Not addressing specifics here, but speaking generally:
1) the charters as given in the link we are all looking at are transcriptions of the original charters (which may or may not be held at the University of Edinburgh; it would take a while to track them down, and since they have not been digitized and I'm not going to be traveling to Scotland to see them, I'm letting that go). As such, they are what we accept as primary sources. Without actually seeing the original charters, we can go no further back.
2) Certainly sometimes the clerks writing out such charters could make mistakes, and certainly we have cases of medieval genealogical fraud, but such fraud does not show up in charters; it shows up in genealogies and chronicles. Charters are extremely important documents, and are carefully drawn up -- at least at the level of the ones we have been looking at. Systematic fraud at that level of government documentation makes no sense; it would call into question all of the documentation. I know of no cases where that was going on. Better, if you need to create fraud, to simply destroy things. (By the way; it's no indication of any kind of nefarious activity on the part of the clerks, or even the keepers of the documents, that some documents show up, hundreds of years later, mutilated. Could it happen purposefully? Sure. But almost always it's rats, or bugs, or somebody dropped ale on one of the documents, or somebody hundreds of years later tore some of it off to line pie tins -- there was a long time for stuff to happen. The royal and noble documents tend to be better kept (local documents are in dreadful shape much of the time), but even so, things happen.)
3) the de Bruses and the de Braoses both came into the British Isles from Normandy, but from two different places, the Bruces from Brix and the de Braoses from Briouze, and though later people confused them, they were quite different. And the de Bruses were active in Scotland and the de Braoses were active in the Welsh Marches. And though I myself have no love for the de Braoses (the Christmas Massacre being only one part of this), I have never seen evidence that the de Braoses claimed to be de Bruses. They were way too busy being de Braoses, which they had high notions of. If later generations claimed this, ok, but later generations could not have changed charters to show a false line -- that would appear in the notes to the transcripts, believe me -- nor could they have faked the charters -- a very very difficult thing to do, and even the charter forgery ring at Winchester didn't manage to convince anybody (they were all about a fake endowment from William I to the abbey at Hastings).
4) At my count so far, there are four or five David Bruces showing up in just the few charters that we are looking at here. The charters seem to be being careful to delineate them, within each charter, but that does not mean that the clerks writing one charter are using exactly the same nomenclature as the clerks writing others. So they are, essentially, confusing. That does not mean, necessarily, that anybody is nefariously confusing them so as to create false lineages.
I'm not seeing a reason to question the charters.
Problem with this page?
Geni member
Private UserGeni Pro
Geni Pro
Geni Pro
Geni member
Geni member
Geni member