William Wallace ( Braveheart)

Started by Private User on Friday, September 7, 2012
Problem with this page?

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Showing 1-30 of 94 posts
Private User
9/7/2012 at 6:59 AM

Researchers claim that William Wallace was never married and that his ''wife '' was added to his genealogy about 100 years after his death. It is said that they paid to have this written in the records.
Sir William Wallace of Elderslie, Kt.
Will find the articles on this

Private User
9/7/2012 at 8:36 AM

Hi Anne, Itoo have always wondered about written History, even as it is written at the time of the event...it's slanted one way or the other. Dealing with humanity on keeping account of facts is a real gamble, I believe that there will always be a variable chance for error.

Private User
9/7/2012 at 10:21 AM

Agree Paul, unless we have the actual birth,death or marriage record we never know for sure unless it is coming from another very reliable source.
In the case of William Wallace, it is said that William became a hero after his death and the family of Marion 100 years later wanted a bit of this fame and paid to have her name added , but even this is only talk and no proof of course

9/7/2012 at 10:44 AM

How interesting.

9/7/2012 at 11:17 AM

Historians are always trying to make new connections or disprove old connections. That gives them a reason to write a new article about the same old stuff.

It's always interesting, but we don't need to take it too seriously.

I don't know anything specific about William Wallace, but I would guess from the time and place he lived that there was very little written documentation about his family.

It's easy to imagine that right after his death, this relatives had an immediate and pressing interest in hiding from the English. Then, 100 years later, who cares anymore? They could safely come forward with their family tradition.

But, for a historian wanting to "make his bones" it's more interesting to speculate that the family made it up. That way, he or she gets to be a footnote, at the very least, in anything ever written about William Wallace's family.

9/7/2012 at 3:45 PM

Then, the conclusion would probably be that we will never know.

And I then think that his supposed wife should not be linked, but mentioned in his About me.

9/7/2012 at 4:31 PM

No, I think we need to understand the actual sources before we jump off that bridge.

100 years is not long in an oral culture. My great great grandfather died 100 years ago (1906). Before I was ever old enough to do genealogy, I could have told you the maiden name of his wife -- Annie Quarmby. Why? Because my grandmother knew her grandmother, and there was a family story about her.

Also, there's something suspicious about story that someone paid to have a name recorded in the records 100 years after the fact. Paid who? And why? It doesn't make sense in this period to pay for a pedigree, unless it involved title to lands. Our ancestors were a more practical people than we are ;)

Before we start cutting, I suggest we ask whether the payment was something along the lines of getting clear title to the Elderslie, perhaps in the face of an allegation of illegitimacy somewhere in the chain of title.

In genealogy, we don't throw out sources at the first hint of questions, and we certainly don't throw them out based on a rumor that someone we haven't yet identified suggested a problem we're not sure about and presented evidence we haven't yet seen.

Private User
3/23/2013 at 9:01 AM

cool I am also "related " but would like more information. I am related through his "daughters " child The Ball connection

5/29/2013 at 9:48 PM

someone has made changes to this lineage ???

it is correct as:

Sir William "Braveheart" Wallace, Kt.

Sir William "Braveheart" Wallace, Kt. is your 21st great grandfather.

William Wallace

Birth:
January 1272
Elderslie, Paisley Parish, Renfrewshire, Scotland
Death:
August 23, 1305 (33)
The Elms at Smithfield, London, Middlesex, England

Immediate Family:
Husband of Marion Cornellia Wallace (Braidfute) of Lamington
Father of Elizabeth Marion Wallace - Baillie

Curated by:
Ben M. Angel

Sir William "Braveheart" Wallace, Kt. is your 21st great grandfather.

Susan Lynne Schwenger
You

Lynda Mae Handy - Schwenger
your mother

james edward handy
her father

JAMES handy
his father

Marian Ruthven
his mother

ALEXANDER RUTHVEN
her father

ROBERT RUTHVEN
his father

JOHN RUTHVEN
his father

JOHN RUTHVEN
his father

John Ruthven
his father

George Ruthven
his father

William Ruthven
his father

William Ruthven
his father

Mary Gray
his mother

Marion Gray
her mother

Helen Ogilvy (Sinclair), Lady Ogilvy of Airlie
her mother

Margaret Sinclair
her mother

Adam Hepburn, Master of Hailes, Sheriff of Berwick
her father

Ellen Hepburn
his mother

Miss Wallace, heiress of Elderslie
her mother

Helen Wallace (Baillie) of Ederslie
her mother

William Baillie
her father

Elizabeth Marion Wallace - Baillie
his mother

Sir William "Braveheart" Wallace, Kt.
her father

but, that is NOT how it is NOW showing ???

Private User
6/2/2013 at 11:53 AM

@WilliamWallace ( Braveheart)

In response to concerns that Wallace was not married:

In those days, noblemen in Scottish clans married. Like other noble clan marriages at that time in history, marriages were kept secret because the English over-lord claimed a first right of bedding any new wife before the new husband, and so men wanted to protect their bride, and some kept their marriage secret as long as they could from the English.

After William Wallace was executed by the reigning crown, his name was disgraced, and no one could risk being associated with him for about 100 years. His children were at risk of execution too. The children of the last Welsh Prince of Wales went into hiding too for centuries.

It is extremely unlikely he was not married. Even gay-inclined men married, as marriage and inheritance was the key way in the feudal economic system for each generation to further establish claims to property and feudal authority.

Marriage was above all a property contract. (Even today marriage is a property contract.) In the feudal period property conferred wealth and power. Property was passed on the basis of birthright. Men of noble lineage or property married women with similar noble lineage or property in the feudal period.

Jobs were determined by what your father did, and men married women whose father was in a similar class and profession. Princes married princesses, and fishermen married fisherman's daughters. A match was rarely random, it with someone suitable for their inherited profession, and of the same religion, tribal or national loyalties.

Wallace was a nobleman and had a social obligation to identify suitable brides and limit falling in love with one who was suitable as a wife for his line of work. A nobleman's job was to act as a warrior of behalf of those to whom was shared a fealty obligation of protection.

A wife was an alliance and contract with society as a whole not just between two people. Wars could be fought over noble marriages that harmed the populace it affected.

In Wallace's day, the noblemen of Scottish clans were basically illegally booted out of their land rights by the English noble lines.

It would have been unseemly for a nobleman like Wallace to have no wife from a suitable Scottish family.

in that political era, there were some secret marriages, and after Wallace was executed, any descendant would have feared for their life to claim Wallace as an ancestor.

The Scottish clans were never reinstated, although gradually some married into English noble lines. In time, a great bulk of the dispossessed Scottish clans were pushed into emigrating to America. After the Battle of Culloden, the highland clans were murdered en masse and survivors fled to America. Later, the Highland Clearances saw the English set fire to thousands of Scottish clan homes at a time, leaving the dead and destitute.

The native Scotsman had very good reason to keep Wallace as an ancestor a secret. Wallace was once enemy number one of England, and the English would have suppressed any revitalization of the Scottish nationalistic claims of Wallace. In a feudal world where paternity was destiny, revealing the rebel Wallace as an ancestor would have been unwise.

6/2/2013 at 1:42 PM

Nancy

That was helpful and well stated information, thank you.

6/3/2013 at 7:25 PM

i'm having a hard time figuring out,
how the lineages were changed
and, people were just deleted ?
how can i discover who made those changes?

6/3/2013 at 7:48 PM

Susan - post a link that doesn't look correct to you. Look at the revisions. Walk your direct tree path - that "teaches" the relationship calculator to follow that particular path.

Recently my 5th gg started showing as a cousin & I freaked a little. Well - because of a merge / good new connection, he is "also" in the cousin position. So I had to show "the tree" that no, let's go with the more direct line, please - and promptly got him back.

6/3/2013 at 8:23 PM

http://trees.ancestry.ca/tree/22824843/family?cfpid=20234534246
also shows him as my 21st great grandfather

6/3/2013 at 9:15 PM

Susan - the link on Geni. :). There are 70 million profiles on Geni.:):)

And as I said - try walking it, step by step, examining for tree conflicts along the way. Each of us have different pathways to common ancestors, so there might be no conflict in my "tree walk" but one in yours.

6/4/2013 at 5:17 PM

a big error is here Unknown Profile
(looks like a bad merge)

sir william braveheart wallace - had 2 daughter
1) wallace wallace
2) elizabeth marion wallace baille - who married sir wm. baillee 1295 -1320
they had 1 daughter
(see above)

6/4/2013 at 5:59 PM

Bingo! I knew you could find it. Let me take a better look & report back.

6/5/2013 at 6:10 PM

I've done a lot of merging and cleanup on this line - it's been difficult without sourcing so took me a lot longer than I hoped.

For a guide I followed Jim Weber's Rootsweb database. It's not perfect but it's conservative. We really need to get better records though.

Now I have a parent conflict for my 19th great grandmother

Ellen Wallace, heiress of Elderslie

Private User entered this profile on Geni originally.

If I have it right, her records and Jim Weber's here:

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=GET&db=jwebe...

Indicate her mother as being Helen Baillie

And not

Unknown Profile

Do we have better evidence to support one over another?

Private User
6/8/2013 at 3:54 PM

Dear Erica:

When I state a name for a relative, I usually back it by the corresponding source as I did in what concerns Helen Baillie and that you can see in her Profile. I've been buying several books in Genealogy and studying everything that might be doubtful.
In this case, it might be quite possible that Helen is also named Elizabeth or this last one corresponds to a second name. As Kathleen B. Cory. FSA Scot, a wellknown British Genealogist says in her "Tracing your Scottish Ancestry", sometimes, they are known by several names, depending if they prefer to use the first, second one.

Best regards,

Sylvia Bain

Sylvia

6/8/2013 at 4:23 PM

Susan Lynne Schwenger and Dan Cornett

Sylvia's entry indicates different parents. I think the Helen / Elizabeth name discrepancy is not significant, as she comments - but parentage of course is.

Are there better sources to support the Elizabeth parent? Is it possible she belongs in a later generation?

6/10/2013 at 2:15 PM

Justin unfortunately those soc.Gen links in google groups don't work for me - it could be an iPad thing. I'm taken to the "search" screen instead of the exact thread you reference. Leo van de Pas' site doesn't list any daughters of William Baliol & Isobel Seton (I presume he's not saying they didn't have any - he just doesnt have info)

http://www.genealogics.org/getperson.php?personID=I00498967&tre...

6/10/2013 at 3:52 PM

Too bad on the SGM links. There's some good data there. On Leo's site, look up a generation and down a generation. He has the whole tree shifted from what we have on Geni.

6/10/2013 at 7:32 PM

I google into SGM archives frequently, I think it's the google group thing for iPad.

I'm having a bad eyesight day - maybe someone else following this discussion would like to examine and compare the 2 tree views Justin is pointing out?

6/10/2013 at 9:06 PM

When I look at http://www.genealogics.org/pedigree.php?personID=I00363076&tree... , I don't see any major difference with what is currently on Geni for the 1st 2 generations below "Braveheart". The main possible confusion could be that the person who is married to --
-- what we (on Geni) currently have as Elizabeth-daughter-of-Braveheart is known as "NN" (unknown) in that "LEO" site -- that husband is known as both the "1st Laird of Lamington" and the "2nd Laird of Hoprig" ... Geni's spouse of Elizabeth doesn't have those two titles quite so clearly.

Otherwise, I can match the names (with minor variations) on down at least the next 3 generations below that.

The biggest issue with the LEO site is that it seems to have nearly 100 years (1297 to 1390) between a grandmother (Seton) and grandson, which is fairly wide and no dates on some of the key spouses in that early 1300 time period. Geni has that same Seton (Isabella Seton) as 1330, not 1297.

So, I'm not finding that LEO helpful for the Ellen Wallace, heiress of Elderslie concern ... as I've looked so far...

6/10/2013 at 10:36 PM

Yes, nailing the timeline seems to be (one of) the issues.

How does this chart look?

http://wc.rootsweb.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi?op=DESC&db=jweb...

6/10/2013 at 10:38 PM

Compared to this view

http://www.genealogics.org/descend.php?personID=I00498965&tree=LEO

And then (for a 3rd screen)

The Geni view?

6/10/2013 at 10:39 PM

Look at the William Baillie who married N.N. Wallace. Geni has his father as an extra William Baillie. Genealogics has his father as Alexander. I think this is the source of some of the confusion.

I suspect if we looked at all the relevant primary evidence we'd see that there is some difference opinion about whether there was one William or two. And, my guess is that this is partly responsible for the differences in estimated dates.

One of the reasons I like the Genealogics website is that Leo is a scholar and an expert on many of these lines. He's been following and participating in the SGM discussions for some 15 years. He laboriously built his site from real data, not from Internet sources. In essence the Genealogics website is a distillation of the SGM discussions -- it shows what a conservative genealogist like Leo is willing to accept out of all the different theories and arguments. For me, he's one of those people that if I disagree, I feel that I need to spend a paragraph explaining why I think he's wrong.

Probably here Leo has accepted the more conservative view of the evidence, while Geni has gone with a looser interpretation (add an extra William) to make it all work better.

If it were up to me, I'd probably stick with the stricter view and footnote the dating problem, rather than add in extra generations without being able to cite and discuss the primary sources.

6/10/2013 at 10:54 PM

I could swear I saw something (more) primary quality on Isobel Seton. Grrrr.

6/10/2013 at 11:02 PM

Yes - found it - almost. Private User posted a reference:

http://etree10.archive.org/stream/inverurieearldog00davi#page/n7/mo...

Maybe someone having better eyesight can search inside - and not sure of Genealogic Quality of the source ....

Showing 1-30 of 94 posts

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion