RE:1490 Instrument of Sesine in favour of David Bruce as heir to David Bruce of Wester Kennet ( This Wester Kennet is incorrect as they are discussing the Easter Kennet lineage
It's definitely Wester Kennet:
- No. 9 2 May 1389 Thomas obtains Kennet from his father, 2 May 1389.— Charter of Robert de Bruys of Clackmannan and Rate to and in favour of Thomas de Bruys, his son, where- by " for good services" he grants the said Thomas the lands of Wester Kennet and others for payment to his said father of a silver penny yearly. In the history of Noble British Families, part 3, p. 15, it is stated that Robert de Bruce died about this period, and the next Charters of resignation were probably made by the possessor of the estate on succeeding thereto
- No. 12 18th February, 1399— Crown Charter of Resignation and Confirmation by King Robert III., ratifying and confirming the Charter No. 9, granted by Robert de Bruys to his son, Thomas, of the lands of Wester Kennet, Pitfoulden, and the Cruikitland, all lying in the county of Clackmannan. From this time the estate of Kennet continued separate from that of Clackmannan, and although the families continued on the most intimate terms, and the heiress of Kennet, in 1568, married one of the cadets of Clackmannan, the estates have never been united.
No. 14 24th Sept 1423 Instrument of Sasine in favour of Peter or Patrick de Bruys, in the lands of Wester Kennet, in the Barony of Graysmenstone and county of Clackmannan, proceeding on the precept contained in No. 13, to which Peter Bruys had acquired right as heir to his father, sasine given by John de Bruce, Lord of Clackmannan
No. 13 28th March, 1428— Charter of Confirmation of John Bruce of Rate and Clackmannan, ratifying and confirming the Charter No. 9, granted by his grandfather, Robert de Bruys, to his son Thomas de Bruys, of the lands of Wester Kennet, &c.
The date is obliterated, but it appears from other documents to have been prior to 1442.The Barony of Shanbody now forming part of the estate of Kennet, as will be afterwards seen, came to the Bruces by purchase.
No 16 22d Dec, 1447 — Discharged by John de Bruce of Clackmannan to his eldest cousin, David, the Bruce of the Kennet, of the sum of 50 merks money of Scotland, addebted to the said John the Bruce, by Peter the Bruce, grandfather of the above-mentioned David.
So, the Wester Kennet line goes Thomas > Peter>David
No. 21 23d July, 1460— Instrument bearing that David Bruce of Kennet, at the desire of David Bruce of Clackmannan, and James Schaw of Sauchie, cautioners for the said David Bruce of Kennet, to a discreet woman, Agnes Bonar, for the sum of 100 nierko, money of Scotland, given and delivered to the said Agnes by Arthur Cramond, her attorney and procurator, the sum of 4 merks,upon part payment of said sum, where- upon the said Arthur answered that if so it was that the said David Bruce at the day and place agreed upon between them was willing to deliver to him a further sum of 44 merks, and find security for the balance between and the feast of St Michel, the archangel, then next he should be fully satisfied thereof.
This David Bruce of Kennet is probably the one mentioned in No. 16.
No. 24 — 1490 — Instrument of Sasine in favour of David Bruce, as heir to David Bruce of Wester Kennet, his father, in the lands of Wester Kennet,
This document is mutilated so as in many places to be illegible, but enough remains to show that the David Bruce of Kennet mentioned in Nos. 16 and 21 died somewhere between 1480 and 1490, and was succeeded by his son David. A David Bruce of Kennet is mentioned in a Retoun_of William Stirling of Cadder, in 1481,— see also No. 25.
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.