Janet (Keith) Keith Lady Arbuthnot (abt. 1340 - 1406)

Thanks for sorting this out Thom. I believe I've worked through all the relationship changes, but please check them. Also there may be some estimated or known dates for the marriages for Keith-6613 that could be added. Let me know if there is anything else needed.

Got him, thanks Thom!

---

Janet's mother, Margaret Fraser, received dispensation to marry Wm. Keith on "or before" 3 May 1352 (Cokayne, CP, Vol. 8, pp. 472, 473). According to Balfour Paul (SP, Vo. 7, p. 429) Margaret's father, John Fraser, was born around 1317 (this statement is not sourced). If this is accurate and her father was in the early range of the generational span, being 20 y/o at Margaret's birth, she would have been born circa 1337 and aged 15 at the time of her dispensation. Given that Margaret's daughter Christian had a "dispensation to marry John, son of John Hay of Tullibody, 1 March 1363" (Balfour Paul, SP, Vol. 8, p. 38) (which seems her first marriage) and she was perhaps 20 at her dispensation, she would have been born circa 1343. Obviously, this is an issue. Another possibility, if Balfour Paul's projected birthdate for Margaret's father is incorrect, is...

...to subtract 20 years from Margaret's dispensation date, assuming it occurred in 1351, which would place her d.o.b. circa 1331. However, it seems more likely that she would have received dispensation "before" this date, given daughter Christian's dispensation to marry on 1 March 1363 and, perhaps, 20 at her dispensation, she would have been born circa 1343. It is highly unlikely that Margaret would have been 12 years old at Christian's birth, so it seems Cokayne's "or before" statement is the most accurate. Subtracting 20 years from Christian's possible d.o.b, would place Margaret's estimated d.o.b. around 1323 and aged 28 at the time of her dispensation. But, alas, if this scenario is accurate, Margaret's father would have been six y/o at the time of her conception. I suspect that her father's alleged d.o.b. may be inaccurate.

Needless to say, the Keith family has a very challenging pedigree. The difficulty, in part, lies in the conflicting information found among sources, which can make the search for accuracy all the more difficult. So, to answer your question as to how Janet and her mother were born the same year? Obviously, they were not, but conflicting information makes it almost impossible to definitively determine. I am currently attempting to make sense of this conflict, but research is ongoing...

I appreciate the many details you include in response to my question. My suspicion that the issue was with Janet Keith's d.o.b. and not her parents d.o.b. seemed most likely. However, I have to admit a bit of surprise that now Margaret's d.o.b. is changed to 1313 and her father, John Fraser does not have a d.o.b. listed.

For my personal records elsewhere I will put a comment on Janet's page and focus on her sibling Robert as an ancestor.

This link has some good info about keeping the Fraser and Keith trees in order. John, Margaret Fraser and William Keith are connected on this page. https://archive.org/details/frasersofphilort01salt/page/n35/mode/2up?view=theater

I have found a great deal of conflation among sources within the Keith pedigree, particularly regarding the less influential members of the family. By all means, if you have credible sources that provide definitive birth information, please update accordingly. It is through a collaborative process with a challenging lineage such as this that we can, hopefully, get closer to the truth. Thanks for your input!

I like what you said about facing challenges through a collaborative process. For the most part, most of my life has been on my own with genealogy. If I can work out how to get the badge for before 1500 my effeorts might be of more use to some effort like that. Currently I'm just comparing paths between here and my ancestry file. Sometimes I can contribute here and other times I add a source from here to the other place. Thank you for the positivity!

By accident I ran across an example of that conflation you mentioned. Both William Keith-581 and his father, George Keith-1190 are "5th Earl Marischal". Then the father of George Keity-1190 is "Master of Marischal" William Keith-1126 and the father of that Marischal is William Keith IV Marischal ! It could be that so many of the Keiths were Grand Marischals because it was so difficult to take their castle. I think a Gordon finally did however.