The Moore's:Information about Mariot (Janet) Maxwell
Mariot (Janet) Maxwell (b. 1419, d. Aft. June 25, 1472)
Notes for Mariot (Janet) Maxwell:[myged11.FTW]
From Ancestral File (TM), data as of 5 JAN 1998.
[Br
!Family Records of Kenneth Stevenson
Also called Mariot and Janet.
Burke's Peerage is not sure whether this person is named Janet orMariota.I have named her Mariota Janet to indicate the uncertainty. Seebelow for an indication that there may have been two sisters, a Mariotaand a Janet, that married diffe rent people--or the Mariota/Janet thatmarried Robert, 1st Lord Boyd came from a later generation of Maxwell asindicated by Burke's (see discussion below about inconsistancies inBurke's lineage) and the Mariota/Janet of this generation marri ed WilliamPorteous.I have portrayed two separate sisters in my ancestry, butwelcome any further information on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Burke's has a fairly major screw up with the ancestors of Mariota/Janet.In the Kilmarnock, Baron line which contains the Boyd lineage, themarriage of Robert, 1st Lord Boyd to Janet or Mariota Maxwell is given.Burke's states that Mariota/Janet's father is Robert Maxwell ofCalderwood described in the Farnham, Baronet line.
Under the Farnham line where the Maxwell of Calderwood lineage is given,one would expect to find a Robert Maxwell of Calderwood with a daughterMariota/Janet who married Robert, 1st Lord Boyd.Not only one, but twodifferent generations, on e (Robert) the grandson of the other (John),supposedly had daughters that married the "1st Lord Boyd".
The "Robert" (grandson, who had an un-named daughter marrying 1st LordBoyd) died in 1531 while his supposed daughter Mariota/Janet died byearly 1473--58 years earlier?--not likely.The grandfather (John), whichnames his daughter Mariota/J anet marrying 1st Lord Boyd, is the son of amarriage of 4 Dec 1450 and is dead by 1490--again born to a marriage anddied way too late for Mariota/Janet and the wrong name (John-not Robert)!To compound matters, this "John" married Janet/Mari on Boyd daughter ofThomas Boyd 5th Lord of Kilmarnock (who also happens to be father ofMariota/Janet's husband Robert, 1st Lord Boyd)-therefore havingMariota/Janet Maxwell marrying her mother's brother!
There is a Robert Maxwell of Calderwood, married 1402, grandfather of the"John" and great great grandfather of the "Robert", who seems to beperfect--but in a screwed-up lineage, who knows?I have designated thisRobert Maxwell of Calderwoo d as father of Mariota/Janet and discountedthe other Robert and John.
My impression is that all of the mistakes are in the Farnham line--not inthe Kilmarnock line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sandy Hotson, originally through a post-em and subsequently throughe-mail, has information that a daughter of Robert de Maxw ell married aWilliam Porteous and subsequently "Hawkshaw", one of the estates owned bythe Maxwell family, was passed on to the Porteous family.I did somesearching and found the following supporting information for that theoryat a web site : www.applegate.co.uk/fam_his/381-415.htm.The page isentitle "The Tweedie Archive, Tweedie/Tweedy Genealogy".
A History of Peeblesshire
J. W. Buchan and Rev. H. Paton. Published 1925-7.
HAWKSHAW, CARTERHOPE AND FINGLAND
These three hill farms lie north of Earlshaugh, and may be convenientlydealt with together, as, although they are now owned by differentproprietors, they were one holding in early times. The Fingland andHawkshaw burns flow direct into the Tweed opposite the lands ofGlenbreck, but the Carterhope burn flows into the Water of Fruid, whichjoins the Tweed below the Hawkshaw burn.
The property, a host. In this grant only the lands of'Hawkeschaws' are referred to, but it is clear that at that time andlater, Carterhope and Fingland were considered to be parts of Hawkshaw.Part of Hawkshaw was also known as Glengonvir or Glengonar...... .....
[there followed a discussion of the Lindsay and Crawford heritage, whichI skip]
Turning back to deal with the grant of the lands to Sir John Maxwell ofPollok, which was confirmed in 1372, there is record of an indenture madeat Dumbarton in the year 1400 between Sir John of Maxwell, Lord of NetherPollok, and his son Ro bert, on the one side, and Sir John of Maxwell, theson and heir of the Lord of Nether Pollok, on the other side, accordingto which it was agreed that Robert and his heirs should have the'Hawkschawland, Fynglen, and Carterhope in Twede muir' with certain landsin the sheriffdom of Lanark. Thereafter the lands continued to be held bya branch of the Maxwell family, and they were sub-feued to the family ofPorteous, but when this took place there is no record. The result wasthat a third superiority was created - the Crown being the over-superiorof the barony of Crawford Lindsay or Crawford Douglas, the successiveproprietors of that barony being the superiors of the Maxwells, and theMaxwells and their successors being the superiors of the family ofPorteous and their successors.
The chartularies of the barony do not go back beyond the beginning of theseventeenth century. In 1626 the holder of the third superiority wasEdward Maxwell, son of Sir James Maxwell of Caldercross, and it isreasonable to infer from that en try that the Maxwell family had been incontinuous possession since the grant confirmed in 1372. In 1635 SirJames Maxwell of Caldercross, Baronet, was the proprietor, and hetransferred his right of superiority to Sir William Murray of Stanho pe,Baronet, from whom it passed in 1696 to his son, Sir David Murray, and in1738 to Sir David's son, Sir Alexander. In 1738 the owner of thissuperiority was James (Stewart), fifth Earl of Galloway, and his sonAlexander, the sixth Earl, conv eyed it in 1763 to William Loch, a writerin Edinburgh.
Dealing now with the right of property, this was held by the family ofPorteous for almost three centuries. There was a 'tower' on the banks ofHawkshaw burn which is marked on Blaeu's map, and near it in ancienttimes was a chapel on the ban ks of Fruid Water, the remains of which werestill visible in the eighteenth century, 'standing in a cemetery whichwas not then altogether forsaken.'
There was a WILLIAM PORTEOUS of Hawkshaw in 1439. In 1467 THOMAS PORTEOUSof Hawkshaw is referred to. He took action against Walter Tweedie ofDrumelzier for some wrong which is not specified, and obtained ajudgement in 1478 on behalf of him self and the widow and children ofHerbert Porteous. On 27th October, 1479, the Lords of Council inEdinburgh ordained that:
'Jofra Litil and William Litill sall restore to Thomas Porteous ofHalkschawis 18 score of scheip with yowis, price of the pece, 4s.;spulzeit, takin and withholdin be the said Jofra and William out of thelandis of Halkschawis.'
[the article goes on to detail many other Porteous family members insubsequent centuries.The above information supports Sandy Hotson'ssupposition that Janet (or maybe Mariota) married William Porteous.Ihave indicated such a relationshi p in my ancestry.]
Marlot, daughter of Sir Robert Maxwell of Calderwood.[Magna Charta Sureties]
------------------------
Burke's Peerage is not sure whether this person is named Janet or Mariota.I have named her Mariota Janet to indicate the uncertainty. See below for an indication that there may have been two sisters, a Mariota and a Janet, that married d ifferent people--or the Mariota/Janet that married Robert, 1st Lord Boyd came from a later generation of Maxwell as indicated by Burke's (see discussion below about inconsistancies in Burke's lineage) and the Mariota/Janet of this generatio n married William Porteous.I have portrayed two separate sisters in my ancestry, but welcome any further information on it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Burke's has a fairly major screw up with the ancestors of Mariota/Janet. In the Kilmarnock, Baron line which contains the Bo yd lineage, the marriage of Robert, 1st Lord Boyd to Janet or Mariota Maxwell is given. Burke's states that Mariota/Janet's father is Robert Maxwell of Calderwood described in the Farnham, Baronet line.
Under the Farnham line where the Maxwell of Calderwood lineage is given, one would expect to find a Robert Maxwell of Calderwood with a daughter Mariota/Janet who married Robert, 1st Lord Boyd.Not only one, but two different generations, one (Robert) the grandson of the other (John), supposedly had daughters that married the "1st Lord Boyd".
The "Robert" (grandson, who had an un-named daughter marrying 1st Lord Boyd) died in 1531 while his supposed daughter Mariota/Janet died by early 1473--58 years earlier?--not likely.The grandfather (John), which names his daughter Mariot a/Janet marrying 1st Lord Boyd, is the son of a marriage of 4 Dec 1450 and is dead by 1490--again born to a marriage and died way too late for Mariota/Janet and the wrong name (John-not Robert)! To compound matters, this "John" married Jane t/Marion Boyd daughter of Thomas Boyd 5th Lord of Kilmarnock (who also happens to be father of Mariota/Janet's husband Robert, 1st Lord Boyd)-therefore having Mariota/Janet Maxwell marrying her mother's brother!
There is a Robert Maxwell of Calderwood, married 1402, grandfather of the "John" and great great grandfather of the "Robert", who seems to be perfect--but in a screwed-up lineage, who knows?I have designated this Robert Maxwell of Calder wood as father of Mariota/Janet and discounted the other Robert and John.
My impression is that all of the mistakes are in the Farnham line--not in the Kilmarnock line.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Sandy Hotson, originally through a post-em and subsequently through e-mail, has information that a daughter of Robert de M axwell married a William Porteous and subsequently "Hawkshaw", one of the estates owned by the Maxwell family, was passed on to the Porteous family.I did some searching and found the following supporting information for that theory at a w eb site: www.applegate.co.uk/fam_his/381-415.htm.The page is entitle "The Tweedie Archive, Tweedie/Tweedy Genealogy".
A History of Peeblesshire
J. W. Buchan and Rev. H. Paton. Published 1925-7.
HAWKSHAW, CARTERHOPE AND FINGLAND
These three hill farms lie north of Earlshaugh, and may be conveniently dealt with together, as, although they are now owned by different proprietors, they were one holding in early times. The Fingland and Hawkshaw burns flow direct into t he Tweed opposite the lands of Glenbreck, but the Carterhope burn flows into the Water of Fruid, which joins the Tweed below the Hawkshaw burn.
The property, a 's host. In this grant only the lands of 'Hawkeschaws' are referred to, but it is clear that at that time and later, Carterhope and Fingland were considered to be parts of Hawkshaw. Part of Hawkshaw was also known as Glengonvir or Glengonar ...........
[there followed a discussion of the Lindsay and Crawford heritage, which I skip]
Turning back to deal with the grant of the lands to Sir John Maxwell of Pollok, which was confirmed in 1372, there is record of an indenture made at Dumbarton in the year 1400 between Sir John of Maxwell, Lord of Nether Pollok, and his son Robert, on the one side, and Sir John of Maxwell, the son and heir of the Lord of Nether Pollok, on the other side, according to which it was agreed that Robert and his heirs should have the 'Hawkschawland, Fynglen, and Carterhope in Twede muir' with certain lands in the sheriffdom of Lanark. Thereafter the lands continued to be held by a branch of the Maxwell family, and they were sub-feued to the family of Porteous, but when this took place there is no record. The result w as that a third superiority was created - the Crown being the over-superior of the barony of Crawford Lindsay or Crawford Douglas, the successive proprietors of that barony being the superiors of the Maxwells, and the Maxwells and their suc cessors being the superiors of the family of Porteous and their successors.
The chartularies of the barony do not go back beyond the beginning of the seventeenth century. In 1626 the holder of the third superiority was Edward Maxwell, son of Sir James Maxwell of Caldercross, and it is reasonable to infer from that entry that the Maxwell family had been in continuous possession since the grant confirmed in 1372. In 1635 Sir James Maxwell of Caldercross, Baronet, was the proprietor, and he transferred his right of superiority to Sir William Murray of Stanhope, Baronet, from whom it passed in 1696 to his son, Sir David Murray, and in 1738 to Sir David's son, Sir Alexander. In 1738 the owner of this superiority was James (Stewart), fifth Earl of Galloway, and his son Alexander, the sixth Earl, conveyed it in 1763 to William Loch, a writer in Edinburgh.
Dealing now with the right of property, this was held by the family of Porteous for almost three centuries. There was a 'tower' on the banks of Hawkshaw burn which is marked on Blaeu's map, and near it in ancient times was a chapel on the banks of Fruid Water, the remains of which were still visible in the eighteenth century, 'standing in a cemetery which was not then altogether forsaken.'
There was a WILLIAM PORTEOUS of Hawkshaw in 1439. In 1467 THOMAS PORTEOUS of Hawkshaw is referred to. He took action against Walter Tweedie of Drumelzier for some wrong which is not specified, and obtained a judgement in 1478 on behalf of himself and the widow and children of Herbert Porteous. On 27th October, 1479, the Lords of Council in Edinburgh ordained that:
'Jofra Litil and William Litill sall restore to Thomas Porteous of Halkschawis 18 score of scheip with yowis, price of the pece, 4s.; spulzeit, takin and withholdin be the said Jofra and William out of the landis of Halkschawis.'
[the article goes on to detail many other Porteous family members in subsequent centuries.The above information supports Sandy Hotson's supposition that Janet (or maybe Mariota) married William Porteous.I have indicated such a relation ship in my ancestry.]
More About Mariot (Janet) Maxwell:
AKA (Facts Pg): Janet.5793
Ancestral File Number: 9G0M-QN.5793
Baptism (LDS): January 05, 19295793
Endowment (LDS): January 23, 19295793
Identifier Number: HWS42467.5793
More About Mariot (Janet) Maxwell and Robert Boyd:
Film Number: 1985587 & 1985623 & 1904037.5793
Marriage: Abt. 1445, Calderwood, Lanarkshire, Scotland.5793
Possible Dates: Bet. 1445 - 1449, Calderwood, Lanark, Scotland.5793
Sealed to spouse (LDS): January 19, 1962, LANGE.5793
Marriage Notes for Mariot (Janet) Maxwell and Robert Boyd:[myged11.FTW]
LDS Sealed to Spouse Date Imported:19JAN'62 LA
2_PREF Y
Children of Mariot (Janet) Maxwell and Robert Boyd are:
- Thomas BOYD, b. Abt. 1445, Scotland5793, d. Aft. 1469, Scotland5793.
- Alexander Baron Of Boyd 3rd, b. 1452, Kilmarnock, Renfrew, Scotland, Great Britain5793, d. 1508, Kilmarnock, Renfrew, Scotland, Great Britain5793.
- +Archibald Boyd, b. 1454, Kilmarnock, Renfrew, Scotland5793, d. Bef. May 04, 1507, Scotland5793.
- Elizabeth BOYD, b. Abt. 1458, Of Kilmarnock, Renfrew, Scotland5793, d. Bef. 1498, Kilmarnock, Renfrew, Scotland, Great Britain5793.
- Annabelle Boyd, b. 1460, Kilmarnock, Renfrew, Scotland5793, d. date unknown5793.