no image
Privacy Level: Open (White)

Robert (Bruce) Bruce IIIrd of Clackmannan (abt. 1371 - bef. 1406)

Sir Robert Bruce IIIrd of Clackmannan formerly Bruce
Born about in Clackmannan, Clackmannanshire, Scotlandmap
Ancestors ancestors
Husband of — married 1387 (to 1405) in Dundee, Angus, Scotlandmap
Descendants descendants
Died before before about age 35 in Scotlandmap [uncertain]
Problems/Questions
Profile last modified | Created 22 May 2011
This page has been accessed 16,528 times.
The Birth Date is a rough estimate. See the text for details.
Preceded by
Robert (Bruce) Bruce IInd of Clackmannan (abt.1348-abt.1389)
3rd of Clackmannan
1389 - 1405
Succeeded by
David (Bruce) Bruce IVth of Clackmannan (abt.1392-1422)

Biography

Notables Project
Robert (Bruce) Bruce IIIrd of Clackmannan is Notable.
Robert (Bruce) Bruce IIIrd of Clackmannan is a member of House of Bruce.

Robert was born about 1371, the son of Robert Bruce, 2nd Baron of Clackmannan and Isabel Stewart,[1][2]

He might have married a daughter of Sir John Scrimgeour of Dudhope, Constable of Dundee.[1][3] He had issue:

  1. Sir David, of Clackmannan[1][3]
  2. James, Bishop of Dunkeld.[1]

Robert died before 1406.[3]

Research Notes

SP mentions an Alexander, of Stanehous and Airth as a son of this Robert[3] and states that he was the founder of the house of Bruce of Airth. RBS indicates rather that it was Edward, brother german of the Robert of this profile and that Alexander was the son of Edward.[4]

Sources

  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 MacGregor, Gordon, "The Red Book of Scotland", Scotland, private, 2022, Ed. 3, Vol. II, p. 86
  2. Paul, James Balfour. "The Scots Peerage : founded on Wood's ed. of Sir Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland; containing an historical and genealogical account of the nobility of that kingdom", Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1906, Vol. III, Archive.org, p. 468
  3. 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Paul, James Balfour. "The Scots Peerage : founded on Wood's ed. of Sir Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland; containing an historical and genealogical account of the nobility of that kingdom", Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1906, Vol. III, Archive.org, p. 469
  4. MacGregor, Gordon, "The Red Book of Scotland", Scotland, private, 2022, Ed. 3, Vol. II, pp. 85-6, pp. 138-9

See also:





Is Robert your ancestor? Please don't go away!
 star icon Login to collaborate or comment, or
 star icon ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com

DNA Connections
It may be possible to confirm family relationships with Robert by comparing test results with other carriers of his Y-chromosome or his mother's mitochondrial DNA. Y-chromosome DNA test-takers in his direct paternal line on WikiTree:

Have you taken a DNA test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.



Comments: 8

Leave a message for others who see this profile.
There are no comments yet.
Login to post a comment.
I have been reading the source documents (Paul, James Balfour. "The Scots Peerage : founded on Wood's ed. of Sir Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland; containing an historical and genealogical account of the nobility of that kingdom", Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1906, Vol. III, Archive.org, p. 469) and it states “sir Robert Died before 1406, his wife is said to have been a daughter of Scrimgeour if Dudhope, Constable of Dundee, but there is no Proof of this”!

So are you saying that this source document is correct, and if so WHY is Sir Roberts Wife as “unknown Scrimgeour” when it states there is no proof in the source document. Looks like someone is having a bet each way on this. As there is no proof, it should be removed, as per all the other messages, if the sources say there is no proof, how can you ASSUME it to be true.

posted by Scott (Jeffrey) Jeffrey, JP
edited by Scott (Jeffrey) Jeffrey, JP
It is said that Jesus Christ was the son of Mary but there is no genealogical proof of this. In other words, in genealogy one always hopes to find some reliable source to help boost the confidence that some relationship did actually exist. In situations where there are many such sources available, one can and should be insistent that those sources be utilized. There are cases, however, where records have been destroyed by fire, and although one does not want to haphazardly create connections one can do so if the connection is 'plausible.' When the relationship is merely 'plausible,' it can be helpful to highlight any doubt in the bio or under 'research notes.' For parent/child relationships, one can use the 'nonbiological/uncertain/confident/dna confirmed' flag. In some cases, one can use templates such as
This person's spouse is uncertain. See the text for details.
or
This person may not belong in the family group. See the text for details.
but these are reserved for cases that are HIGHLY uncertain.

I only recently adopted these profiles and my time is a bit limited for the next 90 days but I will be slowly investigating and improving these adopted profiles and those closely connected.

posted by [Living Anderson]
Thom thank you, happy to assist if you need.
Hi Thom, thanks for adopting this profile, my question is this, why are the descendants of these Bruce's/Broases of Wester Kennet/ Green/ Newtoun not matching my dna? Just have a look on the Bruce dna project.

Thank you Thom can you look into this issue. Another interesting observation concerning the Scots Peerage is King Robert Stewart naming this profile Robert Broase as his direct blood line, the dna suggest this to be true.

posted by Philip Bruce
edited by Philip Bruce
Are you referring to the FTDNA Bruce Project? I see there is one Bruce who tested with kit BP35852 claiming descent from Sir Robert Bruce, 3rd of Clackmannan (d ca1405) with haplotype R-FTB15132. This haplotype is unique in the project but is part of group 01-M269 (C)1 with seven others but two of these have STR counts that have been found to be unreliable and can be excluded. Of the remaining kits, only one has an ancestor going back as far as the 15th c. [BP35863 Bruce Sir Edward Bruce (m ca1417) Scotland R-FTB15831] The closes profiles with that name are Bruce-2132 and Bruce-780 but neither matches the Sir Edward delineated by BP35863. Can you be specific about what think is amiss?
posted by [Living Anderson]
Thom/Philip, firstly thank you both for all you are doing. As I’m not a bruce (My great grand mother is Philips Great grandfathers sister, but in the eyes of FTDNA I can not be part of the Bruce Project) I can not see what is in there, but both Philip and I have tracked our family back to Annandale, which bypasses the Clackmannan, so I think what Philip is trying to say is that they, being FTDNA are not accepting the family line that was loaded vis GEDCOM, of which I have the master comply. It can not be loaded on WIKITREE as it has well over the 5000 person limit (it currently sits around 12000). If this is need just let me know Thom and I will send it to you privately!
Why is there no profile manager for Bruce-391?
posted by Philip Bruce
Bruce-392 and Bruce-391 do not represent the same person because: father and son
posted by Darrell Parker

B  >  Bruce  |  B  >  Bruce IIIrd of Clackmannan  >  Robert (Bruce) Bruce IIIrd of Clackmannan

Categories: Scotland, Notables | Estimated Birth Date | Notables | House of Bruce