Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate - wrong parents

Private User — I’m confused. On Geni at the moment, Robert Bruce is married to Elizabeth Lindsay. Is there something we need to change? (Other than anything concerning DNA — I stay in the records.)

Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate
s/o John Bruce & Elizabeth Stewart
x Janet d/o Sir William Stirling of Keir

• Robert Bruce, of Rait d before November 29, 1491

xx Mariota d/o John Herrie

• Sir David, succeeded
• Alexander
• Margaret
• Christian
• 2 sons?

Robert Bruce, of Rait d before November 29, 1491
Son of Sir David Bruce, Baron of Clackmannan & Rate
x Elizabeth Lindsay

• David Bruce

Half brother of David Bruce, Baron Of Clackmannan

What don't you agree with?

Sir David Bruce, 7th Baron Of Clackmannan
Son of Sir David Bruce, Baron of Clackmannan & Rate and Margaret Harries
x Janet Blackadder
Uncle of David Bruce of Rait - very young son of his early deceased brother Robert -who was the rightful heir

In other words, using the Charters:

a1 Sir John Bruce, 5th Baron of Clackmannan & Rait
x Elizabeth Stewart

b1 Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate
x Janet Keir

b1c1 Robert Bruce, of Rait d before November 29, 1491
x Elizabeth Lindsay

b1c1d1 David Bruce of Rait

xx Mariota Herrie
b1c2 Sir David Bruce, 7th Baron Of Clackmannan x Janet Blackadder

Private User the Charter you're looking for is 1485, not 1458

From the Charters of Clackmannan
28th August, 1485— Charter by David Bruce of Clackmannan to Robert Bruce, his son and apparent heir, and Elizabeth Lindsay, his wife, in liferent, and the heirs male, to be procreated between them, in fee of the six oxgates of land pertaining to the said David Bruce of his lands of Rate, on the east side of the burn, and lying in the Barony of Rate and county of Perth. To be holden by the said Robert Bruce and his heirs aforesaid, whom failing his heirs, whatsoever of the King and his successors, for payment of a penny on the ground of the said lands, in manner of blench, if asked. Witnesses : Robert Bruce of Culmaluindie and Thomas Bruce, and others.

but Robert Bruce of Rait died before 29 November 1491 when his son was still young RMS 1414-1513L charter number 2031 and Robert and his son David were passed over for the succession to Clackmannan

So:

14th Septr., 1497— Crown Charter of Resignation by King James IV., to David Bruce, son of David Bruce of Clackmannan of the lands and Barony of Clackmannan, lying in the County thereof, and lands of Rate, lying in the county of Perth, proceeding on the resignation of the said David Bruce, elder. To be holden by the King and his successors, under the burden of the liferent of the said David Bruce, elder, and Margeret Harries, his wife.

You and I have already researched and found this out from the Charters.

Private User

No. 22.- 28 Aug 1485 - Charter by David 7th to his son and heir Robert Bruce, married to Elizabeth Lindsay, this Charter is by David himself.

Exactly the one I mention above: No. 22:28th August, 1485— Charter by David Bruce of Clackmannan to Robert Bruce, his son and apparent heir, and Elizabeth Lindsay, his wife, in liferent, and the heirs male, to be procreated between them, in fee of the six oxgates of land pertaining to the said David Bruce of his lands of Rate, on the east side of the burn, and lying in the Barony of Rate and county of Perth. To be holden by the said Robert Bruce and his heirs aforesaid, whom failing his heirs, whatsoever of the King and his successors, for payment of a penny on the ground of the said lands, in manner of blench, if asked. Witnesses : Robert Bruce of Culmaluindie and Thomas Bruce, and others.

Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate gives his eldest son (by Janet) Robert Bruce, of Rait Rate.
King James ratifies it.

No. 25.- 17 May 1495.- Back to our line and its a charter stating that Agnes Redbeugh is the wife of Old David Bruce 6th.

No. 25 — 17th May, 1495 Inquest in virtue of precept from King James IV., holden at Kennet by Sir William Monteith, Sheriff of Clackmannan, at the complaint of Agnes Redheugh, spouse of the deceased David Bruce of Kennet, against Gilbert Brady, for troubling her in the peaceable possession of a head-rig of land, the grass of a ward, the grass of a forebank at the Cruiketland, and others. Whereupon the said Inquest found her entitled to possess the same, as she and her said deceased husband had done for fifty years past.

Agnes Redheugh is not married to married to "Old David Bruce 6th", but to David Bruce, of Wester Kennet (snr) , [who is a descent of Thomas Bruce, 1st of Wester Kennet, Pitfoulden and Cruicket. a different son of Sir Robert Bruce, 3rd Baron of Clackmannan than the son who inherits Clackmannan: Sir David Bruce, 4th Baron of Clackmannan

Clackmannan and Kennet are different lines at this stage.

No. 26.- Here they lie, as we can see from charter 25. that Agnes Redbeugh is the wife of David 6th and not Margaret Harris.

No. 26 — 14rh Septr., 1497— Crown Charter of Resignation by King James IV., to David Bruce, son of David Bruce of Clackmannan* of the lands and Barony of Clackmannan, lying in the County thereof, and lands of Rate, lying in the county of Perth, proceeding on the resignation of the said David Bruce, elder. To be holden by the King and his successors, under the burden of the liferent of the said David Bruce, elder, and Margeret Harries, his wife.

You're saying that a legal property document ceding the king's land, and signed by the king, from the time, had an (unknown) motivation to lie?! That would be crazy - it would give another claimant the right to take the land from them. Why would they bother creating a legal document that would a give different man legal right to the land in question?

They wouldn't. This is "old David Bruce 6th" of Clackmannan Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate making sure that his eldest son by his second wife, Mariot "Marion" Herries Sir David Bruce, 7th Baron Of Clackmannan - retains control of land he has been managing for his underaged nephew David Bruce of Rait since the early death of the boy's father, his half brother, Robert Bruce, of Rait

Whether this is due to the influence of his second wife, or to the fact that his younger son has been doing such a good job/ become so powerful doing it, that it wasn't a wise idea to try to remove it from him, David 6th Clackmannan resigns his right to Clackmannan (reserving a life-rent for himself and his wife) while he is still alive, so that the king can give it to his adult son, not his young grandson, child of his dead eldest son.

No. 27.- This is also a lie and they are pulling moves here, Old David 6th died in 1496, David 7th died in 1497, they are attaching there line to our line, these charters are false and are not our line, here is the steal.

No. 27.— 3d February, 1506— Crown Charter by King James IV., to David Bruce, grandson and heir of the said deceased David Bruce of Clackmannan, to be holden by the said David Bruce, younger, of the King and his successors, in fee and heritage, for rendering of services used and wont.
and worded slightly more explicitly here:
No. 29 - 3d February, 1506— Charter under the Great Seal, to David Bruce, nepoti, and heir of David Bruce of Clackmannan, of the lands of Rate, &c. (Reg. of Great Seal)

This shows the king ratifying the rights to Rate, of the grandson (David) of Old David 6th, once Old David has died. We saw that Old David 6th had given those rights to this boy's father in No 22 - 28th August, 1485 - so it's logical to ratify them for his son.

You don't explain who 'they' is who are 'pulling moves', but Sir David Bruce, 7th Baron Of Clackmannan doesn't die in 1497 - he is still alive in 1506. On what evidence are you basing his 1497 death date?

No. 28. They feel the need to repeat the steal, but also go on to give the truth, "They are representatives of the original Bruce's of Clackmannan". In there own words! At the end they pin there line onto ours saying that Old David 6th is married to Margaret Harri

No. 28 5th February, 1506— Crown Charter by King James IV. to David Bruce, knight, son of the deceased David Bruce of Clackmannan, of the lands of Ilallhill over and nether and Barony of Clackmannan, and others, now erected into a Barony, to be called in all time coming the Barony of Clackmannan. To be holden by the said David Bruce and the heirs male, procreated between him and Janet Blackadder, his wife, whom failing, his nearest and lawful heirs whatsoever, bearing the name and arms of Bruce, whom all failing, to revert to the King and his successors, according to the ancient Charters of Taillie of the said Barony in favour of the said ancestors of the said David Bruce for services used and wont.

This shows the king ratifying the rights to Clackmannan, of the son of Old David 6th, once Old David has died. We saw that Old David 6th had given those rights to him in No. 26 — 14th Septr., 1497- so it's logical to ratify them.

What 'steal' are you referring to, and by whom? You think it's of dubious ethics that Old David passed over his young grandson by his dead son for his live grown-up son when he passed on Clackmannan? Perhaps, but that doesn't make it unlikely, or stealing anything from your lines.

The Y chromosome genetics of all these men would be the same as that of their mutual great grandfather - Sir Robert Bruce, 2nd Baron Clackmannan & Rate; proprietor of lands of Kennet - I think it is.

What the Charters you pointed me to show more clearly than I think you are realising, is that the descendants of Robert 2nd Baron, split the lands as they proliferate.
Clackmannan, Kennet (which seems to split further into a Wester Kennet as well), and Rate are all peopled by Bruce sons who pass on the family names of Robert and David to many of their heirs.'

In short, the Charters show that - Sir Robert Bruce, 2nd Baron Clackmannan & Rate; proprietor of lands of Kennet 's lands become split between his grandsons into Clackmannan/Rate & Kennet.

The Charters we are looking at are mostly concerned with Clackmannan/Rate, except for one in 1490 ratifying that David Bruce, of Wester Kennet (jnr) had Wester Kennet as heir to his father, David Bruce, of Wester Kennet (snr); and one in 1495 preventing the widow of David Bruce, of Wester Kennet (snr), Agnes, from being bullied off her lands.

Specifically, the ones we're dealing with show Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate passing on Rate to Robert Bruce, of Rait his eldest son by his first wife, Janet, in 1485. In 1506 the king makes sure this land is passed on to Robert's son David Bruce of Rait on the death of his grandfather Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate, because Robert had already died young.

In 1497 Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate hands over Clackmannan to his eldest son by his second wife, Mariot, Sir David Bruce, 7th Baron Of Clackmannan On Sir David Bruce, 6th Baron of Clackmannan & Rate 's death in 1506 the king ratifies this inheritence of Clackmannan.

The Charters are original documents. You give no reasons why we should consider them to have been forged.

"Them are the Stewarts and the Broases who are the same family, In the Godge genealogical record I shared with you it states that David 7th died 1497. Every time there is a heir that is young these fraudsters help themselves acting as the Seneshals! https://www.amazon.com/Seneschals-Dol-Histories-Mysteries-Stewart/d..."

This makes no sense to me. I have no idea what the Stewarts or the Broases (whoever they are) have to do with these charters. Neither have I any idea of what you're alluding to as fraudsters, or why that changes the genealogy.

It is you who are not paying attention, and I've spent hours of work transcribing documents you wanted to use here, and twice now, explicating them for you.

There has never been a discussion of a William Broase, and I fail to see the relevance now.
The https://accessgenealogy.com/genealogy/dodge-genealogy-colonial-ance... doc has no primary sources for David 7th death, or for anything, so constitutes no useful information where/if it contradicts the charters, that are primary sources.

Please do same research, as David Bruce 6th married to Agnes Redbeugh is not from Wester Kennet.

No. 25 — 17th May, 1495 Inquest in virtue of precept from King James IV., holden at Kennet by Sir William Monteith, Sheriff of Clackmannan, at the complaint of Agnes Redheugh, spouse of the deceased David Bruce of Kennet

I'm answering you specifically - one issue at a time.I went through every charter you brought up, one at a time, in order, above.

The charter themselves are primary records, what is writen around them is secondary.

Hence going back to the charters themselves. In this section, the interpretation is useful, but you can remove it and still reach the same genealogy because the people are named - quite clearly - when you realise that they're not all the same David etc.

Why do I get the feeling you are not here to help

What, about the hours I've spent transcribing these Charters and working on this line for you, feels like me not helping?

Is it because the Charters are apparently not proving what you wanted them to - and I have no idea what that is?