Talk:Lauder/Archive 1

Malcolm and Macbeth

Upon the defeat of Macbeth by Malcolm Canmore Sir Robert de Lawdre [Lauder] was granted extensive lands in and around the existing town, which included the ancient Forest of Lauder. (He received at the same time The Bass Rock)

This is later legend, it is not factual (if anyone can tell me the earliest source for this myth, I'd be delighted, as I'm collecting these stories). Malcolm III is not known to have had any foreign soldiers, though Macbeth allegedly had some Norman mercenaries. As far as the evidence is concerned, Lauder itself was not granted to anyone until David I granted Lauder and Lauderdale to his mercenary constable Hugh de Morville. I presume the people later calling themselves de Lauder and controlling that "barony" came in with de Morville's retinue, or were sub-enfeoffed later, but I can't find anyone using that locative name in any of the royal charters up to the end of William the Lion's reign (there are no as yet edited collects of royal charters for the reigns of Alexander II and III). Does anyone know the earliest evidence for a "de Lauder"? Anyways, it is one of the characteristics of late medieval and early modern Scottish baronial family histories to link the origins of families to incomers with Malcolm III or St Margaret, part of the wonderful history of Scottish literature and myth, but not part of history. No secular incomers to "Scotland" (of which Lauderdale was not part terminogically part in David's day) can be shown to have existed before the reign of David I, and to put it into context (though not stricly relevant here), the earliest mention of any non-Scot north of the Forth can date no earlier than 1128, and that is a guy called Robert the Burgundian whose name occurs in a legal dispute with the monks of St Serf's Inch adjudicated by Constantine of Fife and two other "Brehons" in a document written in Gaelic and translated in the second half of the 12th century into Latin. South of the Forth, the earliest known grant is of the provincial lordship of Annandale , and the settlements which are attested thereafter are of grants to French or Flemish mercenaries who helped David fight Mael Coluim mac Alaxandair, either under senior commanders in provincial lordships (such as Lauderdale, Liddesdale, Annandale, Kyle, Strathgryfe, etc) or sometimes (more rarely) directly.Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the most POV remark I think that I have yet to read on Wikipedia. These are your personal opinions and only that. Have you actually read the article carefully to see the whole story? How dare you run around Wikipedia criticising and/or removing information you are personally unaware of as though you are Scotland's greatest expert on this period. I don't care how many barnstars you have, you are not. I shall find a list of all the records which are actually missing. Bain lists them somewhere and how they are lost to us. It does not mean they never existed or that the fragments surviving were/are the only records we every had. David Lauder 17:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Was trying to educate you, David. Forget that. The Lauder family had nothing to do with Malcolm III, just a myth. See above. As I know you are not the most sceptical of the genre of later medieval/early modern ancestor tales and would probably be very possessive or sensitive about this page (looks like I was correct), I didn't remove anything, so you should have waited for me to do so before criticizing me for it. Suffice it to say, if it ever turned out that your ancestor tale had reality to it (which I'm afraid isn't going to happen, there are loads of such tales and in most cases there is enough evidence to demonstrate that they are later inventions), it would revolutionize our understanding of high medieval Scottish history. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:14, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Can all these scholars and writers be wrong:

William Anderson's Scottish Nation (vol.II, Edinburgh 1861) states: LAUDER, a surname said to have been originally de Lavedre. The first of the name is stated to have been one of those Anglo-Norman barons who accompanied Malcolm Canmore to Scotland in 1056, and obtained from that monarch certain grants of land, particularly in Berwickshire, to which he gave his own name, being also invested with the hereditary bailieship of Lauderdale." Anderson continues, adding "the family of Lauder were the earliest proprietors on record of the island of the Bass, in the Firth of Forth, and were usually designated the Lauders of the Bass."

Sir Bernard Burke writes: "The surname of LAUDER, anciently de Lavedre, is of Norman origin, and the Scottish historians mention the first de Lavedre as one of those Anglo-Norman barons who accompanied Malcolm Canmore into Scotland in 1056, to assist that prince in recovering his kingdom from the usurper Macbeth; for this important service de Lavedre obtained from the king grants of lands, particularly in Berwickshire, to which he gave his own name, as other knights, similarly recompensed, did, in obdience, according to Boethius, of a direct royal command to that effect. De Lavedre was also invested with the hereditary baillieship of Lauderdale." (The Peerage & Baronetage of the British Empire, 32nd edition. London, 1870.)

James Young (Notes on Historical References to the Scottish Family of Lauder, Glasgow, 1884) repeats much of this saying that an Anglo-Norman knight surnamed de Lavedre is on record as assisting King Malcolm Canmore recover his throne from Macbeth. Mr.Young also states that this de Lavedre was in that part of the army led by Siward, Earl of Northumberland, and that de Lavedre "obtained various grants of lands particularly in Berwickshire, to which he gave his own name, according to the custom of the time, and, there is authority for saying, in obedience to a direct royal command to that effect. This baron was also invested with the hereditary bailieship of Lauderdale."[pps:30/31]. In addition, Young comments extensively on the origins of the surname.

Sir Thomas Dick-Lauder (1784-1848), writing in his book Scottish Rivers (1890 reprint,chapter XI, pps:146-150), states categorically that "Robert Lauder came into Scotland with Malcolm Canmore" and "besides certain lands in the Lothians, he had large possessions assigned to him at [in the vicinity of] Lauder."

J.Stewart Smith (The Grange of St.Giles, Edinburgh, 1898, p.273) writes: "the Forest of Lauder appears to have been the original grant to Robertus de Lavedre, being included in the bailiary of Lauderdale, within which the [present] burgh of Lauder was erected, with its Tower, mills &c. Whatever lands the youngersons inherited, the Forest seems always to have descended with the Tower to the eldest son for more than five centuries."

A.Thomson, F.S.A.,(Scot)., writing in Lauder and Lauderdale (Galashiels 1902) states that"Hugo de Morville (d.1162) had territory in Lauderdale but it terminated a few miles above Earlston, and did not extend to the Merse. Those properties eventually passed to the Douglases. The Lauders of that Ilk were the earlier family at least residentially. Their territory lay, for the most part, in a southerly direction from the present site of Lauder. Half of the Fulling-mill and half of the Mains of Lauder had formerly been in the possession of Sir John de Baliol, but originally, probably the de Morvilles. It passed to the Lauder family thereafter, with one confirmation of this being in 1371 to Alan de Lauder."

Robert Romanes, writing in Lauder: a Series of Papers (1903), says "the family of Lauder was also an important one in connection with the burgh, and it is more than likely that this famly had an earlier connection with Lauder than the De Morvilles, and most probably [already] had possessions in and about Lauder when the De Morvilles got their [over-lordship] rights in Lauderdale. There is no likelihood that the Lauders would thereby be dispossessed, but they might have had to render some service or make [feudal] contribution in kind as a condition of holding their possessions from, and receiving the protection of, the De Morvilles. Early in the fourteenth century the Lauders were a family of importance and are frequently referred to in the "Chamberlain Rolls."

In the Protocol Book of Robert Wedderop, Lauder, 1543 - 1553 (edited & transcribed by Teresa Maley & Walter Elliot, Selkirk, 1993) there are several Retours of Service to the Lauder family of lands at Lauder in which it is stated that they are held by the Lauders directly from the Crown, and not of another feudal baron.

Playfair's British Antiquity (Appendix, p.216, vol. viii) states that the earliest extant charter of this family bears "Joanni Lauder, filio secundo de Laudertown". It is also mentioned by James Young (Notes on Historical References to the Scottish Family of Lauder, Glasgow, 1884, p. 31), 'Joanni' stated as being in the generation before the Sir Robertus de Lavedre who went to the 3rd Crusade in 1188/9 (see also Nisbet).

J.Stewart-Smith (The Grange of St.Giles Edinburgh,1898) states: "One of those Anglo-Norman barons who signally distinguished himself by his prowess in the field against Macbeth at Birnham Wood, was Robertus de Lavedre. For these services he was rewarded with large grants of land in Berwickshire and the Lothians, and also a portion of Macbeth's lands in Morayshire." Moreover, this genealogist also refers to: "the old charter [dated 4th June 1316] telling us how one portion of the Bass Rock came into the family of Lauder, the other half having already belonged to those feudal barons as far back as the eleventh century - held direct from the Crown, whereas this [later] charter is purely ecclesiastical in its granting and in its holding [i.e: a feu]."

Sir Robert de Lawedre of Quarrelwood still possessed the lands in Moray spoken of here. He was appointed in 1328 Justiciary of 'that part of Scotland on the North side of the Water of Forth'. Thirty five years later, on October 1, 1363, (charter 163 of The Great Seal of Scotland, confirmed at Dunfermline) King David II confirmed a pension of £20 per annum upon the ageing "Robert de Lawedre, militi," from this post.

In the National Archives of Scotland (GD1/940) is a Charter by Thomas Ranulph, Earl of Moray, Lord of Annandale and Man, to Sir James of the Garwyhauch, knight, of lands of Beletdi, Balnegrac, Cloychok and Tolachfyn with pertinents and half a merk of annualrent from mill of Lunfanan, for one suit to granter's court of Lunfanan and as much Scottish service as pertains to lands. Sealed with granter's seal of regality of Moray. Witnesses: Henry, bishop of Aberdeen; Sir Alexander Fraser, Sir Reginald le Cheyng, Sir Robert de Laweder, knights; Thomas de Meyneris; James de Melville (Malavilla); John son of Bruyng; John de Durrysder, chancellor and chamberlain of granter's regality of Moray. Tag, seal wanting. Dated 1325-1328 (between erection of regality of Moray, 19 Dec. 1324 and death of Henry Cheyne, bishop of Aberdeen).

R.P.Phillimore (North Berwick & District, North Berwick,1913, p.47) writes: "The military history of the Bass seems to date from the time of Malcolm Canmore, who gave the portion of the island on which the Castle stood to a knight named Lauder. It remained in the hands of his family for upwards of 600 years. A notable member was Sir Robert, a favourite companion of the hero Wallace."

The Bass Rock (several contributing scholars, Edinburgh 1848) says: "the earliest proprietors of the island on record were the ancient family of the Lauders, who, from this, were usually designated the Lauders of the Bass. The island continued in the possession of this ancient family for about five centuries."

The New Statistical Account of Scotland (vol.II, 1845, p.330) states "the Bass for many generations was the property of an ancient family, styled Lauder of the Bass, one of whom is stated to have been a compatriot of Wallace."

Also,Tyningham House and lands, the superior landlord of which was the See of St.Andrews, was feued to the Lauders from an early date. Writing in Famous Scottish Houses (London, 1928, p.182) Thomas Hannan relates: "exactly how old was Tyninghame it is difficult to say; but there was a house on the lands in 1094, in the days of King Duncan, when it was owned by the Lairds of the Bass - the island of the solan geese not far distant. In 1617 Isabella Hepburn, [wife of Sir George Lauder of Bass, d.1611) the Lady of the Bass, made additions to it."

In Macbeth [by Peter Berresford Ellis, London,1980] it is stated "after Malcolm's conquest of Scotland the leaders of his army were granted estates, especially in Moray clan lands, by way of payment. For example, 'The Lamberton Charter' relates that 'Sir Robert de Lawder got part lands [Quarrelwood, parish of Spynie, near Elgin] in Moray for assisting Malcolm Canmore to recover the throne of Scotland'."

Writing in The Story of the Tweed (London 1909) the Rt.Hon.Sir Herbert Maxwell, Bt., says that "previous to the Maitlands obtaining ascendancy in Lauderdale, there was another family of landowners there named Lauder of that Ilk. They had several towers in the district: the ruins of one may be seen on the left bank of the Leader at Whitslaid, a couple of miles below Lauder. The family gradually lost ground in this district, the last landowner therein of that name [James Lauder, 1736 - 1799] being laird of Carolside near Earlston. Of the great feudal families of Tweedside, how many have disappeared."

Lauder Tower had stood close by the east side of the present Church of Lauder, and Sir Thomas Dick Lauder tells us that it had "massive walls and towering buttresses. Alan Lauder of Lauder Tower appears in numerous records in the first half of the 15th century.

In "Lauder: a Series of Papers" by Robert Romanes (1903), he also refers to Lauder Tower which he said stood in what was then known as Tower Yard, a garden area then bounded by the Free Kirk Manse and the County Police Station, close by the Easter Port. He adds that the road west from the town crosses the Midrow and passes Tower Yard, then goes by Lauder Mill (see below). A continuation of the road goes onwards to Chester Hill. Mr.Romanes then quotes from the Lauderdale Accounts saying : "the foundations of the tower were dug up early in the 18th century, between December 1699 and February 1701. The mason employed in the demolition was James Bennet." Interestingly, in Lauder & Lauderdale (A.Thomson,F.S.A.,(Scot)., Galashiels,1902) it is stated under date 1837 that "the new United Presbyterian manse was built on a site at the West Port which was purchased, for £115, from Baillie [George] Lauder, whose [immediate] family afterwards removed to Liverpool."

Sir Archibald Campbell Lawrie, LL.D., writes: Hugo de Moreville accompanied King David when he succeeded to the throne of Scotland in 1124. He was a lifelong friend and attendant on the King, and witnessed many of his charters. He became Constable of Scotland, in which office he was succeeded by his son Richard. He had grants of land in Berwickshire between the Gala and Leader waters, and of Cunningham in Ayrshire. He founded the Abbeys of Dryburgh and Kilwinning. his wife was Beatrix de Campo Bello. He retired to the Abbey of Dryburgh, where he took the habit, and died in 1162. (Annals of the Reigns of Malcolm and William, Kings of Scotland 1153 - 1214, Glasgow, 1910, p.69.)

I am content that not every single scholar is wrong. Most families also pass down from generation to generation their origins. David Lauder 13:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

David, there no evidence though, don't you see. It's authority is, as far as I can tell, later family tradition. I can't say specifically, but often these "Family traditions" date no earlier than 17th or 18th century conjecture, so that's why I asked you for the first attestation of both 1) the myth and 2) a Lauder. Baring nothing else, don't you think it is strange that Malcolm III, who probably attacked MacBeth from the West or North, had "Anglo-Normans" before there were Anglo-Normans? I mean, 1056? Norman Conquest of England happened in 1066 ... but I suppose it was more important for late medieval/early modern baronial families to be linked to Malcolm III than be accurate. You gotta understand, David, no contemporary historian believes that any Anglo-Normans were settled until the 12th century, and, although I know you treasure them, I'm afraid baronial origins tales from the 18th century are taken no more seriously that the descent of the Anglo-Saxon kings from Wodan. Now I know you are fond of your old books, but you gotta realise that if your Lauder origin tale turned out to be true, it would revolutionise our understanding not only of high medieval Scottish history, but of British history generally. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 14:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't accept that you are right and eveyone else is wrong. There was a small army of researchers and scholars beavering away on manuscripts etc., before anyone in the 20th century was born, and unlike you I and most people believe they should be afforded their time-honoured credit as genuine scholars. I have no doubt they may have made some errors. It would not be human otherwise. But I afraid there are other views of mediaeval history than yours. You show an apparent lack of knowledge by your statements above. A great many Normans were already settled in or spending much time in England prior to the Conquest. Canmore spent many years in exile at the English Court and it would be fanciful to suggest that he did not spend much time in their company. It is known that Siward, for instance, had Norman knights in his forces. The other point I attempted to make is that scholars agree that the Lauders held lands in and around Lauder prior to the feudalisation of Scotland and prior to the de Morvilles. This is attested by the many extant charters showing that they held these lands in capite from the Crown. So even if de Morville and his successors, de Balliol and briefly, the Douglases, held a superiority over much of Lauderdale, it is clear that the Crown accepted that the Lauder's land holdings pre-dated de Morville and they respected that. So no, I don't accept its just a story. Circumstantial evidence, particularly land ownership, leans towards its acceptance. David Lauder 15:54, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Answer my questions David, when is the first mention of 1) the myth and 2) a Lauder. As it happens, there were Normans is small numbers working for Edward the Confessor (don't know about Siward); Macbeth apparently had a small number of them, but they weren't Anglo-Normans and they were not settled. The view that families like the "Lauders" were not in "Scotland" in the 11th century is not some eccentric position taken by me, it is the standard position. Most current historians would probably quite frankly laugh at the idea that the Lauders come from the 11th century. I'm being patient in the hope of convincing you. I've asked Angusmclellan too to add his input, and he is the only other wiki user (other than perhaps BillReid) who has good knowledge of this period on wiki. Anyways, regarding your historical point about "Canmore", it is generally thought today that "Canmore" did not spend any time in England; this was a myth created in later medieval Scotland (Fordunian), created and sustained by confusion between Malcom "Canmore" and Malcolm, King of Strathclyde, who was backed by Siward (maybe he spent time there, maybe he had just fled from MacBeth), not with Edward the Confessor. This confusion also led to the idea that Siward killed Macbeth in 1054, which is not what happened, as MacBeth is still king until Malcolm comes from the north or west and kills Macbeth three years later. This aside, what you are trying to argue is very convoluted ... i.e. that the Lauders were there already even though they were Normans, even though no settlements of Normans in Scotland can be dated earlier than David I, even though the land they allegedly held was given to de Morville (the charter to de Morville says nothing about anyone other than de Morville holding Lauder under the king), even though the family is not attested in the 12th century, even though it is emerging that the Scottish crown didn't control the area in the time, even though it contradicts contemporary understanding of Scottish history. Lemme just say, I don't think it is impossible that the family who became Lauders were there before the de Morvilles, but the only way they could be the same people is if they were native English of the area who had lived there previously, adopted French forenames and eventually got control of Lauder adopting a Norman style locative surname. But your Lauder myth is completely unsustainable. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

A cousin told me on the telephone that Holinshed and Hector Boece mentioned the early Lauders (but I see on poor Hector's Wiki page that some pro-Macbethite has put the boot into this early and acclaimed scholar). Anglo-Norman is a loose appellation which simply means English Normans, Normans in/from England, whatever. Lauderdale in the periods of which we speak was in the Scottish domains. You know as well as I do that the de Morville's had a grant of the superiority only of much of Laudervale and if you examine the many confirmations of superiorities in the Great Seal of Scotland you can see that it is rare that anyone else, other than the previous feudal baron, is mentioned. As for no Lauders "being attested in the 12th century", in The Acts of William 1st King of Scots (edited by Professor G.W.S. Barrow, Edinburgh, 1971, vol.II, p.277, charter 237) there appears a Royal Grant to Kinloss Abbey, but signed at Melrose Abbey between 1179-1183. Amongst the witnesses are the Abbot of Melrose, the Abbot of Newbottle, Richard de Morville, Constable of Scotland, Alan, son of Walter the Steward, and William de Lauder. [Barrow appears to have put the modern spellings in his transcription]. Probably it was his son, Robert de Lawedre, whom Holinshed lists as in the Third Crusade (but I note from at least one revisionist book of late the Scottish contribution to this crusade is also being debunked). In 1251 another William de Lawedre de eodem was Sheriff of Perth when he witnessed a grant by Alexander III

But why should we have to justify ourselves to you? It seems to me that the only person trying to "revolutionise" Scottish mediaeval history are late twentieth century revisionists. The hundreds, if not thousands, of Scottish and English historians who preceded them are now denounced by you and your ilk as morons. Oh dear. Wikipedia's policy is to provide source material. I have provided far more than my fair share by leading scholars to my contributions.

You need to read the extensive introduction of the great Scottish mediaeval researcher, transcriber, scholar, and writer, Joseph Bain, in his book The Edwards in Scotland 1296 - 1377 (Edinburgh 1901) where he details sources for ancient Scottish records and, more importantly, explains how and why so many Scottish records became lost to us since Cromwell. Your comments about a whole range of things in Scottish history being "unsustainable", including many of the statements you make about our history, would indeed be true if we had to rely entirely upon extant records. But what of the probably equal number of lost records? You cannot simply say this or that did not happen because there are no longer any extant records. They did exist once. You dismiss so many of the earlier chroniclers also, so I just fail to understand what you rely upon for all this revisionist mediaeval history. Could it just all be people's personal opinions, something Wikipedia excels in? David Lauder 08:41, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to keep a legend presented as fact when it contradicts the assertions made by contemporary salaried scholars working in the area, you have to justify it because this is a collaborative project. If you continually take the position that all 19th century histories are standard, and everything after that is revision, you will not only find yourself out of line in historical understanding, but also isolated in this community. Maybe on Talk:Lauder it's just gonna be me versus you for the moment, but elsewhere the watchlist demographics won;t be (hopefully for wiki) so favorable. Regarding William de Lauder is the charter of William the Lion to Kinloss, if you look at the note, you will see that Barrow believes (rightly or wrongly, not for us to say unless we violate WP:OR) that person to be a mistake for William de Lindse. This charter is not an original, but a mid-14th century copy where the transcriber has clearly "modernised" the spellings of many names. I don't quite know why Barrow has taken this opinion, but I presume Barrow believes de Lauder to be de Lindse because William de Lindsey witnesses other charters of the King from that location at that period in time and is a noticable absentee, so he's probably assuming the "moderniser" thought de Lindse represented de Lauder. At any rate, in the index it is asserted as if fact that de Lauder is an error. Also, locative appellations of Scottish origin don't really get going until the turn of the 12th and 13th century, although here could be the correct time. Regarding the Sheriff of Perth in 1251, this is William de Lochore, not de Lauder; I believe your source for this has made a mistake (see Perth Blackfriars, no. 2; Barrow and Reid, Sheriffs of Scotland, p. 35.); the Lochores are the family I mentioned earlier that are the first Frenchmen known to have settled in Scotland north of the Forth; they held the semi-insular castle and land which became known as Inchgall, and descended from Constantine, the son of Robert the Burgundian. The earliest certain Lauder I can come across (and I make no claim for now that this has any bearing on the emergence of the Lauders) is the follower of Robert de Brus, who becomes Justiciar of Lothian, Robert de Lauder. The Lauders start appearing regularly after him, and that is common to a number of more humble Lothian barons or sub-barons who emerge from that part of the world to national prominence in the first half of the 14th century, almost certainly due to the military service they gave and their success in Anglo-Scottish war (and backing the winning side in the civil war of course). As you are clearly capable of good research and knowledgeable about a wide range of Lauder-related material, I'm grateful to any details you can provide that will educate me. I'm not making any claims about the emergence of the Lauders in contemporary records, but I am pointing out the rather obvious and uncontroversial fact that they do not originate from a grant of Malcolm III in 1056, which is later myth or historical speculation. You'd do yourself a lot of favors by tracing the earliest version of this story; if you can't trace it before Hector Boece, then you have no legs to stand on. Hector Boece says it ... fair enough ... say that in the article, don't present it as fact, esp. when it being a fact would contradict the opinions held by every modern specialist historian about the era regarding the origins of feudal settlement in Scotland. It is still a fact that Hector Boece says it though, which can be mentioned, but we don't need to mislead readers when doing this would mislead them so seriously (if nothing else, any undergraduate claiming this in an undergrad essay would get a big red line telling them exactly what I've told you). Surely you can agree with me on that, no? Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 21:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

History is built upon legends. You already agree that most of the early Scottish charters are lost to us and this is, as I've said, detailed by Bain. That should not mean that we simply dismiss everything out of hand because we no longer have the paperwork extant of up to 1000 years ago. You constantly bang on about contemporary later 20th century scholars being unquestionable and correct, and dismiss almost all those who came before them. You fail to explain why these later scholars are so much more brilliant than those who preceeded them. I have a few of the latest books. They are literally packed solid with phrases and words, such as "maybe, possibly, probably, looks like, could have been, might read" etc etc. Just because some modern scholars reach different conclusions based upon their own opinions and then publish them does not mean they are any more correct than those who went before them. As for being afraid of "the community" I am not sure what you're trying to threaten me with here. There were many people who agreed unquestioningly with, say, Hitler. Did that make them right? Or are you saying that "the community" (presumably that must include thousands of editors who have not the faintest knowledge, academic or otherwise, of Scottish history) are all disciples if a particular theory or set of theories and will pounce upon anyone who fails to agree with them?

I have attempted to give you umpteen sources all of which you dismiss as unacceptable. I even cited the great Professor Barrow, whom you have decided was mistaken!! In fact I have attempted to explain the situation so many times I wonder if its worth it. The Lauders, you say, appear suddenly under The Bruce. Well, at least we know their existance then because better extant records commence then. But Durham Cathedral charters have them at Edrington as feuars of The Church prior to 1300. Sir Robert de Lawedre is said to have fought at Stirling Bridge in 1297, and he was described on his tombstone, which for centuries laid in the floor of North Berwick Church, "here lies the good Robert Lauedre the greate Laird of Congaltoun and The Bass Maii MCCCXI". Alexander Nesbit, who actually viewed it, mentioned it in his famous work on Heraldry (1722, p443). One reference I have seen said it might be 1411 but that cannot be so because we know that the then Laird of The Bass was still living and that Congaltoun had passed out of their hands long before then.

Blind Harry, whom hopefully you regard as a reasonable chronicler, mentions this Robert de Lawedre several times as fighting with Wallace etc. Presumably (to use that much-loved word of modern scholars) he must have been born about or before 1260, especially as his son was of age at his death, the son Robert receiving numerous charters and confirmations of properties from at least 1315 (see the Great Seal of Scotland and Miscellany of The Scottish History Society,(volume 5, Edinburgh 1933) "Miscellaneous Charters 1315-1401", edited by William Angus, as well as those found in The Douglas Book (by William Douglas, CB., LL.D., vol.3, pps:10-11, Edinburgh 1885). By at least 1317 Robert the son of he who died in 1311 was a Justiciar.

Next I come to the Justiciar's son, who must of been of age on December 19, 1324 when he was described as a knight and witnessed a charter in Moray (National Archives of Scotland GD1/940). Legend has it that the first Lauder, helping to defeat Macbeth, was given some of his lands in Moray. Lachlan Shaw (History of the Province of Moray, 3 vols., Glasgow, 1882) writes "the first proprietor of Quarrelwood, of whom we have any distinct account, is Sir Robert Lauder or Lavedre. His father, also Sir Robert, was Justiciary of Lothian, and Ambassador to England in the time of King Robert Bruce, and engaged in similar service for King David Bruce. Both father and son seem to have been present at the battle of Halidon Hill, in 1333, after which fatal event the younger Sir Robert, being Justiciary of the North, hastened to occupy the Castle of Urquhart on Loch Ness, one of the few fortalices which held out against the power of Edward [1st] of England.

An essay by Alexander Grant entitled Extinction of Direct Male Lines mentions that the Lauders were one of only 31% of the great families of the time of Robert the Bruce who survived in the direct male line beyond 1500. He also states: "It has been pointed out that the Declaration of Arbroath does not give a complete roll-call of the leading barons of Robert 1st's regime. Professor [G.W.] Barrow has referred to the omission of 'men such as Andrew Murray of Bothwell, Robert Lauder [of the Bass] and Robert Menzies [of Weem]'. The family of Lauder are recorded as "prominent from 1320 and amongst those below the rank of earl who have been considered as belonging to the Scottish higher nobility between 1325 and 1349. ("Essays on the Nobility of Medieval Scotland" edited by K.J.Stringer, Edinburgh, 1985, pps: 214, 225, and 229). Using modern parlance I would argue to arrive at such a position overnight at that time would have been impossible.

We cannot just dismiss scholars of the past (who I am the first to admit made mistakes) because we cannot locate the paperwork in 2007. It is not me who is trying to overturn history, just record what is known and what has been researched by scholars in my opinion equally as competent as those today. All deserve their place in the annals. I will try and see if I can research further, but my time is very limited. David Lauder 14:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to figure you out, David, almost all of what you just posted supports the idea that the Lauders didn't emerge until the Wars of Independence. Regarding History is built upon legends., no it isn't. For historians, it is built on sources. Regarding, I even cited the great Professor Barrow, whom you have decided was mistaken!! ... no I didn't. Barrow has decided the William de Lauder is a later corruption ... something you failed to mention when you cited him, and I believe him (as apparently so do you). The 19th century "sources" you quote in support of your Malcolm III do not support you as you claim they do. The ones that agree with you offer only their own speculation (based on their false believes about Malcolm III, and their inability to distinguish between good contemporary sources like charters and later legends such as those in Boece) and (in at least one case) references to non-existent "charters" allegedly seen by someone else which just so happen not to exist any more. You're not even reading what I'm saying, as what you said about Barrow shows. I've given you a chance out of respect, but you have not made your case (which is frankly impossible to make). Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 18:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You are entirely wrong to tag this page just because you are suffering from WP:DONTLIKE IT. I have given far more source materials than most editors offer to Wikipedia and so I have more than fulfulled Wikipedia's requirements. I am sorry that you personally don't approve of the sources but its just tought luck and you have no right to carry on like this. Why not look at WP:OWN. David Lauder 18:46, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Further to your remarks above, I feel also that you simply don;t read what I say or refuse to comprehend it. Your comments on Canmore in England are not supported by R.L.Graeme Ritchie (The Normans in Scotland, Edinburgh University Press, 1954) who clearly states that Normanisation of Scotland commenced under Canmore; that a troop of Norman cavalry died fighting for Macbeth at Dunsinane; that much of the 14 years Canmore spent in England was spent at Court where Edward the Confessor, who had lived in normandy most of his life, 'gathered around him men of culture from Normandy and other parts of the French-speaking world'. Ritchie adds "recent historians belittle the French influence on England before 1066" (I presume you must be one of these) but it was "cultural and social, strongest in the Church, in Court circles, among the aristocracy, of birth or of intellect. After sixty years and more the cumulative effect was considerable............when the Normans invaded Scotland in 1072 they found a king and queen in some degree familiar with their language and their ways." I could go on but I hoppe you can see that Ritchie largely demolishes your assertions about Normans in Scotland at the time of Canmore. It is ludicrous to suggest that Canmore or his supporters such as his uncle Siward swanned into Scotland with some band of useless serfs with pikes. Obviously they would have recruited Normans and others into their ranks as professional mercenaries which is what the Lauder 'legend' says. David Lauder 18:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The article as it currently stands does not distinguish fact and fiction (see above). You are presenting legends and 16th century pseudo-history as fact, citing outdated authors as authority. If I wanted, I could add the Irish people descend from Scythians and Greeks who entered Egypt, and who then travelled to Ireland via Spain and cite 19th century sources. The same problem would apply. Regarding Richie, see Barrow, "Beginnings of Military Feudalism", Duncan, Kingship of the Scots, and Making of the Kingdom, Oram, David, etc, etc, etc. If Malcolm had Normans, they don't appear in any record. This conversation is now becoming tedious btw. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You started this. I have fallen over myself providing sources and arguments all of which you dismiss. Only your comment is valid. You need to concentrate heavily on digesting WP:POV. I have come across a great many articles (some of which you have written /contributed to) which I do not agree with. I have occasionally commented on a Talk Page but I think it wrong to wreck other people's work just because I don't agree with them/their sources. This may be the fundamental difference between you and me. David Lauder 19:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing, David. I have already said what needs to be said. Article dispute may benefit from wider attention. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 19:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Doubtless you may be able to rope some comrades to help destroy my contributions and what I have written, under whatever guise you care to put it. I have seen it before and this is one of the things which puts people I know off contributing to Wikipedia. I have followed to the letter WP:Reliable sources which states that Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources. I have done that religiously. David Lauder 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continues

Not being any sort of expert on charters, I have no strong views on the minutiae. I will say that Barrow (Kingdom of the Scots, p. 265 & note 108) opines that the castle at Lauder belonged to the de Morvilles and was the centre of their estates. As for the general point regarding reliable sources, should we treat the lumeniferous æther as scientifically valid, as an 1848 science book would have done? Historical knowledge may not advance in as obvious a fashion as in the natural sciences, but it clearly does advance. Anyway, if we have no higher aim than reworking Victoriana, we may as well stop now. The 1911 Britannica did that better than we ever can. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the castle at Lauder was on castle hill which is, in fact, a man-made mound down in the valley east of the town near the Leader Water. It was later used by The Crown as a fort and appears on many of the ancient maps. An order in Council was made for its demolition in the 16th century but it was not carried out and it remained in situ until purchased by Sir John Maitland who erected the new Thirlestane Castle there. (See: Lauder and Lauderdale by A.Thomson, FSA (Scot)., Galashiels, 1902: p178). Some of the old walls of the castle were used and in places Thirlestane is 10 feet thick. That is not the Tower house which was in the centre of Lauder burgh.

On the issues raised, again I too would cite Barrow again (The Anglo-Norman Era in Scottish History, Clarendon press, Oxford, p.164, 1980, ISBN 0-19-822473-7) where he says ...since it is only from the twelfth century that we begin to have feudal documents for Scotland, we cannot assume that feudalism was then newly introduced, but that on the contrary honours and castles, knights and knights' fees and vassalic commendaton might all have been found in the Scotland of Malcolm III....". I think it slightly insulting to accuse countless old scholars of fantasising. Most were diligent and careful researchers. They must have got their information from somewhere. It is just unfortunate that in books before the 20th century bibliographies are sometimes wanting. David Lauder 07:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd lean towards an "if in doubt, leave it out" position. The enthusiasm of Victorian scholars (most of the sources you are citing seem to have been published within a couple of decades of each other) for the more romantic tales from Scotland'd history could sometimes get the better of them. If there is any doubt whatsoever that the sources of this legend are accurate, we should not treat this as fact. At most, mention the Canmore story as a family legend. And please don't cite Holinshed as a source, seriously. Lurker (said · done) 10:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I hear what you say but I am unable to see "doubt" except in the personal opinions of a couple of folk here. I mean, just how many sources must I flag up? I have followed WP:Reliable sources and Holinshed (while some discount him others don't) must surely count as a well-known and famous chronicler. I appreciate that you and the Deacon might be twentieth-century purists but I say again, should you be putting down nineteenth century authors as though they were all fantasists? David Lauder 11:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The main issue at stake would appear to be that whilst there are numerous verifiable sources for one position, some (perhaps many, even most) modern historians take a different view. The problem with the debate as I see it is that it has become one of either/or. Why cannot it be both/and? This could be as simple as a sentence e.g. ‘whilst many Victorian scholars believed (a) to be true, others believe that (b) is much more likely to be correct’. This could expand to become a section, even an article all to itself given the volume of correspondence already generated. Of course, in present circumstances this might become a problem at one remove if it simply results in arguments about wording and emphasis. However, it must surely be possible to present the discussion in such way that allows an intelligent reader to make up their own mind based on the evidence rather than the article itself having to be judge and jury. Ben MacDui (Talk) 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Black, Surnames of Scotland, confirms that the de Lauders don't appear until the late 13th century. Of the Malcolm III legend, which David preposterously believes, he says Robert de Laveder is said erroneously to have obtained land in Berwickshire from Malcolm Canmore (Thomson, Lauder and Lauderdale, p. 6), then goes on to show they didn't actually appear till later. Yeah, David, I know you think this is POV pushing revisionist propaganda by twisted minded modern specialists, but this perception is just your own. Black is somewhat outdated, but even he had abandoned the ideas forwarded by trashy Victorian and pre-Victorian amateur "historians" who seem to saturate your library and who couldn't distinguish sources like Boece from proper evidence. Get Skene's 3 vol. set at least, if you absolutely refuse to read anything written in the last 100 years; even he doesn't used early modern writers like Boece and Buchanan as sources. Regarding WP:Reliable sources, read the thing properly; trawling through amateur and/or outdated work to support myths can be done for anything. I could write an article presenting Blacks and Jews as sub-humans and find plenty of material with which to cite these assertions as facts from your beloved era of flawless "scholarship". When you yourself learn what the difference is between a reliable and unreliable source, then you can start pasting links to {{WP:Reliable sources]]. I'll try to find time soon to fix the inaccuracies you've put into the article with proper citations. Problem is that since myths like these aren't an issue for historians, except historians of teh later middle ages and early modern period who write about myths like these, it is tough. But there's Black and all the modern historians who discuss the period. You're insistence on retaining this myth in the article is going to necessitate a whole paragraph about early Scottish feudalism ... is that what you really want? Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I have Black. I believe that someone who sat inside the New York Public Library for his entire life, over 50 years ago, without adequate access to our records is not in a position to "confirm" anything. He is quite discredited on a number of entries and who has been substantially attacked for accuracy in the 54 year-old journals of The Scottish Genealogist. As you say he doesn't agree with Thomson's work of 1902 but so what? Thomson's book is still highly regarded here. Black Surnames just happened to be the first book of its kind on Scottish surnames to hit the streets and that is why it became so well-known. I do feel your last posting (and some earlier ones too) significantly contravenes WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. I read WP:Reliable sources most carefully. What we have here is a simple situation, you don't approve of pre-20th century writers who, under various headings, you denounce as incompetent. You accuse them all of being "amateur" (how do you actually know this?) and, essentially, morons. For you, only later twentieth century writers and opinions are correct. All those earlier brilliant transcribers of the ancient scripts are wrong! Because most early records have been destroyed your history is based only upon what you personally can locate today. Previous writers, who must have based their findings on something they had seen, are wrong. I'm afraid that these are your personal opinions and you just have no right whatsoever to dictate to Wikipedia editors as though your opinions on WP should prevail. Who do you think you are? I note that you intend to start attacking and deleting my work (even though I have never done that to your contributions or anyone elses either regardless of whether I disagree with it) as though it is your right, rather than constructively adding to it. I don't care how many barnstars and bangles you have, which may have inflated your sence of importance, you are out of order on this subject and I will take it much further if forced and I will persist until your behaviour and your manner of dictating to other editors is dealt with. David Lauder 09:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, sure thing David. Records being destroyed obviously proves any legend you choose to believe in. I've said what needs to be said. Your responses speak for themselves. As for denoucing Black ... that's funny ... he's still used as a source because he, unlike most of your Victorian writers, researched almost exhaustively (made little use of Dunf. Reg. for instance) and cites absolutely everything he claims, and though out-of-date, far far higher calibre than any of the pie-in-the-sky Victoriana you're citing. As for your threats ... well, your comprehension of WP guidelines and policies is clearly little different than your ability to judge sources. This conversation is clearly going nowhere quickly. I'll get around to fixing the problems you've created for the article when I get the time. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 09:55, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

If ancient and contemporary reliable sources disagree, the fact that opinion has changed should be described with both sides' sources cited. This is similar to how we satisfy WP:NPOV when contemporary reliable sources disagree: we describe the controversy, and cite both sides. ←Ben^B4 03:03, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I said earlier that the myth reported by Boece could be mentioned without being presented (as currently) as fact. That aside, I'd just like to point out that it's not a controversy. No modern historian believes the Boece tale or would regard it worth mentioning. It contradicts established understanding of early Scottish history. Other users on this page know this too (they know who they are), though are not getting involved. The only reason there is discussion here is because David Lauder doesn't know this, and regards everything that got past a publisher a century ago as more worthy than modern scholarship. Now David is entitled to believe this myth, or in tooth fairies, or anything else, but is not entitled to present such fantasies as fact. If David's wish is to continue to present this as fact, then the conversation here is effectively finished and cleaning up can proceed. I'm gonna leave the tags just now to let David cool off and until I get more time. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

For my part (and I usually refrain from entering into these discussions) I feel the last editor is wrong to make statements such as "no modern historian believes", or "established understanding of early Scottish History", and to describe the writings of what appears to be a great many authors as "fantasies", statements he could not back up because at the end of the day it is opinion. He correctly states that he could find any number of authors on other subjects whose views may be debunked by modern science. But we are not speaking of science here. WP requires that we provide sources for additions we make to articles and editor David Lauder has more than provided them.

That leaves us with the opposition which, it appears, comes chiefly from one editor who does not like what has been added to the article, regardless of the sources, which he discounts. This would appear to me to fall within WP's 'I don't like it' and personal opinion more than anything else. He discounts Barrow's assertion that a transcription of an ancient charter might be Lauder but fails to explain why Barrow says this or even considers it. He attacks editor David Lauder on academic grounds but then cites the work of an indexer (who normally does not write the book) as stating something is wrong. It may indeed be Lindsay but there were several abbots of Kinloss who were also abbots of Melrose. If the Lauders were in that vicinity as claimed it seems possible that it may have been one.

The periods of history this discussion covers are to a very large extent vague. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle says little or nothing about Siward's efforts in Scotland on behalf of Malcolm III. I have never found acceptable records citing names of people who accompanied him but surely thousands did. Editor Deacon has asserted that Normans were not in Scotland in the time of Macbeth/Malcolm III but that is clearly not the case because some chroniclers assert Norman and Felmish mercenaries fought on both sides. Ridpath (The Border History of England & Scotland, Berwick, 1848, p38) citing Florence says that Siward "invaded Scotland with a mighty fleet and an army of horsemen" and goes on to mention "all the Normans who had lately taken refuge in Scotland". He gives William of Malmesbury, Simeon of Durham, Hoveden, and others as further reading.

I cannot read the old scripts and clearly interpretations of ancient charters (the few which exist) vary, sometimes considerably. Who is right and who is wrong? Thats is the ultimate question. But we should take care in the dununciation of all those we disagree with. There is always room for the opposite view, and, I would like to think, always room for folk stories, legends, and "fantasies". Christchurch 10:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC) NB: User:Christchurch is a confirmed sockpuppet of User:David Lauder

Christchurch, you might wanna read a little closer.

He discounts Barrow's assertion that a transcription of an ancient charter might be Lauder but fails to explain why Barrow says this or even considers it.

No I didn't, and that's not what Barrow says. You've got the two jumbled up.

This would appear to me to fall within WP's 'I don't like it' and personal opinion more than anything else.

No such thing.

He correctly states that he could find any number of authors on other subjects whose views may be debunked by modern science. But we are not speaking of science here.

Practically no relevant difference, esp. with material this early.

He attacks editor David Lauder on academic grounds but then cites the work of an indexer (who normally does not write the book) as stating something is wrong.

Wrong again, I didn't use that as an argument for anything, just mentioned it, and its worth mentioning because for the book in question the author was almost certainly closely involved with the index.

I feel the last editor is wrong to make statements such as "no modern historian believes", or "established understanding of early Scottish History",

OK, please give me an example of a modern historian of this era of Scottish history believing this kind of thing. Presumably you have some to cite, otherwise you wouldn't have said that. The only thing you have referred to in a book written in 1848.

Editor Deacon has asserted that Normans were not in Scotland in the time of Macbeth/Malcolm III but that is clearly not the case because some chroniclers assert Norman and Felmish mercenaries fought on both sides.

This is not what I asserted. Again, read what I've written, esp. the part where I stated Malcolm III is not known to have had any foreign soldiers, though Macbeth allegedly had some Norman mercenaries.. Also, Malcolm III wasn't involved in this. This is Malcolm, King of the Cumbrians, whom those 12th century and later historians confused with Malcolm III when deriving their material from the ASC. In doing so those sources also report MacBeth as dying 3 years before his actual death, which was necessitated in the conflation. MacBeth was alleged to have been involved with some Normans, but if these 12th century writers are encountering Normanni, this could - in fact more likely would - refer to Scandinavians.

It may indeed be Lindsay but there were several abbots of Kinloss who were also abbots of Melrose.

What's that got to do with anything? The charter was issued at Melrose. Even David doesn't dispute that this Lauder is probably de Lindse'.

There is always room for the opposite view, and, I would like to think, always room for folk stories, legends, and "fantasies"

In current historiography, the beliefs propounded above are borderline Wikipedia:Fringe theories. The de Lauders being settled in 1054 in the reign of Malcolm III (which didn't begin for another 3 years), before the Norman conquest of England, more than half a century before any actual known Norman settlement in Scotland, when the area in question wasn't even part of Scotland, with a locative appellation that couldn't have existed at the time, when the areas actual owners were demonstrably someone else in the following century, when the family don't appear until the late 13th century. The basic historical mistakes contained in the myth correspond with historical mistakes believed at the time of Boece. But the tale is part of a huge number of tales deriving from Boece's time and after and have no more historical believability than descent of England's native kings from Wodan, and the story being believed by a few tertiary Victorian "sources" make them no more probable than the wandering Aryans who founded Great Zimbabwe and the civilizations of Egypt and China, which could also be cited from the same era. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 12:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

You are not the oracle you think you are and your style of telling everyone what is and what isn't, as though everyone is wrong except you is not on. The de Lawedres are said to have been granted various lands by Canmore after he became king. It is only you who mentions 1054. The area of Lauderdale was within Scotland at that time. You state "with a locative appellation that couldn't have existed at the time" so I presume you are saying that nowhere in Scotland had names then, eh? Or do you restrict your argument purely to Lauder? The overlords David II gave superiorities to rarely actually had anything to do with their lands which were usually feued out (sometimes already). We have no reason to believe the situation was any different before David's reign. There is clear evidence in later charters that the Lauders held their land directly from the Crown yet the Regality of Lauderdale was still a separate entity. So how and where did they acquire lands directly from the Crown if it is not in the evidence presented by countless historians, all of whom you denounce as fantasists. You've got all all the sneering expressions of others based upon your own opinions but you cannot explain anything. Only denounce. Presumably as most pre-William The Lion charters are lost to us none of that history now exists, except for the few scraps you can locate and the presumptions of late-20th century know-alls? It is a pity when others are trying to be constructive that we ar up against those who only want to be destructive. David Lauder 18:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, 1054 is the date that you normally hear for those myths ... that or 1056. Anyways, point is, Robert de Lauder would not have been from Lauder when he settled in Lauder ... that is surely obvious, so wouldn't have been called Robert de Lauder. One of the more humorous elements of the tale. We do have reason to believe David I ... don't pretend you have awareness of modern historical debate on this matter - made it new, for which see first two pages of Barrow's "Beginnings of Military Feudalism" and Oram's David I (I'm assuming you're talking about David I rather than David II). Never ruled out there being Normans in "Scotland" before David - though I think it's pretty unlikely - but do rule out your tale, because it has nothing to do with the evidence and is palpably against the evidence. Morville is the owner of Lauder in David's period, granted out of territory only recently acquired by David (it was not in Scotland in the reign of Malcolm III nor was it in the territory of even the king of Scots before 1124) to de Morville. You've got a statement This did not affect the Lauder family's properties as they were already held 'of the King, which I doubt even Boece claimed, is 'pure fiction, and was probably only written as a device to reconcile the Boece story with the reality of the evidence. Not history my friend. The ancestors of the 14th century Lauders may well have been in Lauder in the 12th century, but there is no evidence. There being gaps in the evidence is not an excuse btw to fill it with any trash. The status of Lauder three or four centuries later also has no impact on the 12th century, and certainly not on the 11th :lol: . Your use of tertiary and outdated sources does not fulfill WP:Reliable sources as you claim it does. I've already said most of this already. It was tiresome a few days ago and is more tiresome now. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Your rudeness and manner of speaking to others reduces your efforts of acceptance for your theories - and thats all they are. Suggesting that because the earliest charter you know of for land in Lauderdale was to the de Morvilles therefore means no-one else could have preceded them belies credibility. Some sources claim, for instance, that the Maitlands (Mautelant) were already at Thirlestane, on the edge of Lauderdale, when de Morville had his grant. What is now known as Lauderdale was part of Scotland when Malcolm III mounted the throne. As for surnames and the de Lawedres, I can only quote from James Young's book (1884, so a crétin by your yardsticks) who, after considering the argments on the Lauder surname, cites Lower (Patronymica Britannica): "many of the Norman nobless who had brought family names across the channel, transferred themselves to North Britain (Scotland) and of course did not drop those designations into the river Tweed". Most of the sources I have cited are packed full of ancient sources consulted by those scholars themselves. It is futile to continue a discussion with someone who feels that every other scholar between 1700 and 1920 is a moron and wrong, and he is right. David Lauder 18:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

David, the article is all yours. I hope you eventually realise you are wrong on this one, but I'm clearly not going to be able to persuade you of that. Add what you want to the article. All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 22:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"Macbeth was the first to introduce Normans into Scotland. He used them as gaill comlaind or a mercenary force. He had offered Normans refuge when they were expelled from Edward the Confessor's court in 1052." (Guido, M.A., in Foundations, journal of the Foundation for Medieval Genealogy, vol.2, no.4, July 2007, p.278n. ISSN 1479-5078 ).