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

> 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?

I've given you some arguments to use on all sides, but I've already said I think the problem is unsolvable using surviving sources. I've been arguing for several days that there is a body of tradition that is likely wrong in some respect but can't be disentangled reasonably.

And you have never explained where this "tradition" comes from, so we have no way of knowing whether to rate it C3 (it can't rate higher than that) or E5. So for the present it's F6.

F Cannot be judged Insufficient information to evaluate reliability. May or may not be reliable.
6 Cannot be judged The validity of the information can not be determined.

I don't know where it comes from. That's the entire point. If you are going to critique it you pretty much need to know what you're critiquing. It does no good to start handing out judgments of reliability about sources you haven't even found.

My point is something very different. To even make a start based on what we have now, you have to choose up sides. Not that you want to do that, but if the goal is to come up with a "preferred" version for Geni, you have to have some basis for making decisions.

The obvious starting point is to ask whether you believe Macbeth was a usurper or had a valid claim to the throne. Depending on which side you chose, you'll have the satisfaction of knowing the known sources support you.

Macbeth was a maternal grandson of Malcolm II. If that was his only connection, then he was a usurper (minority view). But he could have claimed in Gruoch's right (majority view). If her father Boedhe was a son of Kenneth II (minority view) then he was still a usurper. But if her father was Kenneth III then she was a MacDuff and the custom of alternating the throne gave her a strong claim (majority view).

If you follow along with the majority view, then you end up with Gruoch as the MacDuff heiress, else Macbeth's claim would be meaningless. If she was not the heiress, then the alternating throne should have fallen to the actual heir (call him MacDuff).

But if she was the heiress, then who were the later MacDuffs? Her descendants? Her distant kin?

So, the relationship to Moray and Fife begins to matter. A few days ago we saw the confident pronouncements that her family was not connected to Fife. And now the confident pronouncements that they weren't connected to Moray either. So, the line of King Dubh had no political base and didn't live anywhere, but they could put Macbeth and Lulach on the throne.

So, we get drawn into a further mass of detail of trying to sort out who the MacDuffs were. It starts to look like the simple answer would be to go back and say maybe Gruoch wasn't a MacDuff at all. Maybe she really was granddaughter of Kenneth II not Kenneth III and Macbeth really was a usurper.

And, at each decision point the line gets shakier. This is the problem most historians have with the methodology of genealogists -- they string together a bunch of probabilities that often involve subjective decisions then never notice that even an 80 percent at each generation for four generations leaves you with only a 41 percent probability that the whole thing is correct.

Whatever was going on in the period Malcolm II/Duncan/Macbeth/Lulach, it seems that *all* the old rules had been thrown into the trash bin.

"Tanistry", as reconstructed by the scholars, involved selection of an heir-designate from all the adult male representatives of the *male* line.

Duncan wouldn't qualify. Macbeth wouldn't qualify. Thorfinn wouldn't qualify (assuming he did have a valid claim through *his* mother). Lulach wouldn't qualify.

Malcolm II is often credited with being the first to introduce the concept of hereditary monarchy in Scotland. He probably wasn't. His father, Kenneth II, is credited with/blamed for being the first to try to change the rules, and it allegedly got him assassinated. (Wikipedia, C2: According to John of Fordun (14th century), Kenneth II of Scotland (reigned 971-995) attempted to change the succession rules, allowing "the nearest survivor in blood to the deceased king to succeed", thus securing the throne for his own descendants. He reportedly did so to specifically exclude Constantine (III) and Kenneth (III), called Gryme in this source. The two men then jointly conspired against him, convincing Finnguala, daughter of Cuncar, Mormaer of Angus, to kill the king. She reportedly did so to achieve personal revenge, as Kenneth II had killed her own son. Entries in the Chronicles of the Picts and Scots, collected by William Forbes Skene, provide the account of Finnguala killing Kenneth II in revenge, but not her affiliation to Constantine or his cousins. These entries date to the 12th and 13th centuries.[14][15] The Annals of Ulster simply record "Cinaed son of Mael Coluim [Kenneth, son of Malcolm], king of Scotland, was deceitfully killed", with no indication of who killed him.[16][17])

Malcolm, out of dire necessity, went a lot farther than his father ever dreamed of. He threw out the *whole concept* of agnatic (male-line) inheritance, reverting to the old Pictish matrilineal tradition. He had to; he had no sons and only three(?) daughters.

But that left the succession open to *all* female-line descendants, including Duncan. Macbeth, and Thorfinn (plus others who may have seen fit not to press the point).

The conservative Scots weren't quite ready for absolute primogeniture (nor was the *British* monarchy until very, very recently), and once Duncan proved himself dangerously incompetent, it became winner-take-all. Macbeth was competent - very, *very* competent - and soon acquired the backing to take Duncan on and beat him. (Thorfinn seems to have been playing "Let's you and him fight", and watching developments, possibly hoping for a chance to take over a weakened kingdom.)

Seventeen years later, Macbeth had no (adult) sons and the situation was growing critical - so he used Malcolm's rules (which had made him eligible in the first place) to declare his wife's adult son Lulach his heir.

Unfortunately, Lulach wasn't up to it....

I did not say Gruoch's family wasn't from Fife. And I'm not sure why you think the MacDuffs are homeless? Surely they're in Fife?

The shakiness in the story seems to me to be coming from the apparently overwhelming neccessity of linking Gillemichael to Gruoch? Or Duff to Ethelred?
It seems to me that a lot of stringing together of disparate people has taken place, mostly in the spirit of not letting any facts get in the way of a good story. :-)

Malcolm III played fast-and-loose with the succession rules *too*, promoting his sons by Margaret of Wessex over his (older) sons by Ingibjorg of Orkney. This resulted in another winner-take-all fight when he got himself and his designated heir killed....

In short, they were playing "Game of Thrones" with Calvinball rules. :-D

Don't be misled by the old Victorian romanticism about tanistry and succession. There is a lot of modern material available on this subject. After several generations of poking and prodding and debating, the majority opinion now is that the Irish and Scots both used a derbfhine system.

The members of a derbfhine were the descendants of a common great grandfather. In Ireland, it was only agnatic. In Scotland after Kenneth MacAlpin it was cognatic but an agnatic bias prevailed longer in some areas and families.

By Duncan's time the royal succession was already cognatic. Under principles of tanistry a king or chief could nominate his successor, but the new king had to belong to the derbfhine of the old king, and the succession had to be confirmed by the other members of the derbfhine acting as electors.

There is still an idea in some circles that the royal derbfhine was stylized, so that the mormaers of the 7 sub-kingdoms were the actual electors.

This is the system overthrown by Malcolm III, who imposed a system of primogeniture.

Don't be offended by my riff about the original home of the MacDuffs. I'm trying to make a point here, because that point keeps getting lost in the mass of detail.

Personally, I'm inclined to the idea that the MacDuff territory was in Fife, but that doesn't mean I don't respect the contrary arguments. I'm not dismissing anything out of hand because of the "danger" about what it might mean if Ethelred was mormaer of Fife, or what it might mean if the MacDuffs were in Moray.

I think it's a pretty good guess that all of these MacDuffs belonged to the same family. That is, there are not two different families. And, the name ("title") MacDuff doesn't mean they are all related through the male line, or that there was a strict succession from father to son.

There's an old body of tradition about how it all happened. If someone wants to unlink Gruoch from Gillemichael, I think it would require a very cogent case that takes into account all the different problems that would involve.

Chart says that from Kenneth MacAlpin to Malcolm II, there was *always* a male line that could be traced. Most of the time we don't even know who these guys' wives *were*. So while inheritance may have been "cognatic" in theory, it was agnatic in actual practice.

Malcolm II violated that practice, out of necessity (no sons).

And I'm tired of hearing about this "old body of tradition" that nobody else seems ever to have heard of. Is it the same sort of "family tradition" that produces a "Cherokee princess" in everybody's ancestry?

Malcolm III (that's Malcolm "Canmore" son of Duncan, just to be explicit) *tried* to impose primogeniture, but he wasn't playing fair even by the known rules. He excluded his *actual* oldest sons (Duncan and Donald) and tried to pretend that his actual *third* son (Edward) was his "rightful heir". Then he made the stupid mistake of getting both himself *and* his designated "heir" killed in 1093.

Immediate result: Malcolm's *brother* Donald jumped into the breach and claimed the throne by right of kinship. (Primogeniture, my ass.)

Malcolm's son Duncan (the actual should-have-been heir by the usual rules) kicked Donald off the throne.

Donald didn't stay kicked, and joined forces with Malcolm's next surviving son (son #2, Donald, having died some years earlier), Edmund, who was #4 in actual birth order.

#6 son, Edgar, went and got his uncle Edgar's help (or maybe it was the other way around), collected an army, and deposed Donald-and-Edmund. Donald was blinded and imprisoned, and Edmund banished to a cloister somewhere Far Far Away.

Strictly speaking, both of the Orkney sons had had sons by this time, and by Continental rules William FitzDuncan should have been heir instead of Edgar. But he was underage, so he was ignored.

When Edgar died, William FitzDuncan was passed over *again*, this time with the excuse that his father was "illegitimate".

By the time Alexander died in 1124, everybody was used to ignoring William - even, perhaps, William. David, his junior half-uncle, fobbed him off with the rulership of Moray, which was in need of a firm *and* loyal hand.

David, finally, had sons and the succession could settle down to Continental rules, which were followed thereafter until the line died out with Margaret of Norway.

Hmmm....

Do you suppose this is the seed of the Epileptic Trees http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EpilepticTrees regarding Ethelred of Dunkeld?

Duncan had two sons, Malcolm (afterwards Malcolm, king of Scotland) and Donald Bane (Tigernach, sub ann. 1057; Marianus Scotus, p. 558; A.-S. Chron. ii. 196). His wife, according to Boece, was the daughter of Siward, earl of Northumberland (fol. 249 b). A third son, Maelmare, is said to have been the ancestor of the earls of Atholl (Skene, i. 434). From Simeon of Durham we may infer that Duncan had a brother Maldred, who married Aldgitha, the daughter of Earl Uchtred, and granddaughter of Ethelred the Unready, and by her became the father of Cospatric, earl of Northumberland (Sim. of Durham, i. 216).
Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Volume 16
Duncan I
by Thomas Andrew Archer (Wikisource: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Duncan_I_(DNB00)

Maven, your approach to this material sometimes leaves me dumbfounded. This is one of those times.

Of course, the succession to the throne (and just about everything else) was generally agnatic. Patrilocal culture. Stakeholders live of pieces of the patrimony. Who do you suppose they would elect? It would usually be the strongest and most ruthless of the sons. In the rare event there were no sons they would move heaven and earth to marry the heiress off to a cousin from their own family -- while neighboring families would at the same time be trying to kidnap her. Think about Muriel of Cawdor.

I think you need to reign in these snarky comments, even if they are just in the spirit of fun. This was an oral culture with tribal landholding transitioning to a written culture and holding by charter. You can't expect the research problems to be the same as the Whites. If you're tired of hearing about it, stop following.

Sorry, that *was* rather snippy. I just spent an hour or so chasing wild hares and Epileptic Trees across the Internet, and while there is considerable chatter about Ethelred, *no one* has come up with a reliable or even semi-reliable source. It's all hearsay.

Then I stumbled across that bit about Maldred (from DNB and reporting sources, though not evaluating credibility) and wondered if via "Chinese telegraph" the whole thing had gotten distorted into the Epileptic Trees.

There's a lot of material, no doubt about that. And, it can be mind-numbing to thumb through all the different materials with their minor variations and personal misunderstandings and "corrections".

I prefer to go to sources like Sir Thomas Innes of Learney, who as Lord Lyon was a legally appointed judge in heraldic matters. He'll have often been superseded by more recent research, but there is no doubt he was a leading scholar in the field. And, he had access to sources we don't.

I take it as a given I will never have access to all the materials. So, I compare the most authoritative accounts to others to get a feel for the range of deviation. This is all I have from that "old body of tradition" unless someone posts something new on the Internet or one of my Scottish chums sends me a pre-publication copy of something interesting.

I've posted a transcript before from Learney, but here's a link:

https://books.google.com/books?id=_U0Ii-Om3EwC&pg=PR7&lpg=P...

You can read this, knowing that he's almost certainly cut out the material that he doesn't accept. If you're already familiar with the material, it stands out that he's glossing over some parts.

Finally came across some, slim leads to possible sources of the "chatter": Sir Ian Moncrieffe (whom you yourself noted as "eccentric" and "snobbish"), and Gerald Paget (particularly "The Lineage and Ancestry of H.R.H. Prince Charles", which connects him to everybody up to and including Dracula). Haven't found reviews of Moncrieffe (yet), but one person who apparently knows his Veres posted on http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/GEN-MEDIEVAL/2006-05/... that Paget is not so good on the Veres. (So what else is he wrong about?)

Also, exploring around both names tends to lead to "woo" sites, which automatically raises my index of suspicion.

PS: Yes I know Vlad Tepes was a real person. There's an alternate lineage that connects them about four-five generations back, not nearly close enough for *ahem* a blood link. ;-)

I'm going to start a separate thread on the "Ethelred Charter", since that is clearly the crux of this whole matter.

I don't think this charter is the crux. Important, yes, but it doesn't prove anything.

Assuming I am correct it is genuine and it says clearly that Ethelred was Earl of Fife, that doesn't mean much because it doesn't tell how or why he became Earl of Fife.

It would be easy to counter with an argument that the earldom fell into Malcolm's hands (or "close enough") in some undetermined way. Then he decided to invest his son Ethelred with it. Malcolm would have been thinking Ethelred would never inherit the throne but could establish a loyal branch of the royal family centered in Fife. It would have been worth a chance. Better than giving up Fife to another family. Even if Ethelred were to die young and the plan never materialized, the earldom would be in loyal hands for a time while being technically independent of the crown.

At least, that's the argument I would make if I were on the "other side".

The charter is the ONLY source for the statement that Ethelred was at any time Earl of Fife. If it is not genuine, there is no real evidence that he ever was.

Forged, or "re-created after the fact", charters were actually fairly common. http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/word/forged.htm

In many cases, they were "re-created evidence" of what everyone knew to be true (King so-and-so had granted such-and-such to this church somewhere around that time) and they had simply lost or mislaid the proof (or it had been given verbally without written follow-up).

In other cases, well....

> If it is not genuine, there is no real evidence that he ever was.

Yes. But whether he was or not is only a very minor piece of the puzzle. If he was it provides some limited support for the idea he married into the family of the old earls but even that is hardly a slam-dunk.

I think we've milked all the juice out of this discussion, with a highly probable conclusion that Aed of Moray and Ethelred of Dunkeld were two different people - internet "chatter" notwithstanding. :-)

Disagree. What you characterize as merely "internet chatter" is what has been published by the experts in the field.

ONE set of experts taking *one* side of the argument - there are as many or more experts taking the other side.

Sometimes it comes down to what (or whom) you *want to believe* - at which point serious discussion is at an end.

Do you understand the office of Lord Lyon?

*Now* who's being rude and insulting?

Yes of course I do - I also know that it has been held by a series of people with a variety of positions on various topics. (So, for that matter, has the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court - which is getting odiously political and I'd rather not go *there*.)

I'm trying to think how to explain this at a level that's appropriate to your current understanding.

Lyon Court is a Scottish court of law presided over by a judge who is called Lord Lyon. Lord Lyon is assisted by officers who are called Heralds and Pursuivants. These heralds and pursuivants aren't like the SCA heralds you might know, doing a kind of fantasy, role-playing heraldry. They are the real thing. .

The court is a medieval survival, but a full court nonetheless. It has charge of heraldic and genealogical matters in Scotland. The court has the power to grant coats of arms and to certify pedigrees. A pedigree certified by Lyon Court has the force of law. An extract of a legal record from Lyon Court has the same evidentiary value as the record of any other court. And an order from Lyon has the force of law.

I'm not aware that Lyon Court has made any kind of formal determination about the descent of the MacDuffs, but various Lords Lyon and heralds of the Lyon Court have written on the topic.

These are the experts you are trying so hard to dismiss as "Internet chatter". But they aren't just one set of experts. These are *the* experts. They are not people like the Whites who are out there trying to connect to a famous line. They are the people who are judging whether particular connections are really valid and can be used as the basis for a matriculation of arms.

Even when they aren't speaking in their official capacity, their opinion carries a special weight. In most cases they already know the evidences and arguments before a case even comes before them because this type of study is their life's work.

Sir Thomas Innes of Learney was Lord Lyon from 1945 to 1969, having previously served the court in other capacities starting in the 1930s. Sir Iain Moncreiffe of that Ilk started with Lyon Court in 1952, eventually becoming Albany Herald in 1961 until his death in 1985. Both men were historians and attorneys specializing in this area.

It would not have occurred to me that someone would be trying to do medieval Scottish genealogy without understanding this basic landscape, until yesterday when you suggested that Moncrieffe might be another Paget. I think you need to take some time to familiarize yourself with the field. I'd be glad to help you privately, if you'd like.

Cross-posted. I don't mean to be insulting, Maven. Sorry if it comes across that way. Your arguments here often strike me as being sometimes very sophisticated and other times very un-informed. For example, when you said yesterday that you could not find anything about Moncrieffe, or when you compared Scottish oral tradition to people with a Cherokee princess in their ancestry. You've been going out of your way to spin the Scottish experts as just a bunch of uninformed people chattering about something they know nothing about. You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but you are sandbagging the discussion here by your prejudices (I think).