AYRSHIRE-L Archives

From:
Subject: ROSS of Hanyng: Did they also hold Bromhill?
Date: 3 Aug 2005 13:37:09 -0600

This is a Message Board Post that is gatewayed to this mailing list.

Surnames: Ross, Wallace
Classification: Deed

Message Board URL:

http://boards.ancestry.com/mbexec/msg/rw/QeC.2ACE/6577.6.1

Message Board Post:

First:
REGISTRUM MAGNI SIGILLI REGUM SCOTORUM. Vol. VI (1593 - 1608), page 119, No. 356. (Dated September 17, 1595).--REX ...cum consensu &c....in feudiferma disposuit JOHANNI VALLACE filio natu maximo legitimo et heredi apparenti Roberti W. junioris de Carnel, heredibus ejus et assignatis,--33 solidat . 4 den. terrarum antiqui extentus de Broimhill (per quondam George Ros de Haning et ejus tenentes occupatas), in regalitate et baronia de Glasgow, vic, de Lanerk;--que olim spectaverunt ad episcopatum de Glasgow...etc....etc

N.B.: In the above we are told that John Wallace is the son and heir of Robert Wallace, junior, of Carnell; that the King agrees to grant John Wallace the lands of Bromhill in the barony of Glasgow, County Lanerk, which have been "occupied" by George Ross of Hayning who is now (Sept. 1595) deceased........Associated with the information about George Ross and his two daughters, contained in the sasines of Ayr, 1618, posted above, we can venture a guess as to how George Ross is being mentioned in them.--W.F.

Second:
Same reference as above, but page 23l, No. 706, and dated May 1, 1598. REX, --cum consensu &c,---concessit M. MATHEO ROS de Hanyng, heredibus ejus et assignatis masc. quibuscunque,--33 solidat. 4 den. terrarum antiqui extentus de Bromehill, in regalitate et baronia de Glasgow, vic, Lanerk;--quas olim ad episopatum Glasguensem pertinentes, Jo. Wallace de Carnell resignavit....etc....etc

N.B.: Because its extension is the same, we know that this is the very same land received by John Wallace above, who it appears has inherited Carnell.....Wallace simply resigns from it and the King grants Bromhill to Matthew Ross of Hanyng. Could it be that Matthew Ross was the heir of George Hanyng in 1695, but was underage, and Wallace had been appointed Matthew's guardian until Matthew came of age, and could make a claim of his inheritance? The King specifies "male heirs", so the daughters of George Ross of Haning could not have inherited it.....If this scenario be correct, we should be able to find that Bromhill was land that had previously been granted to the Ross's--before George Ross died occupying it in 1695.....All of this would have been legal steps that could be taken without necessarily leaving a paper trail--correct?....One more point: If Wallace were tutor for Ross, he probably was a near relative.--W.F.

This thread:

• ROSS of Hanyng: Did they also hold Bromhill? by