Malcolm II MacHeth Jarl of Ross - Sources?

In a related database at PoMS (but standing for People of Medieval Scotland instead of Paradox of Medieval Scotland) the entry from Malcolm MacHeth is slightly different. Perhaps more recent because it cites this article where the other does not:

"Malcolm Macheth, earl of Ross, was likely the son of Earl Aed (Heth, floruit 1128x1131). See Alasdair Ross, 'The Identity of the Prisoner at Roxburgh: Malcolm son of Alexander or Malcolm Macheth?', in Sharon Arbuthnot and Kaarina Hollo (eds), Fil Súil nGlais: A grey eye looks back. A Festschrift in Honour of Colm Ó Baoill (Ceann Drochaid, Brig o Turk, 2007), pp. 269-82."

http://db.poms.ac.uk/record/person/324/#

"Son of Aed the Earl" in a charter 1153-1160 of King Malcolm to Dunfermline, No citations to any other known relationships.

The dating notes say, "Death of King David I × consecration of Abbot Arnold of Kelso as bishop of St Andrews. Barrow claimed a date of 1157 × 1160 based on the notion that Malcolm MacHeth was the 'prisoner of Roxburgh', who is now generally accepted to have been Malcolm, an illegitimate son of King Alexander I."

>Malcolm son of William

Is that what Bishop Wimund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wimund was calling himself? He certainly had the most opportunity to get involved with Somerled and family, hanging out in the Isles and particularly Skye. But he was active at an awkward period for this theory (c. 1140s-1150), and his religious background was Benedictine and Cistercian rather than Celtic.

William of Newburgh has much to say of him, little of it good, and some of it probably from the horse's mouth: http://legacy.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/williamofnewburgh-one.asp#24 But he nowhere suggests that Wimund had set aside his vows for a career more secular than that of raiding and pillaging.

One thing we can take for granted is that Somerled would be interested in anything to his own advantage, and that included stirring up trouble for an underage King with an uncertain grasp on the crown (Malcolm IV). He seems to have had enough respect for David I, or at least for David's military abilities, to have remained neutral or perhaps a sometime ally during his time - but once David died all bets were off. But Malcolm soon proved that he was no pushover, and Somerled turned his attentions to matters closer at hand (taking over the whole of the Isles).

I love the maps on that POMS site. We need them on GEni.

Searching for the tantalising but elusive article named "A grey eye looks back. A Festschrift in Honour of Colm Ó Baoill", I found this of Woolf's
http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/history/staff/alexwoolf/CultofMoluag.pdf
which pertains to our discussions here, if only tangentially.
Just sharing in case you two want it as well.

Sorry Maven - cross-posting. Following your links before I comment.

Sorry for the confusion. Malcolm son of William is a typo. I meant to say Malcolm son of Alexander. I was thinking about the MacWilliam claimants.

Maybe take a look at Richard D. Oram, Domination and Lordship: Scotland, 1070-1230 (2011), p. 120:

https://books.google.com/books?id=cV47X4gGqSQC&printsec=frontco...

"Initially, Somerled had been supporting his nephews, the sons of Malcolm, son of Alexander I ..."

Ahh - On William of Newburgh's version of Wimund's parentage

'"respecting not the judgement of truth, announced that he was the son of the earl of Moray, despoiled by the king of Scots of the patrimony of his fathers"
The wikipedia article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_fitz_Duncan suggests that this quote is the basis for saying William fitz Duncan, Mórmaer of Moray is Mormaer of Moray.

It seems to me that some circular reasoning has taken place here, that ignores the fact that William fitz Duncan's son could not have been "despoiled of his patrimony" by the king. In a version that uses this quote to make William fitz Duncan, Mórmaer of Moray Mormaer of Moray, Moray would have been given to him by the king as a reward. He certainly didn't get it by patrimonial birthright.

cross posting. Going off to check that link, Justin

Justin, Oram cites the Holyrood Chronicle as the source for "Initially, Somerled had been supporting his nephews, the sons of Malcolm, son of Alexander I ..." - but the Holyrood Chronicle says nothing about Malcolm being the son of Alexander.

Look at Ross's direct translation of it:
=1153(Somerled and his nephews, the sons of Malcolm, allied with themselves very many men, and rebelled against King Malcolm (IV), and disturbed and disquieted Scotland to a great extent.)=

I made a profile for Bishop Wimund# - so I can at least locate him datewise in my head. I don't know how he fits in ;-(

I see we have competing profiles for the Malcolm MacEth of this story:
1. Malcolm MacEth, Earl of Ross
2. Malcolm MacEth, Earl of Ross

Both as son & brother of Angus, Mórmaer of Moray. Probably we should resolve where we want to position him.

Sharon Doubell - might as well park Bishop Wimund under William fitz Duncan, Mórmaer of Moray. That wight got around a lot, and his descendants on both sides of the blanket gave the Scottish crown so much trouble that they were basically genocided.

> Somerled's nephews have to have been the sons of Malcolm son of Alexander in order for any of it to make sense

Because of the backside claim to the Scottish crown? Malcolm MacHeth had a front-side claim if he wished to push it, tracing back to King Lulach. He also had a direct blood tie to Oengus of Moray (also a claimant through the same line), either as younger brother or as son. I rather doubt he sat by the fireside while Oengus was out stirring up trouble for King David. And *somebody* kept the rebellion smoldering in Moray for another four years after Oengus was killed - mac Alaxandair had no claim on Moray, but macHeth *did*.

Personally I think the Malcolms were in cahoots - it would be neither the first time nor the last that rival claimants joined forces against a third rival representing the Establishment.

> Because of the backside claim to the Scottish crown?

No. Go back and re-read Ross' article. You might disagree with his conclusions, but you'll need a stronger argument than that.

You are right that Malcolm MacHeth qualified as a claimant under old Gaelic rules. He was the great grandson of a king, so within the derbhfine. But his line had already been marginalized. Lulach? Really? That's a claim that could only appeal to the "men of Moray".

But Malcolm son of Alexander could be a much more serious contender. His father had been king. If he was illegitimate (and I don't think that's as firm as his adversaries made out), that was a minor matter. Bastard sons had more rights in Scottish (and Irish and Welsh) law than they ever did in English law.

Then too, the argument about whether Malcolm MacHeth was an illegitimate son of Alexander has always come down to the problem that his rebellion would make so much more sense if he was. (But he can't be. He has to be son of Aed. But that doesn't make any sense.)

And now Ross has cut the Gordian knot on that one.

I think it's highly significant that Oram, writing four years later under an academic imprint, cites Ross and adopts his solution. And also significant the PoMS, a prosopographal database, has revised its citation to also adopt Ross' solution about two Malcolms.

Oram is, BTW, a Professor of Medieval History and an FSA(Scot). Wikipedia says he did his doctoral research on medieval Galloway and is also the author of a biography of David I. That doesn't mean we have to agree with him but I think we need more than just speculation.

> Somehow I don't think that public discussion on Geni meets the definition of "private study".

This is exactly why I'm quoting so sparingly and not giving away the details of the argument. I'm giving just enough that you and Sharon can locate the appropriate passages.

There's one possibility we haven't considered yet, and that's that Malcolm macHeth *was* a son of Oengus - but too young to participate in the 1130-34 rebellion. He wasn't too young, though, to stir up some trouble later on (say, after 1150), or play hide-and-seek in the Highlands - accounting for his need to be "reconciled" with the King.

It's interesting that Whithorn is consistently identified as the place where Donald son of Malcolm was captured. Whithorn is on the Galloway coast, and was the center of the See of Whithorn (also called the See of Galloway), which from 1128 to c. 1154 was held by Gille Aldan - whose main claim to fame was driving off an attack by Bishop Wimund with a well-thrown axe.

I can see this is going to turn into another long, speculative thread so I'll bow out now. If someone comes up with something real, I'll be back.

Just wondering *how much* contamination there has been over the centuries between the three stories: Malcolm mac Alaxandair, Malcolm macHeth, and that pesky Bishop Wimund. All the accounts seem to blend into each other in places - it was bad enough when we were only worrying about *two* of these guys.

My theory was that they were two guys working together to make trouble, and one of them was captured and the other one got away. (I didn't see anything to contradict that theory, other than the author's total dismissal of Malcolm MacHeth as having any importance at all prior to 1157.)

Sharon I think you may have it backward. It would have to be *Somerled's* sister who was married to *Malcolm* - although Wikipedia has some alternate charts, but only the first (Somerled's sister married to Malcolm) and third (Somerled's *mother* a partner of Alexander I, making Somerled and Malcolm half-brothers) really work with the timeline. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerled

This pdf on the web is very interesting in the data it gives about the events after this. (Helpful in extrapolating the political loyalties that might have produced this result) ://dspace.stir.ac.uk/bitstream/1893/2174/1/Moray,%20Ulster%20and%20the%20MacWilliams.pdf

Ross, Alasdair (2007), "Moray, Ulster and the MacWilliams", in Duffy, Séan, The World of the Galloglass: Kings, Warlords and Warriors in Ireland and Scotland, 1200–1600, Dublin: Four Courts Press, ISBN 978-1-85182-946-0

Sorry - cross-posted. Yes I might have the Somerled sister wrong, give me a moment to figure out why and follow the link.... :-)

As to Malcolm de Ros and Malcolm MacHeth:

Both profiles need a lot of work before we can even seriously consider what to do with them. The only firm dates we have for him are that he was reconciled to the King (Malcolm IV) in 1157, instructed to protect the monks of Dumfermline c. 1160-62, and died in (or circa) 1168.

This profile Malcolm MacEth, Earl of Ross has been paired up with a sister of Somerled, rightly or wrongly, and assigned a daughter who was temporarily married to Haraldr Maddadson of Orkney.

This profile Malcolm MacEth, Earl of Ross has been janked up with the later De Ros family of Yorkshire, has too many wives, has too many children, has the *wrong* children, etc.

And both of them had absolutely impossible birth dates, which I blanked.

Can you put those notes on Discussions from their pages - that way we'll get back to them.

On Somerled from wikipedia: "His father, GilleBride, appears to have conducted a marriage alliance with Malcolm, a son of Alexander I of Scotland, and claimant to the Scottish throne" ...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somerled

THIS is what we need Sourced proof for. Is it part of the circular reasoning based on the assumption that Malcolm MacHeth must be Malcolm MacAlexandair? or is there external proof somewhere else?

To my mind Somerlad's Norse heritage suggests a marriage connection with the Moravian MacHeths to be more likely than the sons of Margaret.

That being said, Malcolm MacAlexander's partnership with Angus of Moray goes a way to discount my theory.

Temporary project to keep sources on - and so I (you) can add to my timeline without losing the hypertexting: http://www.geni.com/projects/Malcolm-MacHeth-vs-Malcolm-Alexandair-....

So, we're left with taking the following events as accurate:

1153: (Somerled, King of the Hebrides and his nephews, the sons of Malcolm [MAC ALEXANDER], allied with themselves very many men, and rebelled against King Malcolm (IV), and disturbed and disquieted Scotland to a great extent.) Holyrood Chronicle (c1200 - 1355)

1156: (Donald son of Malcolm [MAC ALEXANDER] was captured at Whithorn and imprisoned with his father) Holyrood Chronicle (c1200 - 1355) (Donald son of Malcolm [MAC ALEXANDER] was captured at Whithorn and imprisoned in the keep of Roxburgh with his father.) The Chronicle of Melrose (- 1270)

1157: (Malcolm MacHeth was reconciled with the king of the Scots). Holyrood Chronicle (c1200 - 1355)

1163 (King Malcolm deported the Moravians). Holyrood Chronicle (c1200 - 1355)

Which means figuring out what the relationship between Malcolm Mac Alexander (in prison) and Malcolm MacEth (mormaer of Moray?) might have been. Both seem to have been anti King Malcolm prior to 1157.

Great! I make a personal breakthrough and everyone else goes to bed..... :-)

I'm now awake, on the other side of the globe.

Yay! Awesome!

Oh good. I was toasting myself alone. :-)