Sir William "le Scot" de Balliol, of Cavers - RE New Source

Allan, it would be really nice if you would not start a new conversation every time you want to say something on this topic. :-)

William Baliol le Scot is the Kings Brother See newest Source i Posted that Supports everything in the Scott's of Scott's Hall Book
ill post a picture of it also

Allan, sad to say -- that book made a mistake that has been disproved by later genealogists.

Try this as a task: reading all the arguments "against" him being the King's brother.

Some of the discussions about the mistake made by that pedigree have already been posted in the profile overview, but let me pull out "just one" of the sites, so you can examine it in detail, including the credibility of the source.

http://archives.balliol.ox.ac.uk/History/founders.asp

The claim6 that "William Balliol le Scot", supposed progenitor of the family Scott of Scot's Hall, was a brother of John Balliol King of Scots (and therefore a son of the College's Founder) is quite untenable,7 as this William was brother to Alexander Balliol of Cavers, Chamberlain of Scotland, who was a distant cousin of King John Balliol.

Footnotes:

6. J.R. Scott, Memorials of the Family of Scott, of Scot's Hall, 1876, reprinted by the Iberian Publishing Co. 1992 and available from Willow Bend Books, Lovettsville, VA.

7. J.A.C. Vincent, The Genealogist, vi (1882), 1.

----

Bailiol College of Oxford is of course interested in posting the most accurate accounts of the Bailiol family possible.

https://www.balliol.ox.ac.uk/about-balliol

Founded in 1263, Balliol is one of Oxford’s oldest colleges; the oldest academic institution in the English-speaking world still on its original site; and almost certainly the oldest co-founded by a woman anywhere.

They also note:

The archives and manuscriptss of Balliol College are open by appointment to enquirers in person at the Historic Collections Centre in St Cross Church, Holywell.

Enquiries should be sent in writing (email or post) to the Archivist.

---

So you could contact the Archivist for further information as to why they publicly post that William le Scot is not the King's brother, I would think.

Here's another of the points made, and from a page you added to the profile.

This appeared in "Notes and Queries," Oxford University Press, 1871

WILLIAM BALIOL.
(4th S. vii. 302.)

John Baliol had no brother named WilKam. The competitor was the youngest son of Devorgillo, and his three elder brothers—Hugh, Alan, and Alexander—all died childless before he claimed the throne of Scotland. There is a pretty good pedigree of the Balliols in Robertson's Ayrshire Families, vol. i., and of their predecessors, the Do Morvillea, in vol. ii. A Sir William Balliol wa.< one of the seven Scots commissioners to France in 1303. (Hailes1 Annalt.) Whether he was tha person mentioned by J. R. S. as buried at CanterBury, or William Balliol (or Baillie) of Hoprig and Penston in East Lothian, it may be difficult to say. The latter personage, who is said to have married a daughter of the patriot Wallace, -was the ancestor of the Baillies of Lamington in Clydesdale, where they have flourished for five hundred years. He is conjectured by the continuator of Nisbet's Heraldry to have been the second son of Sir Alexander Balliol of Cavers, a collateral relative of the king of Scots. The same authority states that Sir Alexander of Cavers married Isabel, heiress of Richard de Chilham, and widow of David de Strabolgi, Earl of Athol. .....

-----

So what we know for sure is that William le Scot was the brother of Alexander of Cavers, and in fact acted as his clerk in Alexander's position as Chamberlain of Scotland.

------

Continuing ....

The Scottish Baillies have never been able to explain why their arms are so different from those ot the Balliols—the former being nine stars, the latter an orle—though complaisant genealogists have done their best to find a resemblance, or account for the discrepancy. ...

Three pedigrees of the Baliol family are given in The Patrician, edited by John Burke, 1847, iii. 174, 265, 425. In two of them Sir William Baliol le Scot is mentioned as the youngest brother of John, King of Scotland. It is also stated that "Sir William was buried at the White Friars Observant at Canterbury, mentioned by Philpot in Weever, and died about 1811." The authority adduced for making Sir William le Scot the younger brother of the King of Scotland is the Addit. MS. 5520, fol. 188, which purports to be "the true descent and lineage of the ancient and knightly family of Scot, descended from the noble family of Baliol, alias le Scot, of the kingdom of Scotland." Consult also Hasted's Kent, 1790, iii. 292, 293;

but his name does not appear in Dugdale's Baronage, or Douglas's Peerage. J. Y. Barnsbury.

"Scot's Hall, the ancient seat of the Scots, a family professing descent from William de Balliol, le Scot."— Main;;,':- Handbook of Kent, p. 133.

"Scott's Hall, whose founders, the Scotts, are thought to be descended from the Scottish kings."—Mackie's Hittorical Account of Folkestone and itt Neighbourhood, p. 195.

In a foot-note to Fuller's Worthies, reference is made to a ballad on the Scotts in Peck's Desiderata Ctiriosa and in The World.

Brabourne church, in Kent, contains memorials of the Scott family as early as 1433. R J. F.

-----

In other words, the claim was made that William le Scot was the brother of the King, and it does not hold up.

This article discusses the actual pedigree of James William Baillie, author of https://archive.org/details/livesofbailliesd00bail Lives of the Baillies

http://clio.lib.olemiss.edu/cdm/ref/collection/aah/id/30867

Erica regarding your previous Reply
" Allan, sad to say -- that book made a mistake that has been disproved by later genealogists.

Try this as a task: reading all the arguments "against" him being the King's brother."

And This One
"In other words, the claim was made that William le Scot was the brother of the King, and it does not hold up."
This Brings Us Back to To Sources for Richard Scott of Providence and why his Ancestry was never Written until i Tackled it because when he came to America he wanted to protect his own Privacy so sources where not accurate and everyone thought Richard did not Bring any Seals with him to America. Katherine Marbury was already well known at the Time with Sources showing her Marriage to Richard and here Complete Ancestry back to William The Conqueror.
Now i Stumbled accross Sources By Martin Bowen Scott Born in 1801 a couple of years ago and i started working on Richards Line see his Profille
or this Link for an example https://books.google.ca/books?id=2yq-WRwR-sYC&amp;pg=PA428&amp;dq=w...

And Now Think for a minute that it would have Made Sense That The Seals Richard would have brought with him To America in 1633/4 would have been Kept Private and Passed down his Descendants to Martin Bowen Scott in the form of some sort of Family Bible who's sources would have been hard to impossible to find before the internet existed unitil the Time his info was Digitized this all makes sense and shoots Down The Status Quo that many and your self have been Following , People need to Think for Themselves some Times.
Also if DNA Can Solve Crimes why do they do it for Ancestry to Break Brick Walls to make sense of a line to prove or Disprove missing records or a Status Quo that too many People Follow now when you Think about me mentioning my Wallace, Bailey YDNA Matches i even think i have Ball YDNA Matches, YDNA Follows father son Remember ect. ect. so there is a common ancestor in this 12th Century Maybe Before
Further Supporting the Paper Trail everyone wants to shoot down such as That Justin Guy and Your Self i have been working on my own ancestry since 2008 im not an ammature some times my spelling is bad but i even think about this stuff when im at work some times when im sleeping 6-8 hours a day .
Allan

Hi Allan,

I can see how hard you're working, I've been stretched to keep up with you, and follow along on your research!

John le Scot was showing on Geni on my 21st great grandfather, so naturally I wanted to try and validate that line, too, for my own genealogy. I am satisfied that he was not the King's brother. On the simplest level, I find it hard to believe there are "secret royals." History may have put the Baliol's on the losing side of the the crown sweepstakes, but it also means that siblings to those in such power "are" known.

I hope my respect for your efforts shows in the profiles? Pretty much all I've done is try to polish them up and make sure they are as clear as possible, that's in my scope as a curator (presentation). And disambiguation between similarly named people most of all.

My main area of focus is Colonial America, the Great Puritan Migration of some 25,000 from England to the Colonies, that seems to have abruptly ended about 1640. As you probably know, the "gold standard" of paper based research there is Anderson's Great Migration Project. So if you like I'll go over to Richard Scott of Providence and see what's going on with the Geni presentation. I've had to sort out some mistakes before in the Scott lines.

When we work with medieval profiles, I've learned a few things, I'm sure you've learned the same things.

- we don't have a "way back machine" to clarify :)
- we all may descend through multiple avenues ("pedigree collapse")
- records can be ambiguous
- pedigrees have been faked, embellished and tricked up at various key points, so there are warning signs to learn

What have you learned about embellished pedigrees?

For instance, I have heard family stories that my Ross line descends from Betsey Ross (the flag maker). Only problem: Ross was a married name for her, so there cannot have been a blood connection.

Welcome to the confusing world of genealogical research, Allan. Modern DNA studies can compound the confusion unless you really understand what you are looking at. Just belonging to the same haplogroup does not necessarily mean a direct relationship - even a dead-on match may not mean that, if the paper trail says otherwise.

Take me, or more accurately my brother, for example. He's a close Y-DNA match to (descendants of) Georg Helm, who lived in Winchester, VA circa 1740s-1760s. But Georg's descendants moved away south and west, and our earliest identified ancestor pops up in Baltimore County, Maryland some decades later. So what I think the situation is, is that Daniel Helm(s) Sr. of Baltimore County was a male-line cousin of Georg Helm, and hopped right off the boat from the old country and started farming. Further proof is unlikely without a field trip to the Beerfelden area of Germany - which is financially out of the question. So there it rests.

Sometimes the paper trail goes cold, and you *just don't know* how you get back to Charlemagne (or Genghis Khan, or Somerled of the Isles, or Niall of the Nine Hostages, or....) In Victorian and earlier times, people who found themselves in that frustrating situation would make stuff up (or grab for anything that looked like it *might* be even a semi-plausible match) - which is the very worst thing you can do, because then later researchers have to scrape off all the bushwah before they can attempt to ascertain the facts.

If I recall correctly, R-M222 is the one that used to be attributed to "Niall of the Nine Hostages", until more detailed research indicated that he and his male-line collaterals were members of it and it originated well before his time.

It's a very, very large subclade, and unless you have a *precise* match to someone of *proven* Balliol descent, it only proves that yeah, you're a Northwest Celt.