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

Excellent summary, Thankyou.

>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

No chance, Justin. Aed had *nothing to do* with Saint Margaret, who was *entirely* responsible for foisting the name "Ethelred" on Scotland (and it didn't "take" - the Scots universally rejected it for traditional Gaelic names, or at worst "classical" or short common Norman/English names).

There were no Ethelreds in Scotland prior to Saint Margaret, and the name remained extremely rare afterward (written, when it did occur, as Aelred or Ailred, and at least one of them was an immigrant).

As for "Aed", it was assimilated to the Norman-French "Hugh" for no particular reason.

If Skene had known as much about onomastics (the study of proper names) or the history of Scotland as he claimed to, he would have known better than to start that particular wild hare, and generations wouldn't have wasted their time chasing it.

Maven, this is an important point but it's subtle. I think you're missing it.

No one doubts St. Margaret introduced the name Ethelred to Scotland. Nowhere in any of the zillions of books and websites I've looked at is there anyone, anywhere who says differently.

But most of the popular histories of the MacDuff clan say that Ethelred was called Aed. They phrase it different ways. Ethelred (Aed). Ethelred, also known as Aed. Ethelred changed his name to Aed. Ethelred's name in Gaelic was Aed. On and on. The general idea is that the Scots found the name Ethelred to be too foreign, so this guy was known in Gaelic as Aed.

In most of these sources there is no specific idea here that the name Aed was an established Gaelic equivalent or translation of the name Ethelred. Instead, it's implied that Aed might have been something like a short form, but in another language. Easy to see how that could have if you imagine an oral culture trying to pronounce an unfamiliar Saxon name. Ethelred becomes something like Aed-el-rad, a form that could easily become Aed.

So, the research project I set for myself was to find a reason for this widespread idea that Ethelred was called Aed. You said someone just made it up. I didn't think so. People come up with some odd ideas sometimes, but there's almost always something that gives them the idea. And, from experience I know that these little byways can sometimes be extraordinarily productive.

The obvious answer to the problem is that Ethelred has been conflated with Aed of Moray. Indeed he has. In some places. But there are still zillions of places where he has definitely not been confused with Aed of Moray but he is still called Ethelred aka Aed.

Another theory I had is that there might be a history of Scotland written in Gaelic where Ethelred is called Aed. I didn't find anything like that.

Or maybe one of those old manuscript genealogies like MS. 1467 where he is called Aed. Nothing like that either.

Another theory was that there might be a charter where someone who is clearly Ethelred was called Aed. I didn't find anything like that. It turned out to be close, but still off the mark.

In the end, the answer seems to be that Skene made this suggestion that the "Ed. comes" in one charter might have been an abbreviation for Ethelred. (In Latin he was Edelradus.)

This is exactly the kind of statement I was looking for. Skene was widely read in the late 1800s and early 1900s. There is already massive confusion about the names Head, Eth, and Aed. It's the kind of mistake that dozens of readers could make independently of one another. And, it's the kind of mistake that could lead some people to start poking around in the many similar names and start thinking that Ethelred really was the same person as Aed of Moray.

It's irrelevant whether Skene was right or wrong about the identification. Functionally, he opened the door to a superficial reading that Ethelred was "also called Ed" (so perhaps Eth, Aed).

It doesn't say anything about Skene's scholarship or knowledge of onomastics that he suggested this identification. The identification doesn't rest on onomastics. It's a paleographic argument. And, it would be very bizarre to argue Skene should have known people would take his statement about one charter and start wildly extrapolating.

Ronald E. Head
Deborah Jean Ose/Smart

I thought, this discussion thread,mwould be of interest to you! 😍

And I am also, wondering. Randomly, directed at the discussion group, if there is a connection somewhere in there, to our Head branches? 🤔

John James Head

Thank you, for all of your input and collective research on this topic. Simply fascinating! 🤓👍🏽

xoxoxoxoxoTheresa Renée

Nice argument, Justin, but *blatantly* contradicted by the example of Aelred/Ailred of Rievaulx. He spent some years at the court of King David I of Scotland, and *no one ever* called him "Aed" (or Ed, or Heth).

He was, in fact, probably an Ethelred until he crossed the border, and "Aelred, Ailred" is what the Scots made of his name.

Sketch of Aelred here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aelred_of_Rievaulx

Maven, do you understand that it wasn't *my* theory? Apparently not. I'm the guy working to understand where it came from, while it seems you're content to just make pronouncements about it.

And do you understand the entire context? Apparently not. There is an often-repeated idea that Ethelred fled north to a Gaelic area and stayed there. Unlikely, but I haven't researched the origin of that one. It sounds to me like an after-the-fact story created to explain why he would have needed a Gaelic name. Someone who believes that story might reasonably suppose Ethelred was more likely to have a Gaelic name than Aelred. Before you go off again, understand that I am talking about why people believe what they do, which is something very different than telling them they're wrong-headed idiots.

I know a bit about Aelred of Rievaulx. In my brief time as a monk I was "Brother Aelred" ;)

I think you are vastly over-estimating the similarity between Ethelred and Aelred. It's the same name, but ...

Aelred was born in Northumbria where they spoke Scots. Educated briefly at the court of King David in Roxburgh where they spoke Scots and French. Made his career in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire. I wouldn't be surprised if he knew Gaelic (although he would have regarded the Highlanders as northern barbarians), but he's not a guy I would expect to have a heavy-duty need for a Gaelic name.

You're starting to get pompous and overbearing again, Justin. Please stop it. Like RIGHT NOW.

People believe *all kinds* of things that have no basis in fact, and if you call them on it they get ornery and belligerent - much the way you are currently doing.

Do *you* realize that your second paragraph is a *perfect* example of circular reasoning? A is B because B is A yada yada yada.

I cannot too strongly recommend that you pick up a copy of O Corrain & Maguire, "Irish Names" - it's a standard modern reference for Gaelic names past and present, and nobody who pokes about in medieval Ireland *or* Scotland ought to be without it.

Woaw, that's not nice. Let's step away from the keyboard and come back later.

Maven, Let me try to explain it another way.

There are two dimensions to any idea:
1. Who said it?
2. Is it true?

I'm investigating the first. You're responding by preaching about the second.

Complete breakdown of communication.

When we're doing genealogy, it's often very helpful to investigate the origin of a particular statement. Maybe even more important if the statement seems to be untrue or questionable.

A statement doesn't need to true to be useful. This case is a good example.

If we know that Skene said something that gave later writers the wrong idea, we can sweep aside all those later statements. We don't need to argue with them. We don't need to look deeper for a source. We don't need to accuse them of making it up. We can just say, "This idea comes from a mis-reading of Skene."

You do this yourself with White genealogies, although you might not be consciously aware that it's a separate part of your analysis. There is a woman who mangled the genealogy of the immigrants, and you already understand what her thought process was. When you see something that matches her work, you don't need to see if they might have found something you missed. You know immediately that through some chain of transmission they got the information ultimately from that woman. And you already know how she came up with idea, so you don't waste any more time on it.

>you don't waste any more time on it.

Okay then, let's not.

I can give you another example, also pertinent to this discussion.

You've said several times that Edmund was co-king. My understanding was that he ruled some unknown appanage, perhaps with regal powers. A quick look at the various histories shows some people saying Edmund was co-king, others saying he had an appanage, and some saying specifically that Donald ruled in the north and Edmund in the south.

It's clear that these ideas have a common origin but it has to be something that is open to more than one interpretation. There seems to be no charter evidence, so it's not something where a pattern of charters leads to an impression about Edmund's status.

So, it probably comes from somewhere else. A history or a chronicle, maybe.

When I started searching for it, it was very easy to find. William of Malmesbury says, "Edmund was the only degenerate son of Margaret, who, partaking in his uncle Donald's crime, and bargaining for half his kingdom ...."

Problem solved. No one knows what it means that Edmund bargained for half the kingdom, but we immediately understand the context for all the different interpretations. And, we see that we're not going to be able to use the lack of a title for Edmund to date his brother Ethelred's charter.

We *can* still be sure it wasn't after 1097, which still only gives us about a ten-year span at most (Ethelred old enough to at least co-sign with his guardian, to Edmund deposed, tonsured and banished Far Far Away).

Agreed. All it does is give us a bit more room by allowing time after 1093/4. We're looking at a man in his teens or early 20s. If Ethelred was born, say 1075, he was 18 in 1093, 22 in 1097. But if he was born, say 1080 (which I think is more likely), he was only 13 in 1093 and 17 in 1097. Those few years make a big difference in our reading of what was going on.

Would like to know why you think 1080 is *more* likely - are you sold on the idea that Edgar was older than Ethelred and therefore Ethelred was never "passed over" - it was just never "his turn"?

Because that's what what you're saying amounts to.

No, not at all. I don't get dogmatic about it but the traditional birth order seems reasonable enough, particularly in light of the implication that Margaret named her sons after her ancestors in a predictable pattern (father, grandfather, great grandfather).

Everyone says Edgar was born c1074 or sometimes c1075 but I haven't seen any strong evidence. (But then, I've never looked for it, either.)

It's just my general feeling that 1075 is a bit tight for a third son born after a marriage that can be dated, at best, to "by the end of 1070". Not that it couldn't happen, but I don't think we're quite as certain as secondary sources imply.

I use 1075 in my own database but when I look at it I mentally amend it to "say, 1075 to 1080".

If Ethelred was born c1080 there's still plenty of time before 1093 for the younger children, and all the actors are still at a reasonable age when they do the things they did.

Michael I didn't notice you were in class :-) Feel free to leave quietly without being dismissed :-) but the rest of us are enjoying this.

Do recall that Edgar spoke for the crown in 1095 and got it in 1097. How old did he have to be to do that?

How old did he have to be to do that?

Most likely after his voice break.

Minimum of fourteen in 1095, then, especially if we assume Uncle Edgar Aetheling was acting as guardian.

Seventeen, as Justin has pointed out in related contexts, is more likely - but that places Edgar's birth at 1081 or earlier, and he's supposed to be the *fourth* son.

We also have to factor in Edith/Matilda, who was being sought as a bride by 1093(!).

Yes, 14, I think.

I've read several times that the age at which chiefs could be inaugurated was 14, but I can't find a citation. That would apply to kings as well. Celtic chiefs and kings were inaugurated not crowned.

The problem with this answer is that there is no evidence directly on point, I don't think.

As far as I know, Scottish practice is extrapolated from the Behon laws as recorded in Irish texts. That seems reasonable because these "Scots" were originally immigrants from Ireland, still followed the customs of the larger Celtic world, and traced their genealogies to Irish kings.

As I understand it, there is a further complication because the Behon laws are not directly on point. They show an elaborate system deals with legal emancipation in terms of the authority of parents and foster parents to administer corporal punishment, the age at which a man can swear an oath and be a witness, the right of a young man to receive a part of the collective lands, etc.

Under Behon law, a man was emancipated from his parents' control at age 14. He could choose his own residence and was no longer subject to corporal punishment. He could not be a witness or swear an oath until age 17 "unless he has taken possession or succession before that". At the "full encircling of the beard" (age 20, maybe 21) he was entitled to a share of tribal lands. After that, the rights he has depends on the amount of property he owns.

All of this supposes that the sons of St. Margaret were making their claims in Scotland under Celtic law. I imagine they did. Certainly, they would not have felt themselves bound to follow English law when Scottish law gave them an advantage.

Where was the inauguration stone at this time, Scone?

I don't know if this has book is useful or not, but I enjoyed the summary pages here

https://books.google.com/books?id=TuM-AAAAYAAJ&vq=Ethelred&...

Page 18-19 of History of the County of Fife: From the Earliest Period to the ..., Volume 1  By John M. Leighton, James Stewart (1840)

Definitely Scone.

The Royal residence was another matter entirely, and could be wherever the ruler wanted it. (Malcolm III and a number of successors sat in at Dunfermline, and still later Edinburgh became The Place.)

Discussion ended / paused in Dec 2015, having decided that
1. Ethelred was Abbot of Dunkeld (possibly lay; possibly celibate - no way of telling)
2. Ethelred may well have been Earl of Fife, simultaneous with, or before, Constantine. The discovery of a second document gave some weight to the possibility that he was, and scuppered any chance of disproving it.
3. Ethelred is very unlikely to have been provably Aed of Moray or Lulach's daughter's husband/ lover.
4. Children attributed to Ethelred can be linked to more modern traditions of MacDuff genealogists whose motives appear not to be completely objective. No sources were found to validate the existence of these children.

Why the expression of doubt about Ethelred as Earl of Fife? There's a charter from him. No one has cited any expert opinion that it is a fake, nor has anyone come up with a reason it might be. Under the same conditions, we would take for granted that any other charter is genuine. Indeed, at that level of doubt we would have to throw out the entire corpus of medieval Scottish charters.

I would add to the list above that #3 and #4 result from a speculative identification of Ethelred with Aed of Moray by Sir Iain Moncrieffe of Moncrieffe, which was adopted as a fact by later writers.

Doubt because Constantine is Earl of Fife in the same document as Ethelred is, without explanation from within the document.

=I would add to the list above that #3 and #4 result from a speculative identification of Ethelred with Aed of Moray by Sir Iain Moncrieffe of Moncrieffe, which was adopted as a fact by later writers.= Yes, good point.

Constantine is Earl of Fife on the confirmation document but not on the original grant. An important distinction. The grant is written in the present tense, the confirmation in the past tense. It makes perfect sense. Ethelred was the Earl of Fife when he made the grant. It was confirmed after his death and witnessed by the then Earl Constantine. This is such a common form in medieval charters there shouldn't be any doubt.

Except that there is doubt in the academic community.
Let's not re-argue the whole thing.

I was registering the fact that the doubt existed, and that we'd decided it was insufficient in the face of our discovery / interpretation of the two documents.