O'Beolan or Ross

It's not necssarily that it's not correct, for me it's the issue that the source substantiation isn't clear. The Findley Genealogy itself doesn't cite sources for the piece we need -- it says "genealogists have traced the family connections," but that's fairly vague.

Its author, Mrs. Robert A. Hughes, is also the author of "The Hughes Genealogy," and I haven't found any references to her, and alas must leave the board till morning, but at least as far as I can tell she is not the perpetrator of wicked genealogical hoaxes.

I don't necessarily think she's lying -- but I'm not seeing where it comes from.

Agreed. The problem is that there are too many plausible alternatives.

Lord Lyon Sir Thomas Innes of Learney in 1970 endorsed the view that "The first of the O'Beolan Earls of Ross was Fearcher MacinTagart, grandson of Gillianrias, and son of the Sagart, or priest, who was the co-arb, or hereditary abbot of the old monastery founded by the Irish St. Maelrubha at Applecross in the seventh century." (page 285)

* https://books.google.com/books?id=_U0Ii-Om3EwC&pg=PA341&lpg...

This is the theory Duncan was arguing against. Duncan might be right but I think we have to take seriously any statement by a man who was the chief herald for Scotland, particularly when he says this is "the other and more probable account, which the best authorities have adopted."

The case for this scenario is fleshed out by the Mackenzie history, which I also posted yesterday. The short version is that Fearchar was probably the son (or grandson) of Gilleanrias. The Ross Clan is called in Gaelic, Clan Anrias or Clan Gilleanrias (the descendants of Anrias or Gilleanrias). This was probably the Gilleanrias who was one of the earls who besieged Malcolm II in 1160. In a genealogy dated 1450 the chief of Clan Gilleanrias is Paul MacTire. This same Paul MacTire was called cousin in a charter from William, last O'Beolan Earl of Ross. The genealogy makes this Paul MacTire the 2nd great grandson of Gilleanrias, and takes the family further back to Gilleoin na h-Airde and beyond.

https://books.google.com/books?id=C9sGAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA44&lpg=...

The basic idea is that when the direct male line of the O'Beolan earls of Ross died out, the earldom passed to he Leslies, but the chiefship of the Ross clan passed to Paul MacTire, and since clan Ross was called Clan Gilleanrias, both the O'Beolan earls and Paul MacTire must be descendants of the same Gilleanrias.

William II, 3rd Earl of Ross we're losing the O'Bealon surname past Fearchar. Is that all right? Is there a way to pack it in?

In the Scots Gaelic tab, I would put the patronymic in the middle name field, and O'Bealon in the surname field.

Names like mac Uilleam are essentially local bynames.

That solved it, you're right. I've locked the names & dates down for the 4 O'Beolan Ross Earls. Geography is still open and I do not believe the family clean up is complete, although I have some confidence the wives are correct.

Name fields of Hugh's son William III, 5th Earl of Ross updated and ready tolock

Beautiful work y'all!

Genealogy conflict here

Dorothea of Ross

Versus

Dorothea of Ross

(which placement on the Beolan Ross tree is also arguable)

I'm adding the Wikipedia name in the first position (furthest left) of the AKA field. This (seems) to give good search results. For example:

Uilleam II of Ross

Also playing with a cheat sheet for Scots Gaelic names and would prefer the real thing :):)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Scottish_Gaelic_given_names

Sir John de Ross, Knight born c1278 and died 1320 married Margaret Comyn. John was the son of William de Ross and Euphemia Barclay. Margaret also married William Lindsay.

John's siblings were Dorothea, Hugh and Walter.

Geni shows Hugh and Walter and being children (and Isabella) but not Dorothea and John.

Date of Hugh's birth is in question also.

William II, 3rd Earl of Ross

WILLIAM de Ross (-Delny 28 Jan 1323). He succeeded his father in 1274 as Earl of Ross. He swore fealty to Edward I King of England in 1292 but took part in the Scottish raids on England in 1296, laying siege to Carlisle and burning Hexham priory. John of Fordun’s Scotichronicon (Continuator) names "Willelmo comite de Ros" among those captured by the English at the battle of Dunbar 27 Apr 1296[23]. A charter dated 6 Nov 1297 ordered the Sheriffs of London to pay "…William earl of Ros…knights, Scottish prisoners in the Tower" for their sustenance[24]. He was returned to Scotland in 1303. m EUPHEME, daughter of --- (-after Jul 1297). A charter dated 3 Sep 1296 records petitions to King Edward I by women whose estates had been seized in Scotland, including an order of restoration of property to "la contesse de Ros"[25]. "Eufemia comitissa de Ros" asked King Edward I for credence for "domino Andreæ de Rathe militi et Bernardi de Monte Alto clerico meo" by charter dated Jul 1297[26]. William & his wife had three children:
i) HUGH de Ross (-killed in battle Halidon Hill 19 Jul 1333, bur Fearn). A charter dated 28 Aug 1297 records that "Willelmus comes de Ros" was in prison in the Tower of London and granted safe conduct to "Hugone filio suo" to visit him[27]. He succeeded his father in 1323 as Earl of Ross.
- see below.
ii) JOHN de Ross . m [as her first husband,] MARGARET Comyn, daughter of ALEXANDER Comyn of Buchan & his wife [Joan de Latimer]. Andrew Wyntoun’s Cronykil records that "Alysandyre", son of "Willame" son of "Alysawndyr that Erle wes off Buchane", had two daughters, the younger of which married "Schyre Jhon de Ross"[28].
iii) ISABEL . The Papal dispensation for the marriage of "Edwardi de Brux comitis de Catrilz" and "Ysabellis nate…Gulielmi comitis de Ros", issued by Pope John XXII, is dated 1 Jun 1317[29]. It is assumed that the marriage never took place. Betrothed to (Papal dispensation 1 Jun 1317) EDWARD Bruce Earl of Carrick, son of ROBERT Bruce Earl of Carrick & his first wife Margaret Ctss of Carrick (-killed in battle Dundalk 14 Oct 1318).

http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SCOTTISH%20NOBILITY%20LATER.htm#_To...

I think there were 2 or 3 Dorothy's.

1) (unrelated to the O Beolan Ross family - of Yorkshire)
2) Dorothy of the generation of William l
3) Dorothy of the generation of William ll

My comments based on MedLands:

- we don't know Hugh's DOB
- move Isabel & John, who married Margaret Comyn, to be siblings of Hugh. They are simply off a generation in Geni.

Random thought:

William I, William II - it's an obvious pattern but skips a generation with Hugh before William III.

Did Hugh have an older brother named Willaim 2b who died early leaving no trace? Perhaps.

Or perhaps there were too many Williams in the house? Imagine Hugh is a newborn just a few minutes old and someone asks his father, William II, what the baby's name is, he pauses for a second ... he is already known as William Jr and his as William Sr, another William would just confuse things even further! So he names him Hugh.

This would place Hugh's DOB as before 1274, ie William II's death date. Impossible to substantiate in anyway of course.

Were they naming oldest sons for father though? Not necessarily ... Actually not the oldest son, at least later on.

http://homepages.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~steve/namingse.htm

https://books.google.com/books?id=8JcbV309c5UC&pg=PA154&lpg...

This mentions Margaret Comyn daughter of Alexander Comyn and Joan Latimer who married John of Ross, son to William of Ross, 3rd Earl of Ross and Euphame, daughter of hugh de Barclay.

There is a John of Ross married to Margaret but he is under Hugh of Ross. Is it possible there were two people named Margaret Comyn (she was co-heiress with her sister Alice)? King Robert I contacted her of the marriage to John of Ross.

I think John Ross who married Margaret Comyn needs to be moved up a generation to conform to the source. Magna Carta Ancestry: A Study in Colonial and Medieval Families, 2nd edition is a valid source.

Kadlin the daughter of Göngu Hrólfur ( Rollo Of Normandy ) married a scottish king named Bjólan ( Beollán). but i cant find any resources about his origin..perhaps he has a common ancestor to the O'Beolan

The problem with Kadlin is that we haven't unequivocal proof of her existence, or Ganger-Hrolf's either. Rollo we have solid evidence for, once he starts raiding France and getting the king to buy him off with Normandy. Everything before then is "he said that she said that they said".

Ganger-Hrolf per se is a quasi-mythical figure who may be a giant shadow cast by Rollo, or a legend that got attached to him - and at this late date there's no telling which.

Kadlin and Beollan may have been real people, or later romantic legends. Her name is especially suspect because it is a Celtic derivation of "Catherine" (i.e. Caitlin), which was simply not in general use that far west at so early a date. (It seems to have percolated out of the Byzantine Empire circa the 11th-12th century, assisted by the East-West mixing of the first few Crusades.)

The Kadlin-Beollan story is recorded in the Icelandic Landnamabok, whose oldest surviving copy dates from the late 13th century (but we don't know when they started writing it all down, and we don't know how many "family traditions" were accepted as fact - there are some cases in which they clearly did just that).

One can't rule out the possibility that Rollo had picked up the name in his travels, or heard it from someone who had traveled even farther, remembered it because he liked it, and bestowed it on a daughter he got on a Scottish woman. But it's still a long shot.

I think it's time to re-work the profile for Gange-Hrólfr 'Rollo' Ragnvaldsson. Cut Rollo from his unknown parents and make new profile for Göngu-Hrólfr,

The evidence just doesn't support the popular version. See, for example, The Henry Project by Stewart Baldwin and Todd Farmerie.
http://sbaldw.home.mindspring.com/hproject/prov/rollo000.htm

This would "fix" Kaðlin but it would help.

What sources exactly say that Hrolf was the son of a man named Ketill and disputes the Sagas? And if he was the son of a man named Ketill, whould that then be Ketill Flatnefja (flatnose) as Ketill Flatnefja and Ragnvald Eysteinsson both erobed the British Isles around the same period.?

See the link I just posted.

"Richer of Reims, writing between 996 and 998, who called Rollo the son of another Viking invader of France named Catillus (presumably representing the Norse name Ketill) ["duce Rollone filio Catilli" Richer, Historia, i, 28 (vol. 1, p. 62)]."

Cawley at Medieval lands goes into considerable detail regarding the Rollo controversy: http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/NORMANDY.htm#RobertIdied928

Richer of Reims, a 10th century monk-historian, is the source for Rollo as son of Ketil ("Rollone filio Catilli"). Whether this was Ketil Flatnose or another Ketil (the name was very popular among Norsemen) is undeterminable. (Norsemen used patronymics - the Scandinavians stuck to that tradition until quite recent times, and the Icelanders *still* use it - so if he went by "Hrolfr Ketilsson", it would be very likely that his father's name was indeed Ketil.)

William of Malmesbury (12th century) only states that Rollo was of an ancient noble house in Norway and under banishment by the king's command.

Orkneyinga Saga is where the mythology really starts to take off, “Göngu-Hrolf”, son of Jarl Rognvald of Møre and the whole nine yards. (There is a lot of myth and legend in the Sagas, which requires careful distinction from actual fact because they are so casually mixed together.)

William (Guillaume) of Jumieges gives the most detail on Rollo's career in France and is likely to be more or less trustworthy on that, but is unreliable on his earlier career. (Medieval chroniclers tended to be very sloppy about the Scandinavian countries, often tagging all Norsemen as "Danes" whether they came from Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Finland, or elsewhere.)

Very interesting.

The short version is that we don't know. When the sources disagree, the only thing anyone can do is choose sides. And that's a risky project. We can try to pull out just a bit more from what we have by saying this source tends to be more reliable in this area or that source tends to be less reliable, but that's just a way of making fancier guesses.

The Henry Project says, "Since Richer is not generally reliable for the relevant time period, and Catillus appears to be a legendary individual with no clear identity in the contemporary sources, this account has generally been discredited, probably correctly [see Douglas (1942), 420-1]."

However, I personally disagree on this point. It seems to me Richer is most likely of them all to be correct. What I read here is that Douglas didn't like that this version so he threw out a red herring -- Ketill has no clear identity. Ha. As if we can just assume Rollo's father is going to be someone famous. I'm more persuaded exactly because Richer didn't try for fantasy. I say all this, not to advance my own opinion, but to make the point about how subjective it is to start guessing.

I don't think we need to guess on Geni. Intellectual honesty requires us to admit we don't know.

Everything depends on assumptions, which *can* depend on how much you know about the time period and the culture. *If* Richer was reporting accurately about someone who was known as "Hrolf (or Hrollaugr) Ketilsson", and turned it into Latin (which he would, because he was writing *in* Latin), that's one thing. If he had simply got hold of a piece of hearsay, that's quite another.

Shall we take Rollo to his own discussion?

I think it's just about time to make the cut - leaving Rollo fatherless but with documentation that people have said he's the same as the son of Ragnvald (who should have his own profile) - since that is consistent with what we have done in a number of other places.

But I think the thread on which we conclude that should be a thread hanging off Rollo's profile.

Thread got derailed when Gudbjorn introduced Kadlin Hrolfsdottir and her spouse Bjólan. :-)

Can we copypaste this section into its own thread?

Hi Mavin, Erica: What do you make of this?

Celtic Monthly 1892

https://books.google.com/books?id=Sus-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA77&dq=m...

It's all a side issue to me. They're clearly *not* the ancestors of the Rosses of Westerly, RI, and we still don't know - may never know - who those ancestors actually were. :-D