GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-03 > 1269452668


From: M Sjostrom <>
Subject: those Butlers again
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 19:46:13 +0200


well, congratulations on finding an uncertain gateway to royalty, and
tenaciously embellishing it.

as I reminiscence from some long-ago discussions, there were several points
neglected or misunderstood in that chain of evidence upon which the
obstinate keeping of that lineage stands.

1) I got an impression that the Mye lands were not dower, but dowry. Dowry
settled to the bride (Christiana, whomever her parents were) by her
bridegroom's family.
and that there's no contemporary testimony of those Mye land having belonged
to the Grahams, so they presumably cannot come from Christiana's own birth
family, whatever it was.
Of course, still on face of these considerations, some simplistically write
it was dowry - so many amateurs seem to think that the only economical
settlement to a marriage was the dowry.

2) Elizabeth's branch seemingly went extinct in late 1700s, IF Christiana
were not her child. In Elizabeth's branch, there were several inheritable
and attractive heritages, to claim.

There was the Garthmore inheritance. And Elizabeth's progeny by HER husband,
that William who held Garthmore, appears to have gone extinct.
It should be underlined that seemingly, no descendants of this Christiana
made a claim to the Garthmore.
Although, in light of the fact that without William's legitimate progeny was
otherwise extinct, such a claim would have been practically inevitable - IF
Christina (independently of whether Christiana were alive or dead) had been
daughter of those Elizabeth and William.

Then, there *separately* was the Airth inheritance, earldoms of Menteith and
Airth and such.
the mentioned Elizabeth's great-grandson, another William (d 1783), used the
title of earl of Menteith and claimed the succesion through his mother, his
maternal grandmother, and through Elizabeth, the latter's mother. He claimed
succession in priority to the Allardice branch, descendants of said
Elizabeth's sister.
IF Christiana were Elizabeth's daughter, then upon said death in 1783,
Christiana's descendants would have inherited that claim (independently of
whether Christiana were alive or dead), the Airth heritage, in priority to
the Allardice branch.
However, it is well attested that the Allardice descendant claimed that
heritage, having the lawsuit about succession to the Earldom....
And, seemingly, in the documentation of that lawsuit, that claimant
presented documentration that Elizabeth's progeny had gone extinct.

3) Seemingly, nothing CONTEMPORARY connects that William graham who was
Christiana's father, to that specific William who was husband of Elizabeth,
nor to the holdings of that william nor to the hereditaments of Elizabeth
and that William. Christiana and her descendants apparently show no such
property which would been unquestionably inherited from the Garthmore, or
from the Airth-Kinpoint.

Which indicates that Christiana's father William were a different William
than Elizabeth's husband - or, *at most*, Christiana could been born of said
William's earlier spousing, either as illegitimate or as daughter of earlier
wedded wife. All the identification between these two William names,
however, is quite uncertain, whereas a different William Graham is a greater
possibility in this.

-----

I have to underline that all the verbosity from Bronwen about the
identification of William as one person, instead of two, has NO solid
evidence. Nothing tangible to show they were the same man.
Everything is only guesses, and all publications to do that identification
are opinions from writers several centuries later than either William was
alive.

There is nothing tangible to show this Christiana were daughter of the
Garthmore William Graham.

and particularly, there is nothing tangible, not even the same first name,
to show this Christiana were daughter of THAT Elizabeth. I underline the
name Elizabeth was not mentioned in any near-contemporary documentation
about this Christiana.


-------

I have no doubts that despite of the heavy doubtfulness of that filiation,
there are certain finders whose personal investment is that big that they
continue to repeat their claim of that filiation in their ancestry, as a
'truth' - and without any cautionary note.
However, genealogists should not do that.

This thread: