Elizabeth Seton - Is the wife of Alexander a daughter of Seton?

When you make a payment, what is it for? The countess paid a piece of a debt Alexander owed to John Scrymgeour, "Constable of Dundee", and it’s filed under “ Writs concerning the lands of Inverkeithing”, it was a trade town in those days. Was he buying land? Paying a fee? There are other entries for Alexander in the book also but couldn’t get at them. And, compared to the other transactions nearby, relationships are described. But not number 145.

I'm not sure investigating that relationship helps anything. Either it exists as a document or it doesn't.

No evidence exists at all for Elizabeth Seton as his wife.

“Documentary evidence.” :). Elizabeth Seton is accepted as wife by the Peerages etc. But I have no objection to disconnecting from parents with links back in their profiles in the “about.” Actually, since I curate, I will do that right now.

(NB: it’s my practice on geni to disconnect from unproven parents, and keep as spouse / parent.)

My reasoning for trying to understand the Scrymgeour transaction more was to illuminate if this was in fact a spouse (Elizabeth) on behalf of a spouse (Alexander). Personally I’m satisfied with the relationship between the three is undefined.

The Peerage in itself isn't evidence, though.

I have no idea whether the Setons had a daughter called Elizabeth, so you should check that first. It isn't her parents that are unproved here; it's her husband.

I understand what you're saying, but it appears a side issue to me when the much more obvious question is why would we presume that the woman in the doc wasn't his wife - given the specific designator; the link on his behalf, and the name, Elizabeth, previously documented as his wife? Occam's Razor.
However respected McEwan was, he gives no reason at all why he knows that Isobel* was suddenly called Elizabeth, and that would have been the crucial piece that disproved the Munros or anybody else.

(*The dead Isobel acc to Geni - which date I presume you'll want to remove, as McEwan is likely to know that.)

Supposedly there was an Elizabeth Seton, I just created a profile for her; it’s not deeply investigated.

Sharon, this is where I think your technique and mine will just need to be accepted as different, and agree to disagree on it.

I disconnect unproven parents on geni constantly. And as I said, I disconnect from parents, not from spouse / children.

Re: Elizabeth Haliburton as Alexander’s wife.

She is not the “traditional wife, Elizabeth Seton is, since the Gordon family study by the monk Ferrieus in the 17th century. (Part of the reason for skepticism - she’s in the Seton / Gordon studies, and then the later clan and Peerage reports).

So I think the first time Elizabeth Halliburton appeared as a possible wife is in the footnote of the Complete Peerage, 1949. Pretty sure TCP puts a question mark on it, something like “probably a Halliburton of Dirleton.”

I haven’t read McEwan’s article and I’m not going to pay for it. :). However, I do see Elizabeth = Isabel all the time.

I guess what you’re second guessing McEwan’s interpretation. So one way to answer that is look for rebuttal of his work. What I saw from another genealogist is acceptance, and a written request for review by the (then) experts at ACI - the Munros.

And, I do not read the document the same way you do. I do not see that Elizabeth Haliburton making a payment on the behalf of Alexander means they were spouses. In documents I’ve seen, if they are spouses, it is specified.

Obviously, I could be wrong. So I hope you continue to investigate.

I don’t see Elizabeth, wife of Alexander MacDonald . styled as “countess Ross” anywhere? All I know so far is (younger) lady of the Isles in 1431. Happy to adjust styling as need be.

We are not disagreeing on technique. I don't mind which way you cut. My concern was not to lose the Seton's daughter, Elizabeth - if she existed. If you've created a profile for her, that works fine to accomplish that.
Put the link to the new profile for the Seton daughter in this Discussion, in case we need to find her easily if we come back here.

And also MP her to prevent inadvertent remerging into Alexander's wife until we decide there's proof.

That was done. Elizabeth Seton

It was a big pang to lose the Huntly Castle image so this way I didn’t have to.

I also sourced and locked this Seton / Gordon family from TSP.

https://www.geni.com/documents/view?doc_id=6000000185754905824

Balfour Paul’s wording is specific:

Elizabeth, said to be married to Alexander, Earl of Ross, who died in 1449.

So he’s asserting a daughter, but not a marriage.

I’m wondering - can we pick through the Latin here well enough to discern how Elizabeth was styled?

https://archive.org/details/highlandpapers01macp/page/93/mode/1up?q...

I don’t see a title used for her besides “uxor.” Christian MacLeod is called some names, though.

Great. I completely understand not wanting to lose a profile that a lot of work has been put into.

I'm going to try to think through your point here: I do not see that Elizabeth Haliburton making a payment on the behalf of Alexander means they were spouses.

1. Logically, it does not, necessarily; but, as is typical, of this era, the evidence we have is ambiguous, and the choice to make her his wife, given that we know his wife was called Elizabeth, far outweighs any real evidence we have (exactly none) that his wife was Elizabeth Seton.

2. The only way to even begin to balance this fact, is to find a circumstance in which it makes political sense for Alexander to have his paternal Aunt by marriage (Isobel Stewart/Leslie/ now Haliburton) sign a doc, as Countess of Ross, in 1420 on his behalf.
Now, given that he operated using his mother (Mary/Mariotta)'s Leslie connection as Countess of Ross to provide validity to his claim to be Earl of Ross at this time, he might just be switching to using his Aunt in Law’s title by marriage as a bolster to his Earl of Ross claim.
-But his mother's still alive as far as I can see.
- And we also know that the daughter of his Aunt in law, Lady Isabel Stewart (only the Ross Countess because of her marriage), Euphemia Leslie, was actually the one who was now considered to be the Countess of Ross because of her father (Mariotta/Mary’s brother)’s death; and further had been convinced to cede that title to her maternal Stewart Uncle, John (not her paternal Aunt Mariotta/Mary Leslie) by the time of the 1420 document.

So why would Alexander Macdonald be finding it politically expedient to ally with Euphemia (his rival’s) mother? And why would Isobel Stewart find it politically expedient to sign on Alexander's behalf, when her own brother, John Stewart, was now styling himself Earl of Ross?

That is the question that McEwan either answers using info we haven’t thought of yet; or, just sloppily doesn’t take into account.

This is the kicker: the signing on Alexander Macdonald's behalf

My impression of the McEwan article was that he didn’t explore any of these issues because it was an off the cuff example of how we cannot be sure we understand how Scots women styled themselves, or were styled by others. So the point made is that this document is not proof of Alexander’s marriage, just evidence of a particular (and unusual) name styling. I’m pretty sure the main points of his article were elsewhere. And my point in citing him (when I might have shrugged) is that I’m aware from soc.Gen.medieval how very well thought of he was.

She’s not listed as agent, she’s not listed as spouse. The argument is pinned on first name, title, and association. For documentary evidence, don’t you want to see “Elizabeth his wife?” I sure do. So you’re presenting a circumstantial argument: who else could she be? And - the only reason she’s in a document on his behalf is because she’s his wife. And you know this how?

Look at the document archived by the Vatican and the historian’s comments. By 1445 Elizabeth his wife was so estranged (living elsewhere?) a cleric felt compelled to involve the Vatican, gingerly. Is this a woman trusted with his money less than a year earlier?

She has no record, and she has two definite assertions of given name. That’s it, that’s all we got.

Which is why I wanted to understand what the payment was for. :)

Mariota Leslie, countess of Ross, died in 1429 according to her profile, which can’t be right, since she was (elder) lady of the Isles in 1431. Mariota Leslie, lady of the Isles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariota,_Countess_of_Ross has 1440. In any event, in 1445 Alexander had been Earl of Ross quite a few years and was secure on title … as long as he was in good with the King, which he was in 1445.

I think we can’t go by women’s titles unless it’s in their own right.

Oh, here we go Re countess of Ross title.

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Leslie-101

Title

Mary was the sister of Alexander Leslie, Earl of Ross. Alexander had a daughter Euphemia who was a minor when her father died. Euphemia, holding the important and strategic title to Ross, became an important ward. She became a ward of the Crown and her wardship was held by her grandfather, Robert Stewart, Duke of Albany, and Regent of Scotland. Although Robert Stewart made attempts to marry her these were unsuccessful and he persuaded her to relinquish the titles to the Crown and join the church. Robert Stewart then granted the titles to his son John. Mary's husband, Donald, died in 1423 and John Stewart died in 1424. After the death of John Stewart, Mary appealed the decision by the Regent, on the basis of the 1370 Charter, and won her case. At some point prior to her death, in 1440, she was acknowledged in the Earldom. She never called herself Countess, instead granting title to her son, Alexander, who was acknowledged as Earl of Ross in 1437.

——

So if she never called herself Countess, would her daughter in law have?

I never thought figuring out titles would be interesting. Well done.

Re: -But his mother's still alive as far as I can see.

Remember that the discharge by Elizabeth Halliburton is dated 10 December 1443, and Mariota Leslie, who never styled herself countess of Ross, was dead by 1440. So aside from former countesses, I think Elizabeth, wife of Alexander, would be the only person entitled to the title, as of 1437? However, in 1443 Elizabeth & Alexander may very have already been estranged, since he was petitioning to legitimize 3 children around then. (I’ll find that date.)

Do we know for sure what “addettit” means? A debt to?

Sorry - correction above to “a circumstance in which it makes political sense for Alexander to have his paternal Aunt by marriage (Isobel Stewart/Leslie/ now Haliburton) sign a doc, as Countess of Ross, in 1420 on his behalf.”
She’s his maternal Aunt.

Huge breaks in conversation here have to do with the fact that factions within the Souh African ANC government are trying to undermine it by disabling the electricty grid - so we’re spending hours and hours at a time without lights, or more crucially, :-) wifi. (Usually long breaks have to do with me being at work, but right now I’m on holiday and enjoying this as a distraction from the echoing loneliness without Tony here.)

Just read above -sorry - crossposting because lights just came on.
Crucially, I'd somehow thought the doc was 1420s not 1440s...: Sorry :-/
Rethinking :-)...

But PS on sidepoints here while I do some rethinking..
- Mariotta/Mary could NOT confer on her son the title of Earl Ross: she hadn't even been able to do that for her husband Donald - who was apparently called Comitous (sp?) which means 'husband of the Countess', not Count. (Also suggesting strongly that she did style herself Countess at some time, possibly when the two were acting as a 'power couple' in the area - although I don't know if that was only after her brother died in 1402, and also if 'comitous' is just an interpolation by chroniclers 200 years later.)
Alexander Macdonald, her son, is always a 'pretender' to this position, until the king acknowledges it. Euphemia Leslie, not Alexnder MacDonald or her own mother, appears to be the unquestioned legal inheritor when her own father, Alexander Leslie, dies in 1402.

Side side point - This is a very interesting study into the legitimising power of female biological heirs in Scotland and whether it might be a long shadow leftover from the notion of the "heiress of Scone" and Pictish matrilineal descent practices [that still holds some sway in Macbeth's time - when his legitimacy as a valid candidate to be king relies to some extent on being husband of the "heiress of Scone" and stepfather to her biological heir, son Lulach.]
Euphemia, Alexander Leslie's young daughter, has to be convinced to nullify herself as heir by entering a convent, before her mother (Isobel)'s brother, John Stewart, can try to style himself 'Count of Ross.'
And, it seems to me, that it is this ambiguity, that allows Alexander Macdonald (the biological heir of his mother if her neice, Euphemia is in a convent) to start to exert what the people of Ross appeared to consider a more legitimate claim to be the heir of Ross.

So, in the 1440s, who is Dame Elizabet Haliburton - signing as Countess of Ross on behalf of Alexander Macdonald, Earl of Ross (secured by the king?)

John Stewart, 3rd Earl of Buchan Isobel Stewart/ Leslie/ Haliburton's brother has been dead for 20 years. One presumes that this has resoled any ambiguities about the next biological heir to Earldom.

So, let's for argument's sake, assume the aging Dame Isobel (Stewart/Leslie/Haliburton) is performing some of the roles required by Alexander Macdonald...