James
Hamilton Vth of Cadzow
formerly Hamilton
Born in Cadzow, Lanarkshire, Scotland
Ancestors 
Brother of
Margery Catherine Hamilton, David Hamilton, Walter Hamilton, Elizabeth (Hamilton) Fraser, Mary (Hamilton) Keith, Catherine Hamilton and Thomas (Hamilton) Hamilton of Darngaber [half]
Husband of
Janet (Livingston) Livingston Lady Airth
— married
20 Oct 1422 in By Charter Calendar, Stirlingshire,Scotland
Descendants 
Father of
Agnes Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton, James (Hamilton) Hamilton First Lord Hamilton, Janet Hamilton, Marjory Hamilton and Gavin Hamilton
Died
at about age 43
in Kinneil House, Boness, West Lothian, Scotland
Profile managers:
Terry Wright 
[send private message], Scotland Project WikiTree [send private message], and John Hunter [send private message]
[send private message], Scotland Project WikiTree [send private message], and John Hunter [send private message]Profile last modified
| Created 8 Apr 2011
This page has been accessed 17,534 times.
| James (Hamilton) Hamilton Vth of Cadzow was a prominent member of a Scottish Clan. Join: Scotland Project Discuss: Scotland |
| Preceded by John Hamilton |
5th of Cadzow c. 1402–c. 1440 |
Succeeded by James Hamilton |
Contents |
Biography
James (Hamilton) Hamilton Vth of Cadzow is a member of Clan Hamilton.
James (Hamilton) Hamilton Vth of Cadzow is Notable.
James Hamilton is first attested to in 1397 in a writ of that year, his father Sir John Hamilton granted him the lands and privileges of Kinneil, in return for the superiority of all property that had been promised to him through his marriage after his attainment of majority.[1][2]
In 1424, Hamilton was one of the Scottish Lords allowed passage to Durham to visit the captive James I of Scotland. In the same year, he was one of many Scots hostages given to the English as security for the payment of the ransom of the newly freed King of Scots, his estate was valued at 500 merks.
Hamilton was confined first at Fotheringay Castle, then at Dover Castle. He appears to have been released by 1426. He was invested as a knight before 1430.
Hamilton died not later than 1441, when his son is described as Lord of Cadzow.
Marriage and Children
He married (first), before 1422, Janet Livingston.[3][4] There were six children from this marriage:
- James Hamilton, 6th Laird of Cadzow - later a Lord of Parliament as 1st Lord Hamilton
- Alexander Hamilton - ancestor of Hamiltons of Silvertonhill
- John Hamilton
- Gavin Hamilton - ancestor of Hamiltons of Dalzell
- Agnes m. Sir James Hamilton of Preston
- Elizabeth m. Chalmers of Gadgirth
He married (second) Jacoba (Janet) Douglas. There were five children from this marriage:
- Thomas Hamilton
- James Hamilton
- Walter Hamilton
- Catherine Hamilton
- David Hamilton
Research Notes
There is some evidence that John Hamilton may not have been his father. See Hamilton DNA Notes for a discussion.
Sources
- ↑ 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, 1907, Vol. IV, Archive.org, p. 337-9
- ↑ Anderson, John, Historical and Genealogical Memoirs of the House of Hamilton, Edinburgh: John Anderson, 1825, Archivie.org, pp. 50-64
- ↑ When he received a charter of the lands of Schawis from his father-in-law, Sir Alexander Livingston of Callendar.
- ↑ Johnston, George Harvey, "The heraldry of the Hamiltons : with notes on all the males of the family, description of the arms, plates and pedigrees", Edinburgh: W. & A. K. Johnston, LTD, 1909, Archive.org, p. 11
See also:
- Hamilton Surname DNA Results and discussion. See particularly point 8.
- Wikipedia: James Hamilton
- Wikidata: Item Q6135465, en:Wikipedia
- Cokayne, GE: The Complete Peerage, 1st edn, 8 vols, Volume 4, page 138. The best information Cokayne had, relying on the opinions of "authorities", was that Sir James was alive in 1451. On this basis, he assigns the creation of the Parliamentary title in 1445 to this James and not to his son.
Is James your ancestor? Please don't go away!
Login to collaborate or comment, or
contact
a profile manager, or
ask our community of genealogists a question.
Login to collaborate or comment, or contact
a profile manager, or ask our community of genealogists a question.
Sponsored Search by Ancestry.com
DNA
No known carriers of James's DNA have taken a DNA test. Have you taken a test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
No known carriers of James's DNA have taken a DNA test. Have you taken a test? If so, login to add it. If not, see our friends at Ancestry DNA.
Images: 7
- Comments on James (Hamilton) Hamilton Vth of Cadzow Nov 18, 2021.
- Comments on James Hamilton Jun 23, 2020.
- The Hamilton DNA Project Group:James Hamilton, 5th Baron of Cadzow was not the son of the 4th Baron Sep 15, 2017.
Rejected matches › James Hamilton (abt.1833-1898) › James Hamilton (abt.1859-) › James Hamilton (abt.1840-)
Featured Eurovision connections: James is 34 degrees from Agnetha Fältskog, 22 degrees from Anni-Frid Synni Reuß, 25 degrees from Corry Brokken, 23 degrees from Céline Dion, 22 degrees from Françoise Dorin, 25 degrees from France Gall, 24 degrees from Lulu Kennedy-Cairns, 28 degrees from Lill-Babs Svensson, 19 degrees from Olivia Newton-John, 31 degrees from Henriette Nanette Paërl, 27 degrees from Annie Schmidt and 16 degrees from Moira Kennedy on our single family tree. Login to see how you relate to 33 million family members.
H > Hamilton | H > Hamilton Vth of Cadzow > James (Hamilton) Hamilton Vth of Cadzow
Categories: Scotland, Needs More Records | Scotland, Notables | Hamilton Name Study | Scotland Project Managed Clan Profiles | Clan Hamilton | Notables
Andrew Ross G2G6 Mach 3 wrote:
The I-Y6628 group in the Hamilton YDNA project has the cleanest genealogy. They have members in the peerage. It's also an older group (~1150 CE), which is what one would expect.
The I-S1973 group has more members, but is not old enough compared to I-Y6628.
WikiTree is currently showing R-BY3541 for the profile, which is clearly wrong. commented 23 hours ago by Andrew Ross G2G6 Mach 3 Andrew, if I understand correctly what you wrote, then the one yDNA test displayed on the profile of James Hamilton-1093, does not belong to a direct male line descendant of James Hamilton-1093. Is that correct?
I have looked at the genealogy of the yDNA test taker, Michael Hamilton-8683, to see if I can determine where the "break" in the direct male line might be. Here is the first issue I came to: Samuel Stephen Hamilton-23376 (1856-1927), is shown to be the son of Lemuel Lewis Hamilton-8831 (1808-1870) and Matilda Catherine Taylor-67897 (1820-1900). However, the death certificate for Samuel Stephen Hamilton, who died 13 December 1927 says that his parents were George Hamilton of Kentucky and Sarah Hughes, rather than Lemuel Hamilton and Matilda Taylor. I believe it would be appropriate to detach the parents of Samuel Stephen Hamilton-23376. commented 22 hours ago by Kay Wilson G2G6 Pilot Kay; Yes, that is correct.
Another problem is with John Hamilton 1744-1802
He was an American Patriot, which is wonderful and very special.
However, there does not appear to be adequate source documentation for his parents. He emigrated, probably from Ireland, is about all that can be clearly claimed. He should be disconnected from the profiles for the parents.
commented 13 hours ago by Andrew Ross G2G6 Mach 3.
And my response:
Oh, okay, Kay. Concerning your interest in disrupting the Hamilton lineage (not uncommon) and the current question as to the father of John P Hamilton.
The image https://wikitree.com/photo/jpg/Hamilton-8851-21 , clearly, shows the father of Hamilton-8851I John P Hamilton Sr. Sergeant, SAR Patriot American Revolution # P-173800) is Hamilton-8853 I Claud Hamilton. And this photo has been on wikitree since 27 Jul 2020. The original can be found at
https://ancestors.pitard.net/pedigree.php?personID=14218&tree=1sttree
With further information at https://ancestors.pitard.net/getperson.php?personID=14218&tree=1sttree
There are other sources. One source is found in an archive from the year 1928. That source can be found at
https://archive.org/details/ancestrallinesof00hami/page/545/mode/1up?q=claude
It is called "Ancestral lines of the Doniphan, Frazee, and Hamilton families" by Hamilton, Frances Frazee.
Plus, there are, clearly, many DNA matches shown on wikitree.
If you need any more help, Andrew Ross-16829 and Kay (Johnson) Wilson Johnson=18438, please let me know. Well, instead of just deciding between the two of you to cancel a relationship arbitrarily.
Oh, I will now try to find more information on all of the rest of the Hamiltons on my family tree. You know, of course, some families did not have the correct information written on their birth and death certificates in the USA. And you, as a genealogist, know some families did not claim their children. Thanks for stating that I am the only one standing between you and the finishing of your task.
edited by [deleted]
There was a G2G post in Nov 2021, which has quite a bit of discussion about DNA vs source evidence - https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1330767/comments-on-james-hamilton-hamilton-vth-of-cadzow
There was another G2G post in Jun 2020 that had no comments or answers - https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/1060138/comments-on-james-hamilton
The above quotes come from Sep 2017 post, that had further posts in 2019, and now in the past few days - https://www.wikitree.com/g2g/462994/hamilton-project-group-james-hamilton-baron-cadzow-the-baron
There is a note on this profile that research is underway and changes should not be made to this profile without collaborating with the Scotland project.
DNA discussions can be quite complex, especially when we're talking about a subject born before 1400.
1370-1420 was the father (of James Hamilton V of Cadzow) and that comes from the offical Lennoxlove booklet with family tree and above/ Father of Sir John Hamilton is David Fitzwater Fitz Gilbert 1320-1375 his father Walter Fitz Gilbert 1275-1342 father of Walter was Gilbert de Hamledon died c 1290
Jen, for the Scotland Project
With the greatest respect, the Hamilton DNA Project Group has NOT shown beyond a doubt that John Hamilton wasn’t the genetical father of James, the 5th laird of Cadzow. Neither has “extensive research by the Hamilton DNA Project Group involving targeted genetic testing and analysis of historical documentation shown conclusively that a non-paternal event occurred involving the first son of John Hamilton and Jacoba Douglas.” These conclusions were assumptions, and are not indisputable facts. They were based on a single Y-DNA test result of a man living in the 21st century, who had traced his personal ancestry back to the landed Hamilton family of Preston and Fingalton in Scotland in the 18th Century. Beyond that, going backwards in history, it was assumed that he must therefore have inherited his Y-DNA profile from Walter FitzGilbert, the first identified Hamilton living at Cadzow in the late 1200s. That conclusion was reached by trusting, in simple good faith, much later historical writings from the 16th century onwards, and a very thin amount of primary source legal documents dating from the 14th and 15th centuries that still exist today. In all honesty that is a grey period of genealogical history and precision in Hamilton family pedigrees recording those times is not always possible. It is risky to rely on the family trees provided by even the most esteemed 19th and 20th Century historians. Highly-respected researchers John Anderson and George Hamilton both admitted that they were uncertain about some details of various Scottish Hamiltons and their parentage in medieval days, and frequently qualified the relationships they ascribed in their suggested family trees with words like “probably”, “possibly”, “said to be” or “maybe”. Pretty certainly, some Scottish Hamiltons living then are simply missing from our knowledge, because of the great paucity of surviving records. In the 1350s and 60s, about half the population of Britain died from the Black Death and many of these people have been completely lost and forgotten by history - there is just nothing to show they ever existed. Peering through these mists of time, we could easily be missing unrecorded marriages, adoptions or wills in which estates might possibly have been inherited by nephews or cousins (with different Y-DNA to their deceased benefactor), in later times mistakenly thought to have been sons. Moreover, people, in every age, do not always behave with impeccable morals, but only a medieval fly on the wall in every room of every Hamilton household, could know all the details of human behaviour and fortunes in past centuries. Whatever that fly might have seen or heard, it isn’t going to tell us.
The point I am trying to make is that early Hamilton history before the 16th century is patchy, with a lot of gaps and uncertainties. There is no definitive Hamilton "bible" that can be relied on as a perfectly accurate family record of the Middle Ages. A decision ruling that James 5th of Cadzow was a half-brother to other know sons and daughters of John Hamilton, 4th laird of Cadzow, through him having a different father, is a guess. It is based on unknowable assumptions that cannot be proved one way or another. It may well be correct, but then again it might not be.
So, just wishing to be helpful and ensure that internet readers are not unintentionally misled, I would suggest that you might consider slightly re-writing this information page about James Hamilton 5th. I feel it would be more realistic and sensible to show him as being probably, or at the least possibly, a son of John Hamilton of Cadzow, but accompanied by an attached note explaining that the DNA result of a modern-day descendant of the Preston family could call that relationship into question. It seems a rather long jump to overrule all previous history books by making some historical assumptions based on uncertain evidence.
There is some alternative circumstantial historical evidence which fairly strongly suggests that Walter FitzGilbert had Group B Hamilton DNA, not the Preston family descendant’s Group A profile. This hypothetical case has been presented in great detail in a successive series of genealogical constructions, posted by English genealogist Michael Stanhope. Personally, I feel that this is the most probable version of Hamilton history in misty, far-off times, and if Mr Stanhope is correct, then James would have pretty certainly been the son of John. The Hamilton DNA Project’s devised non-paternal event for his parentage is certainly one possibility, but there are other historical possibilities too, which I think are of at least equal and probably greater weight. If anybody has plenty of time to spare and is interested, you can read his expert academic ideas and suggestions at:
https://walterfitzgilbertdehamilton.wordpress.com/?s=Hamilton
(If you should get a flag saying this is not a secure site I wouldn’t worry; I have visited it many times and always found it completely safe). Best wishes to all readers and good luck in your research. Nick Wormley.
edited by Nick Wormley
I, too, am related to the Colvills, Newmarchs, Crispins & Hamiltons & I've been researching for about 35 years now using reliable & dependable sources where available. Where there is none I don't connect 1 family to another. As for the Hamilton DNA I don't know anything about it but the below Michael Hamilton does so I would follow what he says. Nick himself says 'This hypothetical case' by Stanhope. Please stick to the facts where possible.
A very large number of people who once lived are simply unrecorded; we have no knowledge of them and never will have, but there can be no doubt that they were there and that many of them had descendants who are living today. Much of family history can only be partially seen; glimpsed through a mist of time. In the past there were countless adoptions, second marriages and unclear relationships. Often the best we can do is use our intelligent judgement to try to sensibly assess the most likely realities. If we insist that we must only use “absolutely-proven” facts, confirmed by not-to-be-questioned primary sources, or stated by esteemed historians, then medieval family history will be a very thin book. Where “proof” is uncertain it is perfectly reasonable to responsibly conjecture about genealogical probabilities and possibilities, with an open mind. Not asking ourselves such questions is actually likely to embed errors that may have been made in the past. I think it is naive to say otherwise. So there is nothing wrong with a degree of hypothesising; it is using one’s common sense to consider what historical information may be available to us and to suggest conclusions drawn from reasoned analysis and weight of evidence, often circumstantial. Whether or not there are any errors in my research is a matter of opinion. Opinions should be formed on the basis of what I have just written, but in all honesty most people’s family trees probably contain an error somewhere, and they will never know it. This seems particularly likely if they are branching off into many collateral lines of ancestral families. If a person knows nothing about DNA perhaps it might be best for them not to say anything about it. Nick Wormley.
In one instance of the Douglas Y-DNA: Y-DNA I-L338 for all of Walter Hamilton of Darngaber's male line? Possibly. (my early Great-grandfather, on my grandMother's side) Y-DNA is possibly I-Y6635 per Descendent of Walter Hamilton of Darngaber, (potentially one of my FTDNA matches). BOTH I-L338 (also known as I1a2a1a1a) and related I-Y6635 (also known as I1a3a1a1a1, Parent Branch: I-Y6624) are of Haplogroup I-M253 also known as I1 (a Y chromosome haplogroup). I-L338 is a well-known Haplogroup of the Douglases.
Walter Hamilton of Darngaber (not "of Cadzow") BIRTH 1392 • Cadzow, Lanarkshire, Scotland, DEATH 20 MAY 1441 • Trabzon, Trabzon, Turkey and his descendants were descended from the Douglases and not the Hamiltons.
Sources:
(And it is not unreasonable to, at least, consider the uncle of Walter Hamilton (of Darngarber, not "of Cadzow") and John Hamilton of Fingalton as not being Hamiltons either as their Y-DNA has been compared. Assumptions to the contrary are very risky.)
edited by [deleted]
http://www.roskildehistorie.dk/stamtavler/adel/Douglass/Drumlanrig.htm
1st Laird of Douglasdale Born: 1174 Died: abt. 1214 and who was thought to have been the source of I2-L1193 y-Haplogroup (not the Hamiltons)
also known as I2a2a1; (large clade now concentrated in Britain; DOUGLAS or DOUGLAS-HAMILTON; LUCE; CLINTON, PELHAM-CLINTON) Born: 3500 BC. _____________________________________________ https://www.fabpedigree.com/s016/f930236.htm _____________________________________________Despite the "Hamilton DNA Project Group involving TARGETED genetic testing". This was the source.
Notice James Hamilton (5th) "son and heir" of John Hamilton (4th).
https://archive.org/details/completepeerage04cokahrish/page/n135
Seems the majority of "experts" have chosen to make Sir James Hamilton, 5th of Cadzow fatherless. Although the DNA evidence has shown his younger "brother" Walter Hamilton and his "uncle" JOHN Hamilton of Butterknock (of which little is known, the "brother" of JOHN (yes, John) Hamilton 4th of Cadzow) vary and match the Douglas family. Despite the "experts" ignoring this information, DNA of descendants of James Hamilton 5th of Cadzow, well-researched paper-trails and prior knowledge of the Douglas family habit of fathering children out-of-wedlock. On one hand, the "experts" state they have thorough research, then, on the other hand, they state they need further research. The "experts" seem to be confused.
Thanks for the heads up on George Cokayne's "The Complete Peerage", it looks to be a useful resource. For me the "bible" on the Hamiltons is George Hamilton's 1934 book, "The House of Hamilton". The first edition of The Complete Peerage appeared over several years in the late 1800s and I am sure that George Hamilton had full access to it when he was writing his book. There may however be additional information in Cokayne's book in respect of wills etc that Hamilton did not include in his book. All of those works appeared before genetics entered genealogy and the parentage of James Hamilton (Hamilton-1093) has been well researched and John Hamilton (Hamilton-1087) could not have been his father. Who was is still the subject of further research and may never be known. John Hunter
" The heraldry of the Hamiltons : with notes on all the males of the family, description of the arms, plates and pedigrees by Johnston, G. Harvey (George Harvey), 1860-1921 ". https://archive.org/details/heraldryofhamils00john/page/10
https://www.ancestry.com/family-tree/person/tree/75649477/person/44324377579/facts