No one in her time was "Lady" anything. That's a convention from Shakespeare's time. He used to because it was familiar to his audience.

If Gruoch was the MacDuff heiress, then she was just the MacDuff heiress. In her time, her husband might have been called MacDuff if he had no other meaningful identity.

Gruoch's family would have ruled some area that was their "clan country". There's an ongoing dispute about whether it would have been in Fife, Moray, or Angus. The fact that she was married to two rulers of Moray suggests it was in Moray and that marriage to her was part of a political strategy to consolidate their claims. The fact that the MacDuffs are associated later with Fife suggests it might have been in Fife. I can't remember the argument for Angus, but it should be easy to find.

The real question here is what territory her father Boedhe ruled. Gruoch's husbands came from two different branch of the rulers of Moray. That suggests they did not derive their claim to Moray from her. But, her father was the son of a high-king (Kenneth III or maybe Kenneth II), and Gruoch was an important player. So, in addition to the MacDuff clan territory Boedhe was probably mormaer of something, or a rival claimant to be mormaer of something. We just don't know what.

> guys with sisters named Mary marrying women named Mary, etc.

Which is why there are so many different theories about these relationships. You can't rule something in or out based just on your pet theories about names and coincidences. The best anyone can do is note the different arguments, then look for other sources to support one of them.

> Can I take us back to the question of who the key figure is for MacDuff traditions as Ethelred's son?

Already past time for me to start work, but I'm hoping to respond to enough of these points that I won't fret during the day.

There are three MacDuff men whose relationships to one another are not clear. (1) Constantine, mormaer of Fife, (2) Duff, mormaer of Fife. and (3) Gillemichael, mormaer of FIfe.

Constantine is clearly named as mormaer. Duff might be an invention to account for the MacDuffs continuing to use that name. Gillemichael is the earliest documented ancestor of the later MacDuffs.

In various sources you'll find these men in a confusing variety of patterns. Constantine as a distant relative, or Constantine as son of Ethelred. Duff as son of Constantine, or Duff as son of Ethelred. Gillemichael as son of Constantine, or Gillemichael as son of Duff. Probably some other configurations not coming to mind immediately.

The "usual" version is that Constantine was some kind of relative, Duff was son of Ethelred, and Gillemichael was son of Duff.

Let's get something sorted out first. "Boite" (Boete, Boede, Boethe) is *not* the same name as "Beath(a)". It's like "Cainnech" and "Cinead" - a chance similarity, but they *are not* the same name.

There is a non-zero chance that Gruoch's father was named for the philosopher Boethius - a but presumptuous, perhaps, but not the sort of thing that Wasn't Done.

The Lady bit is the transliteration of whatever the wife of the mormaer was called.
Gruoch was married exogamously into Moray and away from her own family; as was Macbeth's mother, Donada.
The Moray men are pretty well documented because of their many battles. They are not MacDuffs or Mormaers of Fife. Findlaech as a mormaer of Moray isn't in question; neither are his nephews or his son's claims.

However the story about the MacDuffs is woven - some of the history of the time is immutable. Wherever the MacDuff men (Boite; his brothers; his murdered son) lived exactly - it definitely was not in Moray. There isn't an historical vacuum in Moray that allows us to speculate that the MacDuff men had claims to it.

Signing off for the evening - Will ponder about Constantine, Duff, Gillemichael in the bath :-)
Enjoy the day, you two. Hope it is productive.

> Let's get something sorted out first. "Boite" (Boete, Boede, Boethe) is *not* the same name as "Beath(a)".

Yes, but it's a pedantic point that misses the problem.

Gruoch's father's name apparently recorded (somewhere) as Boite and as Beth. but now usually normalized to Boedhe but sometimes to Beatha.

Sorry to have alarmed you. No one is saying the two names are etymologically identical (and no one is saying the name Bethoc is another in the same group).

Instead, the debate centers around the problem that neither name is 100 percent from surviving sources. The idea that MacBeth is Macbethad and Gruoch's father is Boedhe is a majority opinion. The names are written differently to highlight a conclusion, not because we know for certain for Gruoch's father was Boedhe not Bethad.

> There isn't an historical vacuum in Moray that allows us to speculate that the MacDuff men had claims to it.

Not exactly true. Yes, it would be hard to speculate that the MacDuffs had a claim to rulership of Moray. Their own genealogy shows they belonged to a different family than the rulers.

But, that doesn't mean the MacDuff territory was not in Moray. If they were de facto rulers of a major part of it an alliance with them would have been desirable from the point of view of the ruling family.

One of my main problems with identifying the MacDuff territory is that they don't seem to have been mormaers of anything, but they have to have had some major power base. That's why an early connection with Fife seems so attractive. When the new line picks up the pieces, it's ruling in Fife. Yet, here we have Gruoch, the last known representative of the old line, married into Moray. Twice.

Justin, you're running in circles about names again, and it's turning into a debate on the meaning of "is".

So they're similar names. So are Mary, Myra, Moira, Maureen, Maura and Molly. But no one is going to mistake Moira Shearer for Maureen O'Hara, even though they both had flaming red hair. :-)

That's part of the question - *was* she the last of the old "Macduff" line? Or was she from a cadet branch, or even not a "Macduff" at all?

> Justin, you're running in circles about names again

Maven, your argument comes down to the idea that no one ever, possibly, in any source whatsoever, could ever confuse the names.

To make that leap, you have to ignore the problem that arguments are still being made based on this confusion.