GEN-MEDIEVAL-L Archives

Archiver > GEN-MEDIEVAL > 2010-03 > 1269491772


From: lostcopper <>
Subject: Re: those Butlers again
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 21:36:12 -0700 (PDT)
References: <mailman.42.1269455986.5522.gen-medieval@rootsweb.com>


On Mar 24, 11:39 am, M Sjostrom <> wrote:
> a tacksman was of a different, clearly lower social and wealth class than
> earls and baronets.

In a practical sense, yes. However, they were almost always a close
relative. They were not peasants & they were not poor.


>
> It is implausible that a legitimate daughter of a baronet, a legitimate
> granddaughter of a family who held an earldom, would have been married to a
> tacksman.

Why? Happened all the time.


> particularly in her young age, as an arranged marriage.
> These families with earldoms and baronetcies, they arranged their daughters
> to marry their social and wealth equals. There is no sense in an arranged
> marriage to a clearly lower class.

The oldest child, Mary, married John Hodge. Gartmore succession went
through them. Who was John Hodge?


>
> A widow following her own whims, or a girl who elopes, could in some cases
> marry that much lower man. Even in those ages, it was relatively rare
> actually to marry beneath, but in no means would the famikly make an
> arranged marriage in that way. Elopement and such by definition defears the
> 'arranged'.
>
> Still, if the girl was young, and under marriagable age when the 1673 deal
> was made, and got her wedding in perhaps 1679, that all speaks about an
> arranged marriage.

Why?


> And in any other chronological way than with this sort of delay, would the
> bride NOT be daughter of Elizabeth.
>
> let's also look at the background of john Drummond, the bridegroom:
> his parents appear to been (anonyma) Malloch, and her husband, Andrew
> Drummond, who was himself an illegitimate son and seemingly not heir of
> anything.

That's right. Andrew married NN Malloch, dau. of Andrew Malloch of
Cardney, & Andrew was the son of William Drummond, 3rd of Milnab &
Minister of Tulliecheltill, & his unknown mistress. Perhaps that is a
clue to the Graham family dynamics.


>
> It is totally clear that their son, John Drummond, was not wealthy - the
> family apparently were more or less peasants, farmers, and certainly not
> even near to aristocracy such as earls.

Not if he was given a Tack. He would very probably be a close relative
to William Graham in some way (son-in-law?). Peasants did not receive
Tacks; they paid their rent to the Tacksman who took a share & sent
the rest to the Laird.


>
> This is totally consistent with John later appearing as tacksman.
>
> Whereas, the baronet, William Grahame, of Gartmore, was direct owner of a
> substantial estate.
>
> It should be totally clear that baronets and earls were not giving their
> legitimate daughters (in arranged way, contract already as young girl) to
> marriage to the family of such as was that Andrew Drummond, presumed
> illegitimate and anyway NOT a landowner.
>
> A land-owning baronet might marry his ILLEGITIMATE daughter to such a family
> as this Andrew Drummond's, giving such an illegitimate daughter some TACK as
> dowry, or (if the restrictions against illegitimate children receiving
> inheritance and valuable gifts, was too strong) making over a tack to the
> son-in-law.
> That is still conceivable in the social situation.

That's one possibility. But there was no actual law to that effect,
only a social custom. If William approved of the marriage for some
personal reason, he might certainly have raised Drummond to the level
of Tacksman & then provided more land for the daughter. We do know for
sure that the baronet gave John Drummond the Tack of Eastermye & that
he gave Christian Graham liferent of Middlemye. Why would he do that
if there was not some extraordinary connection?


>
> [however, we do not even know that the tack to Mye lands in this specific
> case, would have come from any Graham]


Yes we do. The contemporary documents say so.

Best, Bronwen



This thread: