How to resolve issues with partially similar Profiles?

Question

When the completion of proposed merges opposes historical fact. What recourse does a family member have in rectifying the mistaken IDENTITY of his or her ancestors. Without starting a completely new tree which will again be swallowed up in incorrectly proposed merges.

There is assumption that the place of abode equals the family name. for example, in Wiki tree,

Example 1. Ross, De Ross,

Example 2. Bonkyl, De Bonkyl.

Those are awards of Title and estates, by period rulers. for assistance, service or support to the Crown.

The family names of the above examples 1 and 2, are O'Beolan, and Stewart. respectively.  The O'Beolan lineage is of Irish decent from the Kings of Tara, Northern Ireland, and the Family Name of O'Beolan became extinct on the death of  William O'Beolan of Ross, who died before his Father William O'Beolan, 5th Earl of Ross.  The title and estates of Ross pass in the Pictish tradition being oldest daughter, Euphemia O'Beolan, Countess of Ross, Married in first by dispensation dated 1367, Sir Walter Leslie, son of Sir Alexander Leslie, Who in right of his wife became Earl of Ross. Euphemia was predeceased by her first husband in 1382. She married secondly Alexander Stewart Earl of Buchan, (better known as the Wolf of Badenoch).

Stewart. Family Lineage is historically significant  obviously I am invested in the portrayal of accurate Genealogy compilation.

In conclusion Scottish naming conventions are dissimilar from English naming conventions.

The Protection of Projects is essential but only if the content therein is correct. What appears to have happened is that dual identities have been created using Title and estate ownership as family name and that does not reflect the policy of Wiki Tree. More collaborative research is essential to honor this valuable genealogy which can be traced back to the hereditary Steward's of Dol. dictionary

Comments

• Cultures in the highlands at this time are Celtic Gaelic Pictish. Norse.
• http://www.clanmacfarlanegenealogy.info/genealogy/TNGWebsite/getperson.php?personID=I4335&tree=CC 
• 1 - O'Bjolans, the main line of which by the time of the 6th Earl became known by the surname of "Ross" (rather than the Gaelic MacTaggart or O'Beolan)
• In 'Celtic Scotland,' Vol. II, p.412, it is stated that the hereditary lay priests of which he was the chief "according to tradition, bore the name of O'Beollan"; and McVuirich, in the Black Book of Clanranald, says that from Ferquhard was descended Gillapatrick the Red, son of Roderick, and known traditionally as the
  Red Priest, whose daughter, at a later date, married and carried the monastery lands of Lochalsh and Lochcarron to the Macdonalds of the Isles.
  In one of the Norse Sagas the progenitor of Ferquhard is designated "King," just the same as the great Somerled and some of his descendants had been called at a later date.
  That the O'Beolan Earls of Ross, of whom Ferquhard Mac an t'Sagairt was the first, descended from the same ancestor, Gilleoin na h' Airde, as the older "Gillandres" earl of 1160, is equally certain. Earl Gillandres as probably forfeited for the part he took against Malcolm IV. on that occasion, and Ferquhard having rendered such
  important services to Alexander II. was restored probably quite as much in virtue of his ancient rights as the grandson of Ferquhard as on account of his valiant conduct in support of the crown in Moray, in Argyle, and in Galloway, in 1215, 1222, and 1235.
  He is described in the 'Chronicle of Melrose' as "Comes Rossensis Machentagard,"
  Ferquhard founded the Abbey of Fearn, in Easter Ross, about 1230, and died there in 1251.
• 2. http://www.greatclanross.org, is a text history.
• 3. http://fullbooks.com, Homepage, Index of History Of The Mackenzies1. 
• http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki//Earl_Of_Ross, 
• http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fearchar_Earl_Of_Ross,
•  

---

I'm sure it's just me, Doug, but I'm still not convinced that the Earls of Ross, should have their LNAB changed to O'Beolan (or any variation).  Perhaps because I work on the fringes of academia and want proof, or maybe I'm one of those adults who didn't grow out of saying "Why, but why ..."

I think the quote from Skene's, 'Celtic Scotland', (the original can be found here ), that "according to tradition, bore the name of O'Beollan" is pretty telling, in that there is no proof, it is only tradition.

Skene cites an article by Reeves "Saint Maelrubba: his History and Churches". (pp 258-96) on which can be viewed for free from Volume 3 at this site http://archaeologydataservice.ac.uk/archives/view/psas/volumes.cfm but again there is no direct link between the O'Beolan and Fearchar or Farquar the 1st Earl of Ross of this line.  Again it is based on a "legendary history of the MacDonalds ... that this surname Obeolan was the surname of the Earls of Ross, till Farquhar,was created earl and so carried the name of Ross since", pages 275-276.

Interestingly the Chronicle of Melrose, which Reeves also quotes in the original Latin and English translation, never refers to the Earl of Ross, by the name O'Beollan.  

Again that 'Why?" part of me really wants to question the statement from the macfarlanegenealogy website "That the O'Beolan Earls of Ross, of whom Ferquhard Mac an t'Sagairt was the first, descended from the same ancestor, Gilleoin na h' Airde, as the older "Gillandres" earl of 1160, is equally certain"  I want to know, 'why is it equally certain?', 'what's the source for saying it's equally certain?', 'is that just a statement or is it based on anything?'.  Unfortunately although the website does have some references, there are no citations, so I can't tell where that might have come from.

There are some more recent references in the 2 Wikipedia articles you mention, that might shed some more light on this issue, but because they are recent, they may be very difficult to find online.  Even with those, I think there must still be some doubt that O'Beolan should be used as anything more than a possible 'Other Last Name' but that is just my opinion.

---

There is a document from 1319, that refers to John the second son of William, 3rd Earl of Ross, as John de Ross. http://www.british-history.ac.uk/cal-papal-registers/brit-ie/vol2/pp183-190

1319. 16 Kal. May. Avignon. (f. 183d.)	To John de Ross and Margaret his wife, of the diocese of Ross. Dispensation to remain in the marriage which they contracted in ignorance that they were related in the fourth degree. Their offspring past and future is declared legitimate.

---

John,

I wouldn't discount tradition. There are many indigineous people who hold their entire cultural history in oral history and tradition.

The Catholic church employs both capital "T" and little "t" tradition. Were it not for the capital T Tradition, there couldn't have ever been a bible for Gutenberg to have printed and a religion with over a billion followers alive today and more than a 2000 year old history couldn't ever had existed past the deaths of the original 11 apostles.  And - to boot - the naysayers using contemporary historical accounts, archaeology and forensics would have been able to come up with some smoking gun to proove we're all wet. But, they can't.

So, when a source attributes information to tradition, bear in mind that there is some reason for so many people to know and to pass on that information for so long. The reason may, very well be "because it is true and it is important".  That these people employed a means of transmission for this information that 21st century people in western cultures would not choose for the same distribution of important and true information is irrelevant. The onus is on the naysayer to disprove.

In this case, I believe that men of learning (or the means to employ them) were capable of recognizing their own names and telling other people what they are. That the O'Beolans had leadership roles among their people assures that proper care by contemporary men of letters would be applied to the accuracy of their history.

Granted, there are cases in which past VIPs employed genealogists who fabricated histories for their patrons to enhance their (his or her) reputation. In those cases, there is a perceived benefit to lying. That those cases were post utilization of written history being the norm, they can hardly be called "tradition".  

Who would benefit from lying about whether or the surname of the early Earls of Ross was O'Beolan as tradition told us? What would the beneficiary receive for the deception?

---

I think tradition has played a major part in many early written works, such as the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, which relied on oral history and earlier works that have been lost, as sources.  Historians and archaeologists and others experienced in studying these issues give us an overall picture of what life may have been like in those times and also give their opinion on which sections of the Chronicle may be totally legendary, what may have historical elements or be completely historical.

What seems to be different in this case, is that from what I have read, (and I've now read quite a lot on this issue) there seems to be no tradition or oral history that says that the early Earls of Ross were members of the O'Beolan family.

The traditional element is that the farmer/priests who followed Maelrubha in the church of Apurcrossan (Applecross) were from the the O'Beolan family and that this priestly role may have been inherited rather than appointed. When Ferchar or Fearchar or Farquhar emerged, because his epithet of Mackinsagart or Machentagar, is thought to be Mac-an-tsagairt (son of the priest), and he was Lord of the land on which the church of Apurcrossan stood, then the link was made with the O'Beolan family.  

Unlike the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, there appears to be no mention of the generations between the death of Maelrubha in 721 or 722 and Ferchar who is first mentioned in 1215 in the Chronicle of Melrose.  Even in that chronicle it is only probably thought to be the same person, as he is only known by his epithet, never as Ferchar and never as a member of the O'Beolan family.  In the almost 500 years between these two known dates, and given the events of that age, any number of situations could have arisen where Ferchar ruled that area but not been of the O'Beolan family.

He or his father or grandfather may have won it by conquest, perhaps he has Viking heritage, there might have been marriage with a heiress or in 500 years all of those events could have happened.  And even if Ferchar was of the O'Beolan family, it seems very clear from the Reeves article, that he took the name of Ross and that is the name used by his descendants.  As I've mentioned above, one of his descendants was referred to as 'de Ross' in a papal letter.

I don't think anyone is lying about whether the surname is O'Beolan, I think that over the years, many possibles or probables have developed into a definite that isn't supported by any reliable source.

Answer 1

I m sure some of the experts into this will stand up and study this.

Answer 2

Hi Doug

Although I agree in principle that surnames should be used rather than the place of abode, in practice in earlier time periods this can be very difficult to work out what the surname actually was.

In this particular case I'm not totally convinced that the Earls or Ross, are in fact from the O'Beolan family.

The Complete Peerage, 2nd ed. volume 11, calls them Ross or de Ross; the Scots Peerage, Volume 7 doesn't give them a surname either way, there is only a note on page 231 (see here https://archive.org/stream/scotspeeragefoun07paul#page/230/mode/2up ) to say "In another place he is said to be of the Celtic family of O'Beolan"

There is a discussion on the Wikipedia page for the first Earl of Ross of this family about the possibility of the family being descended from O'Beolan or variations but there doesn't seem to be any agreement, and since neither his parents or wife/ves are known then it's difficult to see where the name may have come from.

Both the Wikipedia article and The History of the Mackenzies that is cited in some of the profiles refer to a work by Sir Robert Gordon (actually called "Genealogical history of the Earldom of Sutherland from its origin to the year 1630. With a continuation to the year 1651"  not "Earldom of Scotland" or "Earldom of Sutherland").  This does refer to the family on p. 36 and p. 44 but in the version I saw (and have linked to) calls them the Builton family.  Also like many books of the era it doesn't cite any sources, let alone any primary sources which must make it somewhat suspect as a reliable source.  There are other sources mentioned in the Wikipedia article but I haven't had time to look at them closely to see what they state.

I'm also confused over the Stewart/Bonkyl issue.  The Scots Peerage, volume 1, p. 13, states that Sir John [Stewart, son of Alexander, 4th High Stewart] "married Margaret, daughter and heiress of Sir Alexander de Bonkyl of Berwickshire".  I imagine that after this marriage, the family would go by the surname Stewart, but previously would be Bonkyl or Bonkyll or de Bonkyl.  I haven't seen any source that refers to Sir Alexander as also being from the Stewart family, and there don't appear to be any sources quoted on his profile?  However I must admit that I haven't had time to look very hard.

John Atkinson

PS I've added some extra tags to your question, to hopefully get some more assistance from those with more Scottish history/genealogy knowledge.

Answer 3

Medieval surnames weren't necessarily hereditary.  A son often didn't use the same surname as his father, especially if he was a younger son starting a cadet branch.

Many modern writers have projected modern practice back to a time when it didn't apply, by supposing that a man's surname must have also been that of his father and grandfather, or son and grandson.  It doesn't follow.  Even if you can establish that a man was descended from a Stewart, or whoever, it's not automatically correct to call him Stewart.  He was called what he was called.  Often this would be the name of his territory - that's how many placenames became surnames.

And Welsh, Scottish and Irish genealogical writings are infested with the practice of making up names for people that aren't found in any primary sources, but simply impose on the person the writer's claims about their ancestry.

We do better to stick with the names found in records.