Aed/Heth/Beth/Head, possibly also known as "AEthelred", alias Hugh

The consensus is that Ethelred died between late November 1093 and some time in the year 1098, and that, whether because of his youth or for some other reason (like a religious vocation), he had no children.

His birth date was *probably* between 1072 at earliest and 1075 at latest - 1072 would require that either Edward and Edmund were twins, or Edmund and Ethelred were.

He was given Auchmoor and (probably) other territories at a young age (Lawrie XIV and Notes, pp. 11-12, 243-246). It is likely that he was made Abbot of Dunkeld and Earl of Fife at about the same time.

Because Dunkeld was a *lay* abbacy, it was not subject to normal ecclesiastical rules: the abbot did not have to take holy orders or be celibate (Crinan, lay abbot of Dunkeld, d. 1045, certainly was not), and perhaps the normal age requirement was waived as well. (This did not mean that someone who held the position could not develop a religious vocation - and Ethelred, as a son of Saint Margaret, was particularly likely to have done so.)

Ethelred is conspicuous by his absence from the tumultuous events of Malcolm III's reign, *and* from the succession wars that followed. When Malcolm marched south for the last time, he took his eldest son Edward and a probably-younger son, Edgar (who could not have been more than fifteen or sixteen, at most, and may have been as young as fourteen). He *probably* took his second son, Edmund, though this is nowhere stated. But apparently he did not take Ethelred.

It wasn't because a lay abbot wasn't allowed to fight - Crinan did. Was there something about Ethelred - a vocation, a physical flaw? - that fitted him better for the cloister than for combat?

(Fans of the Deryni series by Katherine Kurtz are likely to think first and foremost of club foot, a relatively common birth defect. This would seriously affect Ethelred's martial activity, making long marches (for instance) difficult or impossible, but would not prevent him carrying out his duties as abbot.)

Circumstantial evidence suggests that while his father and brothers were marching toward their rendezvous with destiny, Ethelred was attending his ailing mother, who had become increasingly frail due to excessive fasting and prayer. It is said to have been Edgar who rode pell-mell to Edinburgh to tell Queen Margaret that she was now a widow with one less son - at which point she gave up on life and joined them within hours or a few days. But it was apparently Ethelred who took charge of the funeral arrangements (probably *not* complicated by the usurping Donald III "Bane"). It would not be surprising if he caught his death of pneumonia from leading the cortege in the chill of a Scottish winter.

As to Edmund, with his father and older brother dead and his younger brother sent off as a messenger, he may have had his hands full trying to keep a strategic retreat from turning into a full-scale rout. (*Somebody* had to be in charge, and he was next in line.)

While we don't know for sure when the "short form" of Ethelred's Lochleven charter was written, we can hazard some guesses. He had to have been at least fourteen, so no earlier than 1086 (and more likely 1089-90). He does not specifically refer to the souls of his parents, but those of his ancestors in general. His brother Edmund is there as a witness, which he would not have been after November 1094, and perhaps not even in late 1093. Perhaps it was drawn up during preparations for that last march south, with Ethelred having "a bad feeling about this".

There are some problematic pieces here.

> The consensus is that Ethelred died between late November 1093 and some time in the year 1098

1093/4 because he is not known to have fled south to England with his younger brothers. 1097/8 because that's when his younger brother Edgar succeeded their uncle Donald II. Problematic because an older brother Edmund had remained in Scotland and was passed over for the throne. This leaves room for a plausible doubt.

> He was given Auchmoor and (probably) other territories at a young age (Lawrie XIV and Notes, pp. 11-12, 243-246). It is likely that he was made Abbot of Dunkeld and Earl of Fife at about the same time.

Plausible, but uncertain. He was given Auchmoor by his parents at an early age, but why would his parents choose to give him two important titles but give his older brothers nothing? Maybe his older brothers did get appanages and no records survive but it's also possible, maybe even likely, he got the titles later from his uncle during the time when his brother Edmund was the heir and Ethelred himself was the "spare".

> Because Dunkeld was a *lay* abbacy,

It's not at all clear that Dunkeld was a lay abbacy at this time. Certainly it had been in the time of Ethelred's great grandfather Crinan, but the religious reforms under Malcolm III and St. Margaret make it very unclear what the position was in this period.

> his did not mean that someone who held the position could not develop a religious vocation - and Ethelred, as a son of Saint Margaret, was particularly likely to have done so.

Highly speculative.

> Ethelred is conspicuous by his absence from the tumultuous events of Malcolm III's reign, *and* from the succession wars that followed.

If Ethelred was already Abbot of Dunkeld and Earl of Fife, he was one of the chief nobles of Scotland. Why then would he be so conspicuously absent?

> His brother Edmund is there as a witness, which he would not have been after November 1094, and perhaps not even in late 1093.

Brother Edmund remained in Scotland, apparently as heir of their uncle, when the other brothers fled south. Edmund's signature as a witness is a strong indication the charter dates from some time after November 1094, after Donald II had taken the throne. In this period, Edmund would have been Ethelred's "next heir" so his signature would be signal his assent to losing a part of his potential inheritance. As well, he was the only brother left in Scotland who could have signed.

> While we don't know for sure when the "short form" of Ethelred's Lochleven charter was written, we can hazard some guesses.

I would make some different guesses here. Unless Ethelred was over 21 any gift of lands he made needed the approval of his guardian. If his father was still alive, it should have had his father's consent. That's the reason I think witness Earl Maddock might have been Ethelred's guardian.

> He does not specifically refer to the souls of his parents, but those of his ancestors in general.

This is highly problematic. If his parents were dead, as the other evidence suggests indirectly, and if this were a normal grant to a church patronized by the nobles of Fife I would expect to see it name his parents.

My impression, which is highly speculative, is that this might have been a gift made on the occasion of his wedding, perhaps to an "heiress" of Fife from whom he might have derived his title. His investiture and wedding might have been part of the same occasion. To mark it, he is making a gift of lands he had received from his parents to a church that was a favorite in Fife. And, for that kind of gift, it would be out of place to mention the souls of his parents, but perfectly proper to emphasize (as in the confirmation) that the property came to him as a child (before the marriage). Just a wild guess.

In fairness, I think there are two ways of reading Ethelred's status as a layman or cleric. Unfortunately, both of them say more about the readers' prejudices than they do about Ethelred himself.

In one, Ethelred is a pious man, true son of his saintly mother, probably with a deep religious vocation. He could never have married, so of course he never had any children. If he doesn't take part in politics and if he was ever passed over for the throne, it's because he was a monk.

In the other, Dunkeld is a lay abbacy. Maybe Ethelred was a creature of his uncle Donald II like his brother Edmund, or maybe he was the mole inside Scotland for his younger brothers. He could have married, but there is no record. If he isn't known to have taken part in politics it's because he was really only ever Edmund's shadow, their side lost. and Ethelred became irrelevant to later history.

Something I see in these discussions is a strong interpretation bias. That is, the idea we can know this or that with confidence because we have already made certain subjective judgments about Ethelred. I suggest we try to pull back on some of those judgments while we try to get a clearer picture of what is really known.

>Problematic because an older brother Edmund had remained in Scotland and was passed over for the throne.

Yes, the first time - ALL the sons of Malcolm were - but No, the second. Edmund was co-ruler with Donald III "Bane" on Donald's second go-round. Maybe Donald hoped that with the oldest of the "regular" sons on his side he'd have better luck. Nice try, no win.

The person who passed over Ethelred specifically - if Ethelred was still alive - was Uncle Edgar AEtheling. He assisted his nephew Edgar onto the Scottish throne - and booted Donald-and-Edmund off it. (Donald was blinded and imprisoned for the (short) rest of his life, and Edmund was sent to a monastery Far Far Away (some say in Somerset, England - Uncle AEtheling had strings he could pull that far south).

Damn "succession wars" are HORRIBLY confusing, but - as I keep saying again and again and again - the interesting thing about Ethelred is that he takes *absolutely no part* in them. He's not reported to have backed *any* side at *any* time for *any* reason. Either he wanted to keep clear of the whole mess for reasons of his own - or he was already deceased.

> Edmund would have been Ethelred's "next heir"

NO no no - you are messing up Edmund with EDGAR. (Easy to do - but DON'T do it.)

ETHELRED should have been EDMUND'S next heir, not the other way around. Birth order, birth order, birth order!

1. Edward. 2. EdMUND. 3. ETHelred. 4. EdGAR. 5. Alexander. 6. David.

Edward dies with his father at Alnwick, November 1093. Next heir should have been Edmund.

Donald Bane, king's brother, "jumps the queue" and gets *himself* crowned as "Donald III". (Not II - there had already been a Donald II.)

Duncan, son of Malcolm III and *probably* of Ingibjorg Finnsdottir - which would make his granddad Thorfinn the Mighty - decides that if they're playing Calvinball with the crown, he wants in on it. And, with English backing, he shoves Donald off the throne and parks his own backside on it. But his people tell him "Get rid of the English!" and force him to do so. That loses him his army - and Donald III is not slow in staging a comeback.

Donald co-opts Edmund as co-ruler, and they conspire to have Duncan assassinated. Successfully. (Between the co-opting and the conspiring, Edmund is permanently alienated from all his surviving brothers, plus his *other* uncle.)

Edgar immediately puts in a word edgewise as next contender for the crown, but it takes him two years and a lot of help from Uncle Edgar AEtheling to get it. There were at least three guys in line ahead of him: William FitzDuncan, who was next heir by Norman rules (he was probably too young); Donald MacMalcolm's son Ladhmann macDonald (probably also too young); *and Ethelred*. If, that is, Ethelred was still alive at this point....

Edgar had to be a minimum of seventeen years old in 1095, and twenty-one would be even better. So, birth date of 1074-1078. Put Ethelred anywhere after him, and Ethelred would be TOO young. So Ethelred comes *before* Edgar. (The only possible exception would be if Edgar and Ethelred were the "twins" that tradition keeps claiming Malcolm III had, and Edgar came out first. Possible, but rather a long shot.)

We need a double-check on who was abbot of Dunkeld after Ethelred, when, and under what conditions. I'm not sure the claim that it spent a couple of generations as a lay abbacy in Macduff hands is kosher (the sources are dubious to suspect), and would like some confirmation.

It's rather alarming how *fast* it all happened. Donald's first reign lasted maybe six months, Duncan's another six months, Donald-and-Edmund maybe three years of constant sparring.

The tale about Edinburgh Castle being "besieged" by Donald Bane and everybody having to "sneak out" is probably later embroidery, like so much else. It would make a good scene in a historical novel, though, with Malcolm's sons using the funeral of their mother as an excuse to get through the siege lines and then scatter....

"Interpretation bias" is something that's impossible to get rid of because people. I think I'm being more hard-nosed than you for a change.

It's late and I might be mis-typing names and mis-remembering dates, but of course I already know this stuff. I'll review it again in the morning. I think, however, you are misreading what I"m saying.

For example, when I say that Edmund was Ethelred's "next heir" I put that in quotes because I specifically do not mean he was Ethelred's next younger brother. Of course not. I mean that with the two of them in Scotland and their younger brothers in England, if Ethelred died it would be Edmund who inherited his property. I thought that was clear from the context, but maybe "next of kin" would have been clearer.

And, of course it was Uncle Edgar who would have passed over Ethelred for the throne, if that's what happened. The whole point of what I'm saying is that we can't jump to the conclusion it was a normal succession. Uncle Edgar came north, installed brother Edgar as king, and brother Edgar was the oldest of the sons who had fled to Scotland. Oldest brother Edmund was passed over -- tonsured and sent to England. It's assumed that Ethelred was dead but my point is that if he stayed in Scotland with uncle Donald and brother Edmund, he too might have been passed over.

Among all these succession struggles, I'm leaving out the half-brothers because they're not germane to my points. They would have had rights under Celtic law but it seems to have been the firm policy of Margaret and her sons to characterize them as illegitimate.

By 1093 there was only one son of Ingibjorg to worry about - Duncan. Donald had died in 1085 after getting a son (the aforementioned and ill-starred Ladhmann, whose only appearance on the historical record is when he too gets killed), and Malcolm, if he was for real, hadn't even managed the "getting a son" part.

You'l notice that Duncan horned in on the "Game of Thrones" the first chance he got! He wasn't dealt very good cards, though.

Once everybody else was killed off or smacked down, the succession *did* regularize to Norman rules - father to son, or brother to brother in the absence of offspring. Edgar was followed by his brother Alexander, who was followed by his brother David, who managed to get some sons who lived long enough to present him with grandsons (and it was two of those grandsons who were David's successors, Malcolm IV and then William).

> We need a double-check on who was abbot of Dunkeld after Ethelred

Not known. The last known abbot was Ethelred, dead by 1107. The first known bishop of Dunkeld was Cormac, about 1107/14. (This is the same Cormac who is speculated as a descendant of Macbeth.)

Celtic abbots were landed magnates who had most of the the powers we associate with bishops, while bishops under the Celtic system were relatively minor figures whose main purpose was to ordain priests, etc.

This is the system St. Margaret was trying to abolish. Maybe the offices of abbot and bishop were separated, more likely their relative status was switched.

There seems to be some significance to the fact that the first known bishop of Dunkeld appears right after the last known abbot. Maybe no more abbots were appointed. Maybe they were appointed but are unknown.

Impossible to be sure, but the dating looks like this might have been part of an ongoing process of church reform after the death of Ethelred's brother King Edgar.

> I think I'm being more hard-nosed than you for a change.

I'm never hard-nosed. Something is either possible (and therefore endlessly entertaining) or it's not (and therefore too silly to talk about)

;)

The really shocking bit is that there doesn't seem to have been a consecrated Bishop of St. Andrews (de facto Archbishop of Scotland) from 1093 to 1107. Bishop Fothad seems to have died before Novermber 1093, and in the ensuing chaos nobody got around to naming his replacement - one Giric and one Cathroe, and possibly one Godric (if that isn't just an error for Giric), were named as "bishops-elect", but there is no record that either/any of them was ever consecrated or ever acted as bishop.

In 1107, Alexander got his mother's confessor, Turgot, named Bishop of St. Andrews, but jurisdictional disputes delayed the consecration until 1109. By then Turgot was very old and his health was failing; he died in 1115 after a long illness.

1093 to 1107 again. We seem to be encountering that range over and over and over.

It's surprising Edgar didn't do something about it (he was solidly on the throne 1097-1107. Maybe he tried, but his choices kept dying on him?

A quick supplement to an earlier discussion about Ethelred's name.

The earliest source I can find that equates Ethelred with Aed is Skene (1886):

"As the great province of Fif consisted of the two old districts of Fyfe and Fothrithi, it is not impossible that there may at first have been an Earl connected with each, and that Beth, occupying here the leading place in which the subsequent Earls of Fife are invariably found, may have been earl along with Edelrad, and that the latter is the Ed who, along with Constantin, witnesses the earliest charter of King David, as there is a circumflex through the d of Ed, which implies that some letters after it have been omitted. This would account for Constantin appearing in the charter of Edelrad as if he were his contemporary...." (Celtic Scotland, 62)

https://archive.org/stream/celticscotlandhi03skenuoft#page/62/mode/2up

The context makes it clear, I think, that the theory is not original to him but comes out of an ongoing debate. The two surviving charters that name Ethelred are in Latin. They call him Edelredus and Edelradus.

This passage seems more confusing quoted out of context here than it did when I wrote it. To clarify -- Skene is not saying that Ethelred was Aed, but that this one instance of Ed might be an abbreviation for Ethelred, not a form of Aed.

Unless I'm mistaken, the charter Skene is talking about is the confirmation to the church of Dunfermline c1128 (Lawrie, LXXIV), although I don't see why he would call that one David's "earliest charter".

Charter: https://archive.org/stream/earlyscottishcha00lawruoft#page/60/mode/2up

Notes: https://archive.org/stream/earlyscottishcha00lawruoft#page/322/mode...

Among other grants here confirmed it mentions "the gift of Ethelred my brother, Hale."

This charter was witnessed by "Ed. Comes, Constantinus Comes, Malise Comes, Rotheri Comes, Madeth Comes, Gillemichel Mac duf, Herbertus Cancellarius, Hugo de Moreuill, Robertus Corbet, Robertus de Monte acuto, Vnyet albus, Maldoueni Mac ocbeth, Maldoueni de Scona, Gillepatric Mac Impethin Alwyn Mac Arkil, Robertus Burg, Edwardus films Siwardi, Walclinus Capellanus."

The notes say about Ed: "probably 'Head'" Comes, ante, p. 77 [Lawrie XCIV], but who he was I do not know."

If this Ed was really Ethelred and Skene & Lawrie are correct about Constantine, then this charter names three sometime earls of Fife as witnesses together -- Ed (= Ethelred), Constantinus Comes, and Gillemichel Mac duf. We also have the (later?) Madeth.

Alexander McBain, an editor of Skene (The Highlanders of Scotland, 1902), has this to say about the problem of Heth:

"Mac-Heth. Much nonsense has been written about Malcolm Mac-Heth, whose life history is complicated by the fact that an impostor, Wymund, Bishop of Man, tried to act his part. The name Heth is the most ill-used syllable I know of It appears as Head, Ed, Eth ; the Gaelic form of all these monstrosities can easily be identified. It is the very favourite name of Aed or Aodh, later, translated as Hugh. Mac-Heth is an old form of Mackay, the Galwegian Mackie ! Earl Ed is one of David's seven earls, and was, of course. Earl of Moray. He was married to King Lulach's daughter, and was thus father of Angus, Earl of Moray, slain in 1130. Malcolm Mac-Heth was another son of Aed, and he continued the war. He married Somerled's sister, and was thus the father of the Mac-Heth nephews whom Somerled supported in 1153. Malcolm Mac-Heth was reconciled to the king in 1 157, and made Earl of Ross. The impostor's share in the whole story is not clear. Mac-Heth was not a family name ; surnames had not yet started, or were only starting in Southern Scotland. Mac-Heth was used, like a surname, to denote the claim on the Earldom of Moray by the descendants of Aed."

https://archive.org/stream/highlandersofsco00skenuoft#page/414/mode...

IMHO Skene made some unjustified leaps of logic from A to Q without stopping anywhere between. He decides that "Beth" MUST have been Earl of Fife based on nothing more than the fact that he's the first of the *six* earls (plus Gospatrick) to give assent. (Some *known* Earls of Fife were *not* first on their respective lists, so that argument is meaningless.)

Skene also utterly missed that the "Ethelred charter" (Lawrie XIV) is in the *perfect* tense (actions that have been completed), and refers to event(s) that have taken place at some (unspecified) time in the past. The "short version", if authentic, refers to events that are taking place as it is being drawn up ("do give" instead of "have given"), and the context indicates some point after c. 1086 (earliest credible date) and no later than 1097 (downfall and banishment of Edmund). I'd be inclined to argue for a date no later than November 1094, on the grounds that Edmund is named without any title (he was co-king Nov 1094-1097).

Aedh, Edh could also have been written with a "circumflex" indicating the letter "edh" (script "d" with crossbar). People forgot about *it* even before they forgot about "thorn". There's a theory (mentioned in Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eth and also here http://bookhaven.stanford.edu/2013/08/eth-thorn-and-ash-they-flunke... (source unknown) that it originated in attempts to write Middle Irish with with the Latin alphabet (credible because of the *extensive* use of consonantal "h" combinations - "bh", "dh", "mh" - in Middle Irish and its derivatives, including the *very* closely related Scottish Gaelic).

Here http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/letters/englishletters.htm is a page with some actual examples of both it and "thorn" in various hands.

Getting back to David's charter (Lawrie LXXIV, p. 61), everyone he mentions in that second paragraph is deceased (with a couple of scribal errors where "fratris" should have been used, i.e. Duncan and Edgar). There may or may not be some significance to Ethelred being named after Edgar but before Alexander.

The mysterious "Ed." being an actual witness to the charter should have knocked the "Ed = Ethelred" hypothesis out of the ring, see above.

I like McBain's explanation of the "problem of Heth", but he doesn't account for Malcolm macAlaxandair. It is by no means impossible that there should have been two people with the same (very popular) name, making trouble for King David in the same time period - his Anglicizing innovations were *not* universally appreciated.

If there really were two trouble-making Malcolms, one (probably macAlaxandair) was captured and imprisoned, but the other one got away and fled to the Isles, where he met up with Somerled, etc. etc. etc. It wouldn't do for the Crown to admit they had let a dangerous rebel slip through their fingers....

I mostly agree, but a couple of things.

First, I don't think it's certain Edmund was ever co-king. Some sources say that. Some sources say he was the designated heir. Some sources say they split the kingdom between them. Some sources say Edmund probably had an unknown appanage. Some sources say Edmund might have exercised regal powers within his appanage.

Here is one example that says there is no evidence he was co-king:

James Panton, Historical Dictionary of the British Monarchy (2011), 148
https://books.google.com/books?id=BiyyueBTpaMC&pg=PA148&lpg...

Checking Lawrie, I see no charters by Edmund, king or not.

Edmund's actual position might have evolved during those three years.

Second, I'm not sure the "circumflex through the d of Ed" described by Skene is an eth. It could be, certainly, but I'd be surprised if Skene wouldn't recognize it and describe it as that. He calls it a circumflex, which is a standard indication of an abbreviation in some hands.

I don't know of a source that would show a picture and let us judge for ourselves.

I'd be surprised if he *did*. The history of scripts is a *very* complex matter http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/history1.htm and the variations, even between scribes writing in the same hand in the same period, are innumerable.

Nice example here http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/scripts/history1.htm of variations in Caroline minuscule in one manuscript (Harley Psalter).

PS: extant examples show that at least one of David's scribes had a rather spidery hand: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Charter_of_David_I,_King_of...

http://www.gro-scotland.gov.uk/files//images/library/AAA02718Waterm...

I think we're boring people. ;->

I disagree. Skene was perhaps the foremost Scottish medievalist of his generation. For two generations afterwards everyone who deals with this material is saying "Skene says", "Skene argues", "Skene is wrong", etc. Skene is the touchstone for everything.

Skene was translating this material, as you can see here: http://www.1467manuscript.co.uk/Maclean.pdf

and here:
http://www.1467manuscript.co.uk/transcript%20all%20recto.html

Of course we're boring people. That's one indication that this is good stuff ;)

Skene *messed up* the manuscript for later researchers with his stains and his rubbings. Nowadays people know *much better* than to apply such destructive treatments. :-P

"Of his time" is the operative phrase. He was really just at the beginning of serious genealogical studies, and apparently he had a few Wild Mass Guesses that he was entirely too fond of - or at least Mr McBain implies as much.

Skene was a generation or two before J. Horace Round, for whatever that may be worth.

Right off the bat MS 1467 has problems with the genealogy of David I of Scotland. Where we would expect "mhic Donnchadh", we find an almost indecipherable name that appears to begin with "Fio...." In the next line we should expect to find his *great-grandmother's* name (Bethoc or some variant thereof), since his descent from Malcolm II was on the distaff side, we instead find a cryptic "Finghin" (that's definitely a "yogh", or "gh" letter-form, in the middle).

For what it's worth, O Corrain & Maguire give ""Finghin" as a masculine name meaning "wine-birth". More alarmingly, they also give "Fionghuine" as meaning "perhaps, kin-slayer" (also, of course, masculine).

It would seem that somebody, at some time between David's day and c. 1400, was at pains to disguise David's inheritance through a "mere" female(!).

MS. 1467 is thought to go back to original material from the early 1400s. It's going to be no better, no worse than anything else from that period trying to deal with events hundreds of years earlier.

It's certainly tree that Skene was a pioneer and made mistakes. Some of his ideas have been accepted, some rejected, and some are still hotly disputed.

However, that's not really the point here. We weren't talking about his conclusions but about his ability to read and translate old scripts. Everything I can find shows he certainly would have known the difference between an eth and a scribal abbreviation in the form of a circumflex. I don't think the question is whether he could read these documents but rather whether he read this one correctly.

Would like to know if the original charter was written by spidery-hand guy, or perhaps by someone whose handwriting was even *worse*.

I want to recap so we don't get lost..

If I'm reading correctly, there was a confusion on Geni between the families of Aed, mormaer of Moray, and Ethelred, mormaer of Fife. Maven and Sharon did most of the preliminary clean up.

When I came into the discussion there was a question about why some sources say that Aed is an alternative name for Ethelred. From what I remembered at the time, it's not that Ethelred of Fife and Aed of Moray were the same person, but there is an idea they might have had the same name.

One version of the origin of the Mackays is that they are descended from Aed of Moray. Sharon looked at some Mackay material to see if they identify this Aed with Ethelred. Apparently the question has been raised but the identification is generally rejected.

I posted some stuff to show that it's common in MacDuff histories to see the statement that Aed is an alternative name for Ethelred. The best authorities don't say that, but many sources do. For example, Learney doesn't say it but Cairney and most clan websites do.

So, there is a lot of confusion, with some Mackay people thinking their ancestor Aed of Moray could be Ethelred, and some Macduff people thinking Ethelred of Fife could be their ancestor under the alternative name Aed.

(Cairney intentionally blends Ethelred of Fife and Aed of Moray in a reconstruction that makes sense but is speculative. I posted his version in full.)

However, most of the confusion on the Macduff side seems to be just from the simple fact that some people think Ethelred was also called Aed. And, in the past 100 years a few of them have reworked the traditional Macduff descent so that the later Macduffs are now sometimes said to be descendants of Ethelred.

With that problem in mind, I've been looking for something that explains why some people might think Ethelred was called Aed but do not think he was the same person as Aed of Moray.

This passage from Skene is relevant in that context. Skene suggests that the Ed in this charter might be an abbreviation for Ethelred. It doesn't matter whether Skene was right or wrong. What matters is that he seems to have opened up a line of thought for later generations to argue that Ethelred was also called Ed (Aed). And once that line of thought was forged Ethelred got drawn into a muddle.