GEN-MEDIEVAL-L ArchivesArchiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2000-02 > 0949971561
From: "Todd A. Farmerie" <>
Subject: Re: Fergus of Galloway--Perhaps the Final Word
Date: Mon, 07 Feb 2000 17:59:21 -0700
> In a message dated 2/6/2000 3:50:32 PM, writes:
> > << Elizabeth could just as
> > well have been illegitimate daughter of one of David's
> > brothers, The names he gave his children are not indicative
> > of an Anglo-Norman connection so much as a borderlands one
> > (the names being common among Northumberland families,
> > including the Earls of that place, who were kinsmen of the
> > English royalty. There are too many other options to put
> > faith in a completely unreferenced tradition that Elizabeth
> > was Henry's daughter. >>
> Yet this tradition that she was blood relation from Hovedon was near
> contemporary. Are you not doubting too much? Has anyone tried to see how she
> could be blood relation to Henry from a process of elimination? There are a
> limited number of possibilities, so it would seem that some could be totally
> eliminated and leave only a few.
That's blood relative of Henry II, grandson of
Edith/Matilda, sister of David. One alternative I suggested
above, that Elizabeth could have been a niece of David
(through one of his brothers) preserves this - Fergus's
children and Henry would have been second cousins. I am not
doubting that there was a relationship - just that it didn't
need to involve Henry I as the common ancestor. This is
exactly what you seem to be asking for - a consideration of
alternatives. In fact, Ronnie's post presented three
options suggested to him by Stewart.
> The biggest clue to her origin is her
> marriage to Fergus--as only a woman with some social status would be
> considered for this important alliance. Would a mere cousin be acceptable?
This is exactly the opposite of what Ronnie's source was
arguing - that Fergus, at the time of the marriage was a
relatively minor character not associated with Galloway.
This 'mere cousin' I am suggesting as an alternative would
have been daughter of a King of Scotland (the country, after
all, where Fergus was such an important gent).
> Probably not. Would a niece be acceptable--yes, but they are known.
Are they? What daughters did Duncan II have? We don't have
a clue. We only know of his male issue. The argument from
the absence of evidence is not valid. Had the Maid of
Norway not died unexpectedly, we would know almost nothing
of the illegitimate progeny of the Scottish kings.
> Does this elimination not just leave Henry's daughters?
No. As Stewart pointed out, the shared descent could have
been through Fergus himself, and not involved Elizabeth at
> And since the legitimate
> ones are known, does this not leave her as being an illegitimate daughter of
> Henry or one of his sons?
Or of one of his brothers or of one of his wives brothers or
of one of his . . . .
> PS I believe an illegitimate daughter of William has been shown to be in
No, it has not. All that has been shown is that Turton was
not very careful in citing his source. (Actually, his
format for citation allowed only a single reference for each
individual, so could not adequately deal with a complex
issue.) Turton was thorough, of sometimes (perhaps even
often) misled by his sources. I do not think for a minute
he simply invented it. Thus he had a source, just not the
one listed, and this unknown source can't be any less
reliable, I would think, than a tradition of unknown origin
making her Henry's. I am curious what reference Turton
lists for Elizabeth herself, and for William II.
|Re: Fergus of Galloway--Perhaps the Final Word by "Todd A. Farmerie" <>|