Aethelred / Aedh, 1st Earl of Fife - Not the Earl of Fife?

It is possibly interesting that Causantin's succesor: Gille Míchéil, Earl of Fife, had a son called Aed; however, this son was not the Earl Of Fife, but likely leader of Clann Duib, and definitely lay abbot of the monastery of Abernethy.

Gille Míchéil, Earl of Fife: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gille_M%C3%ADch%C3%A9il,_Earl_of_Fife
Mormaer Gille Míchéil, (d bef Jul 1136) is the second man we know for certain to have been Mormaer of Fife from 1130 to 1133, although it is unlikely he actually was the second. He had at least one son, called Aed (=Hugo). Aed would have succeeded Donnchad I under a Celtic system, but as feudal rules of primogeniture came into force during the reign of Donnchad I, it was Donnchad's son, and not Gille Míchéil's, who became the next mormaer. Aed, though, probably succeeded to the leadership of Clann Duib, at least during Donnchad I's minority, and certainly became lay abbot of the monastery of Abernethy, an office which his own son, Orm, later inherited.

We are also not sure that Gille Míchéil was Causantin's son - he may have been a younger brother or other close relative. Some historians assume that Donnchadh of Fife was Causantin's son, and some that he was Gille Míchéil's older son (with Aed thus inheriting the headship of the clan as "consolation").

Full text of the "Ethelred Charter" as printed in Lawrie, "Early Scottish Charters", pp. 11-12:

EDELRADUS vir venerandae memoriae, filius Malcolmi Regis
Scotiae, Abbas de Dunkeldense et insuper Comes de Fyf
contulit Deo Omnipotenti et Sancto Servano et keledeis
de insula Louchleuen cum summa reverentia et honore et
omni libertate et sine exactione et petitione cujusquam
in mundo, episcopi vel regis vel comitis, Admore cum
suis rectis terminis et divisis. Et quia ilia possessio
fuit illi tradita a parentibus suis cum esset in juvenili
aetate idcirco cum majori affectione et amore illam
obtulit Deo et Sancto Servano et praefatis viris Deo
servientibus et ibidem servituris. Et istam collationem
et donationem primo factam confirmaverunt duo fratres
Hedelradi, scilicet David et Alexander, in praesentia
multorum virorum fidedignorum, scilicet Constantini
comitis de fyf viri discretissimi et Nesse et Cormac
filii Macbeath et Malnethte filii Beollani sacerdotum de
Abyrnethyn et Mallebride alterius sacerdotis et Thuadhel
et Augustini sacerdotis keledeorum, Berbeadh rectoris
scolarum de Abyrnethyn et coram cetibus totius universi-
tatis tune de Abyrnethyn ibidem degentibus et coram
Deo Omnipotenti et Omnibus Sanctis. Et ibi data est
plenarie et universaliter ab omnibus sacerdotibus clericis
et laicis, maledictio Dei Omnipotentis et Beatae Mariae
Virginis et Omnium Sanctorum ut Dominus Deus daret
eum in exterminium et perditionem et in omnes illos
quicunque irritarent et revocarent et deminuerent elemosi-
nam de Admore. Omni populo respondente fiat. Amen.

English translation:
Ethelred, son of King Malcolm III, abbot of Dunkeld [and?] earl of Fife, for St Serf and céli Dé of Island of Loch Leven (St Serfs Island, KNR)...has conferred Auchmuir (FIF).... Because that possession was given to him by his parents when he was young, he has offered it with greater affection and love to God, St Serf and the men serving God there. When that donation was first made, the two brothers of Ethelred, David and Alexander, established it in presence of many worthy men, [named].
[Witnesses:]
Augustine, priest of céli Dé of Loch Leven;
Berbeadh, rector of the schools of Abernethy;
Burgh of Abernethy;
Constantine, earl of Fife (d.1128×36);
Cormac, son of Macbeth, priest of Abernethy;
Mael Brigte, priest;
Mael Snechta, son of Beollan, priest of Abernethy;
Ness (fl.1093×1107);
Tuathal (FIF)

The charter is dated to between 13 November 1093 (death of Malcolm III) and 8 January 1107 (death of King Edgar), and one could probably shave a few years off the far end (no later than 1105, see royaldunfermline.com).

The "et insuper" in the header is a sticking point. It is found in only one other published charter, and then refers to additional(?) lands, not a title.

Bannerman thinks it means this was a joint gift of Ethelred (as Prince-Abbot) and Constantine (as mormaer).

Lawrie, in the source publication, annotates with the comment that he thinks "et insuper" was intended to mean "and formerly". That is, Ethelred *was* the mormaer of Fife at some earlier point, but as of the date of the charter Constantine is the current holder of the title.

Per Lawrie, Ethelred's probable reason for divesting himself of the title (and of this place that had given him so much pleasure) was that he was taking/had taken serious religious vows. This would not be all that surprising in a son of Saint Margaret. (As Queen she had pushed inexorably for a "Romanization" of the Scottish Church, including clerical celibacy, divestiture of secular titles, etc., and for the most part had gotten her way.)

If that squares this circle, the only remaining question is how and why Ethelred became mormaer of Fife in the first place. Was it because Constantine's father died when he was an infant or child and there was no other suitable holder? Would Ethelred have been expected to give the title back once Constantine came of age? (Presumably he *was* of age by the time of the above charter - if only just.)

Arguably the most intriguing name on the witness list is "Cormac, son of Macbeth, priest of Abernethy"! Does this refer to a forcibly encloistered son of *the* Macbeth? (Clapping rivals in cloisters as a means of removing them was practiced in several countries at this time. It was almost as effective as killing them,and could be construed as "mercy", particularly when the rival was very young.)

Source for translation and list of witnesses: http://db.poms.ac.uk/record/source/1443/#

PoMS (People/Paradox of Medieval Scotland) includes a useful and informative database but not everything it says can be taken for granted. For instance they interpret "earl Beth" as Bethoc(!), never mind that that's a *woman's* name (Macbeth's aunt's name, in fact).

From: Justin Durand posted here: http://www.geni.com/discussions/151543?msg=1056535&page=3

I must be missing something here. I'm not quite as taken with Bannerman's theory as the rest of you seem to be.

To recapitulate: "He argues that the translator had been thrown off by the use of a singular Gaelic verb for a joint grant (i.e. where the verb had two subjects), common in Gaelic charters. As a result, the translator omitted the mormaer, Causantín. At any rate, it is clear that Ethelred was never a mormaer of Fife, since Causantín is attested in other sources."

Worded another way, the argument is that Aedh cannot have been "also Mormaer of Fife" as the heading claims, since Constantine the Mormaer of Fife was one of the witnesses to the same charter.

I read this as a good catch by a competent modern historian, but I think the implications have been overblown. The fact that he was not Mormaer in 1107 tells us nothing about his relationship with Fife except that he was not Mormaer in 1095, particularly in the face of Learney's statement that Constantine was himself Mormaer probably by marriage to a daughter or cousin of Aedh / Aethelred.

I can easily grant that the hallowed tradition being dismantled here might have been nothing more than a few generations of people following Fordun, but I think we're dismantling a bit too aggressively and doing it based on questionable assumptions.

I think what I need to do is take some time to type in the info contained in C. Thomas Cairney's very scholarly, Clans and Families of Ireland and Scotland: An ethnography of the Gael (1989). In my opinion, this is the best modern overview.
Page 111: "The Clan MacDuff descends from Gillemichael mac Duff, Earl of Fife in about 1133. But the significance of the name Duff (Dubh) goes back to the line of Duff, King of Albany in 967, whose descendants' patrimony was in Fife (the "kingdom" of Fife). His line, the Clan Duff, was collateral with the line of King Duff's brother, King Kenneth II, and the two lines alternated the High-Kingship of Albany until 1034, as both lines had their ultimate origin in sons of King Malcolm I of the line of the Cineal Gabhran who had inherited the Picto-Gaelic crown (hence their traditional descent, in the female line, from Conall Cearnach, traditional ancestor of the Cruithne).

"Both of these lines ended in heiresses about the year 1034: The Line of Kenneth II ending in Bethoc, who married Crinan, hereditary Abbot of Dunkeld, of the Kindred of St. Columba, mentioned above; and the Line of Duff ending in Gruoch, who married Gillacomgan, Mormaer (King) of Moray, of the line of the Cineal Loarn. Their son, Lulach, was thus Chief of Clan Duff (in those presurname times of Picto-Gaelic succession) and King of Moray, and was as well a rival King of Albany. His daughter and heiress, the Princess of Moray and heiress of Clann Duff appears to have "married" Eth (Aedh, later Aodh, Gaelic form of Aethelred), Last Abbot of Dunkeld, who himself was the eldest of the four royal sons of Malcolm III (whose father was Duncan I, mentioned above, heir of the Royal line collateral to the Clan Duff) by his second wife, St. Margaret, a daughter of the Saxon King of England (Duncan II, son of Malcolm III by an earlier marriage, was the ancestor of the famous "MacWilliam" claimants."
Eth seems to have been debarred from the throne, which could have been because of a blemish (a taboo) or perhaps because he was already an Abbot. [page 112] He was nonetheless the first earl of Fife, probably in right of his wife. His sons included Angus, King of Moray (killed 1130), and also Duff, Malcolm and Gillecoimded. These sons had a number of important inheritances to consider. There was the Kingship of Moray, and also the chiefship of the Clann Duff, and in the male-line, also the senior descent of, or position of precedence within, the royal Kindred of St. Columba in Scotland. The descendants of Duff (who predeceased his father Eth) took the latter two, as the senior line, while the descendants of Malcolm and Gillecomded "MacEth" threw in their lot with the Moray-men, whose Gaelic laws would prefer the succession of the living brothers of their king, Angus, over his living nephews, the descendants of Duff. On the death of Eth (Aedh), the Moray-men rose under King Angus and his brother Malcolm MacEth (Mac Aedh) in an attempt to put Angus on the throne of the Scots (as a son of the Abbot-Earl Eth, and as representative of the dispossessed Clan Duff). This was a reaction in part to the Normanizing influence at the Scottish court of David I, and in fact they were defeated and Angus killed by David's Norman mercenaries. Malcolm (called "Jarl" or ruler of Moray by the Norwegians) married a daughter of Somerled of the Isles, and carried on the struggle until one of his sons, Donald MacAedh, was captured by the forces of King Malcolm IV in 1156."
Continuing on page 112:
"At this point Malcolm became nominally reconciled with the King of Scots, and was made Earl of Ross, a post he held until his death in 1168. His grandson, Kenneth MacAedh, made a final attempt at the crown of the Scots in 1215, but was defeated and beheaded by the ancestor of the Ross clan, who subsequently became Earl of Ross (see Chapter IV). During these struggles, in about 1163, King Malcolm IV attempted to deprive Malcolm MacAedh of the earldom of Ross in order to give it to his own foreign brother-in-law, the Count of Holland (many knightly Flemings had already settled in Moray). Accordingly, the King transported many of the Moraymen extramontanas Scociae, that is, beyond the mountains of Scotland into Caithness, which was still under Norse control (Moncrieffe 145). The Jarl of Orkney and Caithness at the time was Harold, son-in-law of Earl Malcolm MacAedh.
"It is in the extreme northwest of Scotland, in the district of Strathnaver in western Caithness, that the later MacAedh chiefs appear in the early 13th century, and here the MacAedh chiefs gave rise to a very important clan, later known as the Clann Aodha or MacKays (Mac Aodha, earlier Mac Aedh), whose chiefs held Strathnaver for many centuries. They were also known as the Clan Morgan, Morgan having been a favorite name in the royal house of Moray. They adopted their current arms in the seventeenth century to reflect their traditional kinship with the Forbes clan, but their original arms were blue stars on silver, with a hand in chief, that is, the Royal arms and colors of the Kingdom of Moray, surmounted by a hand symbolizing "true family." They also share the "butcher's broom" plant badge (a symbol of tribalism) with their successors in the Kingdom of Moray, the Murrays and [page 113] Sutherlands. A branch went early to Ireland as gallowglasses (see under O'Crowley), the name being Anglicized there as MacCoy."

Continuing on page 113:
Duff mac Eth himself had two sons, Constantine MacDuff, second Earl of Fife, and Gillemichael MacDuff, third Earl of Fife (ca.1133). From Gillemichael are descended the later earls of Fife (which earldom they held "by the Grace of God," allodially, and not by feudal charter from the King of Scots), allies of the kings of Scots of the line of David I. As descendants of Eth, first Earl of Fife, they bear as a coat of arms the Royal Arms of the Kings of Scots undifferenced, that is, with the "Royal Tressure" (double flory counterflory) that marks the arms of the line of King David I, younger brother of Eth. This marks the heraldic seniority of their line to that of the kings of Scots themselves, as per Norman practice.
"These earls were the chiefs of Clan MacDuff, a clan-name combining the sense of "Clan Duff" and "Clan (Gillemichael) MacDuff." As the "senior" kindred and also as the heirs of the Sacred Family of Dunkeld, these earls held the most honored position of precedence in Scotland, an almost sacred position born of their lineage. The County of Fife is still referred to as the Kingdom of Fife, and the Earl's Kindred were legally accountable under a special code of ancient Scots law known as "the Law of Clan MacDuff," which meant that they could literally "get away with murder" (for a fee, and if they could first make it to the sanctuary cross of MacDuff near Abernethy in Strathearn). The earls of Fife held rich lands in the Lowlands of Fife, Stirlingshire, East Lothian and Midlothian, and these Lowland tracts were the chief seat of their power, which was centered in Fife. Nonetheless they also held wide lands in the Highlands of Perthshire, Banffshire, Inverness-shire and Moray."

Private User then said:
the site which is *actually studying the Dunfermline of Malcolm III's time and after* (http://www.royaldunfermline.com/) cites a death-and-burial date for Ethelred of Dunkeld of 1098 http://www.royaldunfermline.com/Resources/royal_sepulchre.pdf or at latest 1105 (somewhat bombastic research paper: http://www.royaldunfermline.com/Resources/royal_tombs.pdf).
Since they are *in* Dunfermline and have ready access to the tombs and all, you'd think they'd have some inside information.

Now add that "Constantinus comes" was still witnessing charters as late as 1128. http://fmg.ac/Projects/MedLands/SCOTTISH%20NOBILITY.htm#_Toc359671980

Now add that *NO* charter signed or witnessed by Aed/Heth/Beth/Head *ever* mentions *any* relationship to the Royal family whatsoever.

Private User:
Justin: do we have any "hard" evidence (charters, *anything*?) for the existence of this "Duff macEth" besides the "need" to "explain" a LATE derivation for "Clan MacDuff"? (Notice that Cairney is trying to have his cake and eat it too: the Clan MacDuff "descends from Gillemichael mac Duff", but "the significance of the name Duff (Dubh) goes back to the line of Duff, King of Albany in 967, whose descendants' patrimony was in Fife (the "kingdom" of Fife)".

That's called trying to square the circle, or reconcile two conflicting traditions. And considering that a "Constantinus" explicitly witnessed a charter as "Comes de Fyf" in the 1090s....

Justin Durand: I enjoy demolishing old myths. It's a big part of what I do. The trick is to know when you've driven a stake through the heart and when you've merely drawn blood.
What I see here is a mishmash of "counter evidence" that's worse than the original, accompanied by a good deal of sleight of hand and misdirection.

Private User: If "RoyalDunfermline" is correct (and presumably they have the records), then Ethelred of Dunkeld died either before or shortly after the year 1100 - and *cannot* be the same person as the Aed/Heth/Beth/Head who was witnessing charters until c. 1130.
I think that's the strongest argument against their being the same person. :-)

Justin Durand:Maven, I agree. If there is good evidence to support a death date of 1098 or 1105, then that particular piece of the story would have to be reconsidered.

However, this date is one of the sleights of hand I'm complaining about. It's a very common mistake in medieval genealogy to create a circular argument in this form -- he must have died before XXXX because he disappears from the records after that date, so he can't be the same person as this other guy who appears in the records a few years later.

Absent an actual source, my first thought is that the date has been extrapolated. Perhaps they got it from that "somewhat bombastic research paper". It's meaningless unless we can see the basis.

Private User
Actually, the "bombastic research paper" is the outlier with a late date of 1105. Most of their other materials agree on 1098, though they don't explain how they arrived at it.

Findagrave.com mashes Ethelred up with his older brother Edward and ASS-umes that he was killed at Alnwick along with his father and older brother (BAD ASS-umption, as he certainly survived at least long enough to assist with conveying his mother's body to Dunfermline and seeing it interred there).

Ethelred is the least-known of the six sons of Malcolm and Margaret, and he is all too easily confused with the three of his brothers whose names also started with "Ed-" (Edward, Edmund and Edgar), not to mention relatives (and non-relatives) whose names start with "Aed(h)".

Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, Volume 26, pp. 104-113, has an article on Ethelred, and among the more useful conclusions are 1) that he was the *third* son of Malcolm and Margaret (other guesses ranged from second to sixth) and 2) that he was at his mother's bedside as she was dying.

This poses the question of why, if he was older than Edgar (who supposedly was the messenger who brought the news of the disaster at Alnwick), was he not with his father's army?

Did he have some disability that excluded him not only from the succession but from martial activity?

Was he as religious-minded as his mother and intending to enter the Church (if he had not already done so)?

Was he Margaret's favorite son and did she specifically request his presence as a comfort in her last illness?

Was it some combination of these factors?

Link: https://books.google.com/books?id=-x8nAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA111&amp......

[If Ethelred was Mormaer of Fife before Constantine then]= the question is how or why Ethelred became mormaer of Fife in the first place. Was it because Constantine's father died when he was an infant or child and there was no other suitable holder? Would Ethelred have been expected to give the title back once Constantine came of age?=

* Ethelred, Lay Abbot of Dunkeld and Constantine, Earl of Fife
are of an age.

=The fact that he was not Mormaer in 1107 tells us nothing about his relationship with Fife except that he was not Mormaer in 1095, particularly in the face of Learney's statement that Constantine was himself Mormaer probably by marriage to a daughter or cousin of Aedh / Aethelred.=

*There isn't a lot of time for him to have been Mormaer before 1095 - when he would have been barely twenty.

* What is the reason for Learney's statement that Constantine must have been Mormaer by marriage to a female relative of Ethelred? There seems to be plenty of evidence that the MacDuff mormaers were not necessarily direct kin of the king.

Jaqueli, your notes are saying Ethelred was Abbott of Dunkeld. I think we agree on that.

=the Princess of Moray and heiress of Clann Duff appears to have "married" Eth (Aedh, later Aodh, Gaelic form of Aethelred), Last Abbot of Dunkeld, who himself was the eldest of the four royal sons of Malcolm III=

*What is the evidence for this leap?
No documentation shows a marriage or children (legit or llegit) for Ethelred, let alone one with the opposition faction in Moray!
If the validification lies simply in the existence of a person called Aed signing charters - that doesn't seem a good enough reason. Aed is not the Gaelic translation of Aethelred at all. Scots king Aed reigned in 877, long before Margaret named her son.
Further Aed disappears c 1130 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mormaer_Beth) while the dates quoted here for Ethelred's death appear to only be as late as 1100 (Although I can't really see what that is based on. Church assumptions about these things are not the most disinterested of sources. It's not like there's been carbon dating of the corpses.) Cawley assumes before 1107, but doesn't provide reasons for that.

What reason to presume he's the eldest son, when the only documentation we seem to have - Roger of Hoveden & John of Fordun - place him firmly as Margaret's third son.

=On the death of Eth (Aedh), the Moray-men rose under King Angus and his brother Malcolm MacEth (Mac Aedh) in an attempt to put Angus on the throne of the Scots (as a son of the Abbot-Earl Eth, and as representative of the dispossessed Clan Duff)=

*We seem to have nothing except circular reasoning to validate this. What documents suggest that Ethelred even had a child - let alone one with a Moray heiress?

So, we have documentation to prove that Ethelred was Abbot of Dunkeld & that Constantine was Mormaer of Fife at roughly the same time.
But do we have more than one ambiguous document that says Ethelred is Mormaer of Fife?

All the conjecture about a marriage to a Moray heiress does not prove that Ethelred is Mormaer of Fife. The Moraymen and their line were not Thanes of Fife, but of Moray & Ross. If the Duff heir had claims to be Thane of Fife, why doesn't Lulach lay claim to it? Perhaps because there were other MacDuffs actually living in Fife who had the position?

I just wrote a very nice reply to some of this, then lost it. Oh well. Will circle back later and try again.

Jaqueli, I have heard your dislike of Wikipedia. It is noted and you need not keep repeating it. I do not feel the same, as it points to the original sources, & is thus a quick reference from a source that is open to continuous challenge by other experts - so usually less partisan than other internet sites.

We are using original sources where they affect the argument.

The wikipedia references are for simply for info so that you can follow up & challenge me instead of just having to take my word for it.

Damn, Justin. I've had that happen to me. It's enough to make you pull your hair out :-)

Jaqueli, please repeat your point about the traditional spelling of Aethelred. I don't see it.

Jaqueli =Annals of Ulster is not ambiguous= Ambiguous about what?

=Sorry Sharon, in reply to: do we have more than one ambiguous document that says Ethelred is Mormaer of Fife?=
*Jacqueli are you saying you've found a reference in the Annals of Ulster that says Ethelred is Mormaer of Fife?
That would be so useful: please post it.

There is no "traditional" spelling of Ethelred prior to Ethelred of Dunkeld. The name IS NOT GAELIC and WAS NOT USED in Scotland until Margaret named her third(?) son after her great-grandfather Ethelred "Unraedig".

It was used hardly at all after him, either. Even "Edgar", which wasn't all that popular, shows up more often. The People of Medieval Scotland database has *one* other Ethelred/Ailred, and if I remember correctly he was an immigrant from Yorkshire.

In some cases Wikipedia is *more* accurate, in others less. It needs to be used with discretion. (Chasing down the sources they give is usually a good way to go - but they have a persistent problem with broken links.)

"Cod" genealogies from the late 19th and early 20th century are IMHO *the worst* things to use - they tend to be "vanity" publications to puff up the reputation of a particular family, and unless the writer was *very very very* careful (and most weren't), they pile error on misstatement on misinterpretation on bad assumption. That's when they're just *incompetent* and not dishonest - as some *were*.

Oh, and what I *mostly* use Wikipedia for is to give a quick & dirty "About" to explain who this person was and why they matter. It's better than nothing.

"Errors and inconsistencies" are *inevitable* in 1000 years of history - because people are fallible. Sometimes the most that can be achieved is a "general consensus" using the "best available information" (and every so often somebody comes along with new information that upends the apple-cart.

Trying to recover some of threads of thought I lost in that earlier message. I was responding specifically to some of Sharon's questions, but the thread has since evolved in a way that makes that not quite so pertinent at the moment.

I also wanted to be clear that I have a strong interest in this subject and some background in it, but it will be almost impossible for me to find the time to participate fully. At work we are ramping up for our annual music awards. That's something that will keep my attention focused elsewhere, probably until February.

With that in mind, I'll give some of my thoughts.

Medieval Scottish genealogy is a different beast than medieval English genealogy, but in many ways similar enough that it's worth noting some of the differences at the outset.

The main reason for all these differences is that in Scotland ancient tribes decayed and were replaced in early historic times with clans. We might have seen the same thing in England if it had not been for the Romans, Anglo-Saxons and Normans.

There is a reason that some people joke (not very kindly) that the Lowland Scots are backwoods English and the Highland Scots are backwoods Irish. Each was in a different sphere of influence. In the Lowlands, the Scottish court was heavily influenced by England. In the Highlands, the native culture resisted assimilation by England and looked instead to Irish models.

In England we expect to see medieval genealogy centered around a relatively few great families whose inheritances of lands and titles are largely documented in contemporary records. But in Scotland medieval genealogy centers around clans (a subtle but important difference) and the idea of contemporary records is almost laughable.

In England almost all genealogy begins at a definite point -- the Conquest. In Scotland quite a bit of genealogy involves traditions and questions that go back as far as recorded history.

In England we have primogeniture as the guiding light for interpreting inheritance, but in Scotland succession (in the times and areas before feudalization) was by tanistry confirmed by election.

In England we have relatively small families that sometimes have several branches. In Scotland we have huge sprawling clans that have so many subdivisions and cross overs they're nearly impossible to track.And more so because political considerations could influence clan identity.

in England we have a relatively centralized government from the time of the Conquest, but in Scotland we have a weak government in the Lowlands that had almost no power in the Highlands and Isles. The government becomes increasingly centralized but its power was much weaker than the government in England at similar times. (Some people I know like to argue that the conquest of the Highlands wasn't truly complete until 1745.)

The list goes on, but I think these are enough to give the general idea.

I,m also wondering about irish roots now that justin opened the topic. Mccann or mccanna i think is a armargh sept.

One thing that seems to be getting lost in this particular discussion is that we are looking at a nearly coherent tradition, and deciding whether to dismantle it. That is a fundamentally different project than trying to build a genealogy from the surviving records.

In medieval English genealogy we can count on the support of contemporary or near-contemporary written records. When they fail us, we can extrapolate from fairly firm surname and inheritance patterns.

But in medieval Scotland the problem is quite different. The contemporary records extend only as far as the relevant families were paying attention to the central government. The bulk of relevant records are oral traditions, recorded in most cases by clan historians and household priests from about the 16th century on. There are probably hundreds of these little histories, many still in private hands and many almost inaccessible to the Internet genealogist except occasionally through individual clan websites (where they compete for attention among many more modern summaries). The surviving histories often draw on earlier histories of the same type that have since been lost.in the many clan wars.

With medieval Scottish genealogy you can't get just start from scratch and go where the surviving records lead. Instead, you have to collate these surviving histories for consistency and plausibility, supplementing them with the meager written records when possible.

This is why the accounts written by men like Moncrieffe and Learney are so valuable. They had access to more of these histories (not "records") than any of us will ever have. And this is why I'm particularly fond of Cairney. He takes time to put each of the families into the broader context of tribes fragmenting into clans and the different feuds into the larger context of ongoing dynastic rivalries.