2 46 PROCEEDING , SOCIETYE 189012 TH Y .F O SMA ,

II.

NOTES ON THE MALE REPRESENTATION OF THE MGRAYS OF BOTH WELL, DUFFUS, &o. BY JOSEPH BAIN, F.S.A. SOOT.

This surnam takes ewa n fro province mth Morayf eo , wher Fleminea g named Freskin settled in the reign of David I. (1123-52) at Duffus near Elgin, obtaining also lands in Linlithgowshire called Strathbrock. His immediate descendants styled themselves "De Moravia," and were long great landowner e district th name n i sTh e. Freski perpetus nwa - ated in this family for some generations, and is found also in that branch of the Douglases which settled in Linlithgow, from which, and similarity of armorial bearings, some have inferred their common origin. thirteent e Bclose th y th f eo h century Freskin's descendants were widely spread over Scotland, there being twelve Morays who did homage to Edwar f who1296n o i . x dI m si , wer f knightlo ee th f yo e rankOn . most important of the surname at that time was Sir "William de Moravia " dominus de Bothwell," from the extent of his possessions, in one place called "le riche." Besides this great barony, to which many detached estate Koxburgn i s elsewherd han e were annexed, whic d comhha e into the family, it is believed, by the marriage of his father, Walter de Moravia heirese Olifardse th th f o t o ,r sWillia Si , m owne lande dth f so Petty e origina th para , f o t l Morayshire possession f Freskino s , which ha thiy db s time been subdivided co-heiresseo tw e th s a ,f Freski so e nd Moravia of Duffus, a collateral branch, had carried that possession into the families of Chen and Federeth about this period (1290). These Chens and Federeths also owned part of Strathbrock so late as 1335, which most probably came with these co-heiresses. Fro deede mth s printe e Chartularyth n di of Moray, t i appear1 s that Freski thred nha e sons—Hugh, William Andrewd an , . e Hugth s i h undoubted ancestor of the Earls of Sutherland. In a grant by him of Scelbol (Skibo) to Gilbert, archdeacon of Moray, his two brothers Willia Andrewd man , simply styled " fratres ejus, witnessese "ar e Th . 1 Bann. Club, 1837. MALE REPRESENTATIO E MORAYTH F F BOTHWELLO NO S 3 46 .

late Mr Cosmo Innes, editor of this Chartulary, placed Hugh as eldest brothe e chie th d hea f an r o d e brancMoravith f o h a familyr M . Kiddellx controverted this, basing his argument on the fact that William succeeded Freskin in Strathbrock, Duffus, and his other lands in Moray, none of which devolved on Hugh; whence he inferred that William was the eldest brother. These two learned gentlemen disputed some other points in the Moray representation, which can now be settled throug bettee hth r knowledg possesse ew . e senioritdifficulte th th o t t f s HugBu yo a y d Williahan m remains, for it has not yet been shown whether Sutherland was acquired by fathere th y Hughn b ,mos e Freskiso f thenI th s .t s hi a ,extensivr no e domain, the eldest son would naturally succeed to it; if the son ac- quired it after his father's death by " conquest " (to use a Scottish law term), the e presumptionth s ratheni favoun i r f Williamo r successos a , r originae th n i l grantfathers hi o st , beinSutherlane eldestth e gs th A . d family has long failed in the main line, the point is now immaterial. On the only occasion, however, on which I have seen the Sutherland and Bothwell arms together,2 the former exhibits the three mullets plain, the latter shows them surrounded by a bordure charged with eight roundels. I have never seen the Bothwell arms with the tressure except on a stone in the east window of Bothwell choir, where they are impaled with another shield, also bearing three mullets t withoubu , e th t tressure. Who this last shield commemorates is unknown, unless it is that of Sir Thomas Moray, last lord of Bothwell, and his wife, whoso surname is unknown.8 This same bordure of roundels (in this instance, eleven in number) occurs on the detached seal of Sir Andrew Moray, grandfather of Sir Thomas, probably once appended to his homage to Edward I. in 1296.4

1 Stewartiana, 1843, pp. 86-88. 2 Viz., attached to the ratification by the magnates of Scotland of the treaty for ransoe th Davisealf e m 1357n o i Eare those Th . th Sutherlansf ar d II o f ,l eo d an d r ThomaSi s Mora Bothwelf yo l (Cal. of Scottish Documents, vol. . 1660)iiino . . Many years ago I submitted this shield to the late lamented Lyon Herald, but 3 he could not solve the question of ownership then, nor on our subsequent discussions pointe oth f . Cal. of Scottish Documents, vol. ii., plat. 5 e. i.uo , 4 4 46 PROCEEDING SOCIETYE TH 12 Y F , O S1890MA , .

Mr Seton, whose authority is entitled to the highest respect,1 calls them " roses," which it is possible they are, though the seal is rather worn. If so, then they may have been carried as a mark of vassalage to the Earls of Dunbar or March, under whom the Morays of Bothwell held Wedder- burn and Kelloe in the Merse. But the charges on the Liter seal of Sir Thomas Moray, which I examined very carefully when describing it, are roundel judgmentr bezantsy s o bese m f th o t o t , . Mr Innes gave two sheet pedigrees of Freskin and his descendants,2 showing (1) the respective lines of Sutherland and Both veil (the latter including Drumsargard) e lin f th Tulikir'—ie o ) (2 d an , , whic e thehh n assume o represent d t Drumsargar y failurb d f issuo e e fro n eldema r brother r JohSi , ns researche hi Moray t Bu yearn te .s e s th late n i r Register of India/ray 3 must have altered his views of this latter point, for this Sir John Moray is shown there to be the father of a Sir William Mora f Drumsargardyo o appeare Ragmanth wh , n o s Kv.II, whos- im e mediate descendants also owned Abercairney werd an , e ij; possessiof o n Drumsargar o lat s ds 1392 a e . Thi r WilliaSi s m Mora f Drumsaro v - a distinc gar s overlookes dwa wa r Riddell te M h personagey t db bu , , though contemporary, from Sir William Moray of Bothwell, Sir Andrew s brotherhi e latter'th , Andren so s w (kille r mortallo d y woundet a d Stirlin n 1297)gi r WilliaSi , m Mora f Tulybardinyo othersd an o , wh , all appear on the Ragman Roll, except the young (a tLird) Andrew Moray, the future regent, then unborn, as I have shown elsewhere.4 The seal f Drumsargaro s d Tulibardyan d e alsar no e ext/uiChapteth n i t r House collection. The former (which I consider as my own discovery) exhibits three mulletsoned an , o wittw , hrosa t eitheea r side t withino , n the shield, while the latter has the three mullets difivrenced by a chevron.5 The concluding portion of the Moray of Bothwell sheet pedigree,6—

Scottish Heraldry, 1863, p. 196 and plate vi., 10. 1 Chart, of Moray, . xxxviiipp xld .an . 2 Bann. Club (1847). 3 4 Gal. Scot. Doe. ii., pp. xxix.-xxx. Cal., ut supra, Seton' d ii.an , , Apps18 Heraldry, . . . 205platiii.d No , No an ,, ei.

p. s 196, plate vi., 12.

Chart, of Moray, . xxxviiip . 6 MALE KEPKESENTATION OF THE MOEAYS OF BOTHWELL. 465

from "Walter de Moray (-1278)—is erroneous in several respects, but has been closely followed by Dr John Stuart in his report on the Abercairney papers.1 From the corrected version now given at the end of this paper,2 t wili evidene b l t thaMoraye th t Drumsargarf so d wer independenn ea t family long before the date of the Ragman Soil, their ancestor being Sir Malcolm de Moravia, who flourished 1250-60, whose father, accord- Innesr JohM s o Murrevee t wa ,n d g in , Sherif f Perth o fr Joh Si e nd . Mora f Drumsargaro y d (great-grandso e abovth r Malcolmf Si eo n ) acquired Abercairne marriagy yb e wit a hdaughte f Maliseo r , Earf o l Stratherne (between 1312—19) t i stil d l an remain, s wit s lineahi h l descendants e Drummond-Moray-Stirlingsth , . Tnlibardyn s showa , n correctee th n i d pedigree unquestionabls wa , y junio Abercairneyo t r t bu , at what time both came off the Strathbrock and Duffus (or Bothwell) line does not appear. I found in the Public Eecord office a document, unfortunately very imperfect, perhaps indicating near relationship 3—an inquisition concerning the Roxburgh lands of probably the above Sir Malcolm de Moravia, 1250-60. The Morays of Bothwell certainly owne lande dth f Crailinso than gi t county late than i r t century. barone th l cleaf w al Drumsargaryo t ho ra t t iI sno d came into the hands of the Earls of Douglas. In 1392 it belonged to Walter Moray, 140n i therebyr d 2o Douglasesan e perfectla th s o ,t wa t I y .independen t barony, though often confounded with Bothwell, which closely adjoins it. The latter barony is always said to have been acquired by Archibald, Lord of Galloway (afterwards third Earl of Douglas), on his marriage to Johanna, daughter and heiress of Sir Thomas Moray, last lord, who died in 1361.4 It is odd, however, that in the papal dispensation for their marriage 5 twics i e esh called widowr ThomaSi f o s Moray Papae Th l. clerks made strange mistake Scottisn si h names,s aa rult bu e gav e relationshith e p partiee oth f s correctly. This circumstance materially strengthenr M s

Riddell's arguments on behalf of the Murrays of Polmaise, to be the Hist.1 MSS. Comm., Third Report, App. 2 Appendix B. « Col,, ut supra, iv., App. i. 3. 4 Not in 1366, as sometimes stated, in the face of the Dispensation dated 1361. On 23rd July 1361 (Theiner, p. 318).

5 VOL. XXIV. 2 G 6 46 PROCEEDING , SOCIETYE 189012 TH Y .F O SMA ,

male representatives of Bothwell, now to be noticed. Besides the dis- covery already referred to regarding the comparatively early age of Sir Andrew Moray, the Eegent, at his death in 1337-8, I am strongly in- cline thino dt k tha r Thomass sons Si hi tr Joh d Si , e nan , th wer t no e son f Christiaso n Bruce (who, when marrie r AndreSi o dt w about 1326, was certainly old enough to be his mother), but by an earlier marriage yet •unknown.1 Being bor n 1298i n r Andren i Si , e ag w f o Mora s wa y 1319, and might have had several sons between, that date and 1326. Mr Riddell2 founde epithee th n do t " consanguineus " give Daviy nb d Andreo t . II w Mora Manuelf yo Polmaise th , e ancesto e granth f n o t (i r Tulchadam in 1368), as indicating descent from Christian Bruce. But this is disposed of by the dispensation he quotes for the marriage of Sir Andre f Bothwelwo d Christiaan l n Bruce, where e the b e sai ar yo t d relate fourte th n dhi degre f consanguinityeo . Therefore Andrew Moray of Manuel Regent,e th a son s alreadf o f i wa , a ycousi f Davio n d II., even if not the son of the latter's aunt, Christian Bruce. If it be the case that the present Murrays of Touehadam and Polmaise are direct male descendant f thiso s Andre f Manuelwo , then their clai o mrepret - sent the de Moravia family is much stronger than Mr Riddell supposed. For Sutherland, even if senior to Bothwell, only represents Freskin in female th e line, while Drumsargard, Abercairney, Tullibardine, &c.e ar , l junioal Bothwello t r havd an , e also male faileth en di line . There is one point, however, founded on by Mr Riddell, which is un- tenable, viz., that becaus e Murrayth e •f Polmaiso s e held Wicketshaw barone (whicth n Bothwell)f i y o saie s hh dwa , this afforde presumptioda n beed thaha n t i toriginall appanage yth youngea Bothwellf f eo o n r so Fo . Wicketsha Clyde th n weo (originally " Wygotesha wcrows ")wa n property in 1303,3 not then in the barony of Bothwell. In 1475, however, it appear recorde th n si annexes sa barone th o dt Touchadaf y o mStirlingn i - shire. I hav t 4 see e evidenceno th n e tha Andrer Si t Manuef wo l held "Wicketshaw as mentioned by Riddell. It is probably in the Polmaise char- ter-chest, though he does not say so. There must have been some reason for including this detached estate on the Clyde in the distant barony of 1 Mr Burnett also held this opinion. 3 Gal. of Docs., ii. p. 427. " Steioartiana, pp. 92-S4. Reg. Mag. Sic/., vol. ii., No. 1195. 4 MALE REPRESENTATION OF THE MOEAYS OF BOTHWELL. 467

Touchadam. As David II. erected this barony out of Stirlingshire crown lands in 1368, in favour of Sir Andrew of Manuel,1 it is very possible that he added Wicketshaw out of his crown lands elsewhere, to make up the value. Besides these various branches of the Moray family, there were in the sout f Scotlando h , Cokpule, Blackbarony, Philiphaugh d othersan , — perhaps nearly related to the original northern stock. They had come oft soma f e date before 1296n thai r t fo , year Archibal Morree dd f o f Peeblesshire appears on the Ragman Roll—in all likelihood the common ancestor of these southern Morays, though the precise steps of descent seem unknown.2 Theroriginan a s ei l charteBritise th n i hr Museum, Jamey b 8 , II s on 10th September 1441, confirming anothe Archibaldy b r , Dukf o e Touraine, Ear f Douglaso l , &c., grantin o Williat g f Cranstounmo n so , and heir of Thomas of Cranstoun of that Ilk, the lands of Nether Craling Roxburghshiren i s baronhi n f Bothwelli o ,y . This charte s datei r d 29th November 1434 executed Duke an , th t "Edibretschelis."y ea db 4 There are four Morays among the witnesses—Alexander of Moray of Cranstoun, David of Moray, captain of Douglas, John of Moray, and William of Moray. From the place of execution it would seem not unlikely that these Moray sSelkirkshire werth f eo e family, though Cran- stoun is in Eoxburghshire to all appearance, probably near Craling. Puttin l thingal g s together t i woul, d appear from wha s beeha t n gathered above, that Murray of Touchadam or Polmaise has probably bese th t male claith emo t representatio Moraye th f n o Bothwellf so d ,an therefor e earl thath o et f y o t lord f Pettso Duffusd yan . 3 Stewartiaiia, pp. 92-93. 2 MrCraig Brown Historys hi n i , of Selkirkshire, gives some accoun Philipe th f o t - haugh family t goe fartheo bu ,n s r back than this Archibal e Sac/manth f o d Roll, though he appears to have had access to their charters. 3 Add. MSS., No. 19,560. Considere Williar Si y db msame th FraseNewar s e a b o t r k YarroCas.tle th n eo w (Doiu/las4 Book). 468 PROCEEDING E , SOCIETY189012 TH Y F . O S MA ,

o S -S o P S*-<3 K' j Oj =0 3„ k" pel ,<1 B -til! i-l r^ H3 °ti- 1 1 .§S t> ^e4 £•3 •••« H ^ «c c§ 3^so ° M ^s .< £i P I*3 •a| 3 Hi-j ££ gi- | I I S a -S Sg ^ II t> 0 S2 w * t3 rH I |

SI •&&^1 «-f *' rtj — — — — gg« § ao 1% ^s£ Q I '^n s° IZi " «srt- s fi a; (S* *3 ^ :d CM Oj "" O ^-* G 1 ^ — s^! °«- R ^ ^|f £l i! [H » ^ & M "S in o * * O o lls C_t P-T CQ .S fc-(N P"l >*~2 rt oTgS'BS S ^ d a" • PH >H '! •S "s "Soli S a"°f ^0 .1 S gg, . § >lJ.B b1 H PH 1 111 r* r\ 2 ES 3 S-sS - • •=• 0 Si-«*g S> ^•s, ps^-^*iiss'*, 1 1! C -sift Iss. - «S2J S-S135 te ^3 .So M H co S S« feS|S- s " &%^A !||2 - !^- - • ~ |lli S ' It CO IrH i( t- • ^sgS »O ffW l o N |l "3 - PM ^

^ ,_; X ^ 1— H H MALE REPRESENTATION OF THE MOKAYS OF BOTHWELL. 469

flfl -111—Is-:—s**_ I

H S, id

-SMg III o ——— 5'S» 1 |8 1^" W |& 8« a p"g s" |ll «e3 "f-S F-( °° gB M• H o3 i 5 ej ^2 BjTO I «-S2 ii» SH™ o II HB*-" ^1 = ?«•

_«sf_ 1 I|^ S&F^ O t? ?s§ "e M S o fl . 127S- S g§!i Sa OJ § ^s i n d e Moravi r Joh n d e M o ^ imsargard , fl . iir eir , o f Drums ; 30 ^0^ ffi 356 g«

Li a 5 N « -sga ^ gl c1b | II S.g 1 ) -] 6 S-3 —— SS —— p •5 |S 31 S.S'a H § S S t- -SS«' Pn i Is » gga.