|
THE original earldom of Mar has been pronounced
by the Ulster King-of-Arms, the most ancient title in Great Britain, perhaps in Europe. The
learned and accurate Lord Hailes remarks that ‘this is one of
the earldoms whose history is lost in antiquity. It existed before
our records and before the era of genuine history.’ It has been held
in succession by members of the great historic houses of Douglas and
Stewart, Drummond and Erskine; has been borne by the hero of Otterburn
and by the victor in the critical battle of Harlaw, which finally
decided the protracted struggle for supremacy in the Highlands between
the Saxon and the Gael; by the sons of two of the Scottish kings, and by
three rulers who governed Scotland with vice-regal authority, one of the
three being the most sagacious and energetic statesman that ever held
the reins of government in our country.
The province of Mar, from which the title is taken,
lies between the rivers Don and Dee, and is the most extensive and
interesting district in Aberdeenshire. The Highland portion of the
earldom, termed Braemar, is noted for its wild and majestic scenery. It
contains Macdhui, the highest mountain in Scotland, Cairntoul, Ben Avon,
and Cairngorm, which are little inferior in height, and ‘dark
Lochnagar,’ celebrated in the poetry of Byron. The Garioch, which in
the olden time was connected with Mar and furnished a second title to
the earldom, is an extensive and fertile valley, and used to be termed
the granary of Aberdeen.
The ancient title borne by the governors of the
province of Mar was ‘mormaor,’ a Pictish dignity inferior only to
that of king. About the beginning of the tenth century this designation
was exchanged for the Saxon title of earl. Tradition has preserved a
curious story of a remarkable incident connected with the death of one
of the mormaors of Mar, named Melbrigda, about the close of the ninth
century. He fell in battle with Sigurd, the first Scandinavian Earl of
Orkney, who had conquered the greater part of the northern counties of
Scotland and invaded the province of Mar; but his death was revenged
upon the victor in a most singular manner. Melbrigda was noted for a
large and very prominent tooth, and Sigurd, having cut off the head of
the fallen mormaor, suspended it to his saddle-bow and galloped in
triumph across the battlefield. The rapidity of the motion caused the
head of Melbrigda to strike violently about the saddle, and his
prominent tooth inflicted a wound on Sigurd’s thigh which festered and
mortified and caused his death.
The first mormaor
of Mar whose name has come down to our day in a written document
was Martachus, who in 1065 was witness to a charter of Malcolm
Canmore in favour of the Culdees of Lochleven. His son, Gratnach,
who about fifty years later witnessed the foundation charter of
the monastery of Scone by Alexander I., appears to have been the
first of the great hereditary rulers of Mar who bore the title of
earl. From this period downward the heads of the house of Mar
filled a most influential position at the Court and in the
national councils; they held the highest offices in the royal
household, and took a prominent part in most of the great events
in the history of the country. They were connected by a double
marriage with the illustrious line of Bruce; the restorer of
Scottish independence having taken to wife a daughter of David,
sixth Earl of Mar, while Gratney, seventh earl, married
Christiana, sister of King Robert, and received as part of her
dowry the strong castle of Kildrummie, in Aberdeenshire, which was
long the chief seat of the family. His son Donald, eighth earl,
was taken prisoner in 1306, at the battle of Methven, in which his
royal uncle was defeated, and did not regain his liberty till
after the crowning victory of Bannockburn. On the death of
Randolph, the famous Earl of Moray, Earl Donald was chosen Regent
in his stead, August 2nd, 1332. But only two days thereafter he
was killed, at the battle of Dupplin, in which the Scots were
surprised and defeated with great slaughter by the ‘Disinherited
Barons.’
Thomas, the ninth
earl, or, according to another mode of reckoning, the thirteenth
who enjoyed that dignity, was one of the most powerful nobles of
his day. He held the office of Great Chamberlain of Scotland, and
was repeatedly sent as ambassador to England. He died in 1377,
leaving no issue, and in him ended the direct male line of the
Earls of Mar. His sister Margaret was, at the time of Earl Thomas’s
death, the wife of William, Earl of Douglas, nephew and heir of
the ‘Good Sir James,’ the friend of Robert Bruce. On the death
of his brother-in-law he obtained possession of the historical
earldom of Mar and transmitted it, along with his own hereditary
titles and estates, to his son James, the hero of Otterburn, ‘the
dead man that won a fight‘—one of the most renowned in
Scottish history. The Douglas estates were inherited by Archibald
‘the Grim,’ the kinsman of Earl James, while the earldom of
Mar passed to his sister, Isabella, wife of Sir Malcolm Drummond,
brother of Annabella, Queen of Scotland, wife of Robert III. About
the year 1403, Sir Malcolm was suddenly
surprised by a band of ruffians, who treated him with such
barbarity that he soon after died, leaving no issue. This outrage
was universally ascribed to Alexander Stewart, natural son of the
Earl of Buchan, the ‘Wolf of Badenoch,’ fourth son of Robert
II. After the death of her husband the Countess was residing
quietly and in fancied security at her castle of Kildrummie, when
it was suddenly attacked and stormed by Stewart at the head of a
formidable band of Highland freebooters and outlaws, and either by
violence or persuasion the young Countess was induced to become
the wife of the redoubted cateran, and to make over to him, on the
12th of August, 1404, her
earldom of Mar and Garioch, with all her other castles. In order,
however, to give a legal aspect to the transaction, Stewart
presented himself, on the 19th of September, at the gate of the
castle of Kildrummie, and surrendered to the Countess ‘the
castle and all within it, and the title-deeds therein kept; in
testimony thereof he delivered to her the keys to dispose of as
she pleased.’ The Countess, holding the keys in her hand,
declared that deliberately and of her own free will she chose
Stewart for her husband, and conferred upon him the castle,
pertinents, &c., as a free marriage gift, of which he took
instruments. It appears that even this formal transaction was not
deemed sufficient to give validity to the transaction, for on the
9th December following, the Countess, taking her station in the
fields outside her castle, in the presence of the Bishop of Ross,
and the sheriff and posse
cornitatus of the county,
along with the tenantry on the estate, that it might appear that
she was really acting without force on Stewart’s part or fear on
hers, granted a charter to him of her castle and estates duly
signed and sealed.
Strange to say,
this lawless freebooter afterwards rendered most important
services to his country by repressing the disorders of the
northern counties and repelling the attacks of English invaders;
and he obtained high renown, both in England and on the Continent,
on account of his valour and skill in the exercises of chivalry.
He was repeatedly sent on embassies to the English Court, and, at
one time, held the office of Warden of the Marches. His restless
spirit and love of fame carried him abroad in quest of
distinction; and Wyntoun states that, during a residence of three
months in Paris he kept open house, and was highly honoured for
his wit, virtue, and bravery. From the Court of France he
proceeded to Bruges, and joined the army which the Duke of
Burgundy was leading to the assistance of his brother, John of
Bavaria, the bishop-elect of Liege, ‘a clerk not of clerk-like
appearing,’ who was in danger from the rebellion of the people
of his diocese. The subsequent victory at Liege was mainly owing
to the skill and courage of Mar, who slew in single combat Sir
Henry Horn, the leader of the insurgents. He was the ‘stout and
mighty Earl of Mar’ who gained the battle of Harlaw, in the year
1411, defeating Donald of the Isles with terrible slaughter,
though outnumbered by ten to one, and thus terminating the
protracted contest for superiority between the Celtic and the
Saxon races. The ostensible and immediate cause of this sanguinary
conflict was the claim to the earldom of Ross, which had been held
by the Earl of Buchan, Mar’s father, in right of his wife.
Alexander, Earl of Ross, the son of the Countess by her first
husband, married Lady Isabel Stewart, eldest daughter of the
Regent Albany. The only issue of this marriage was a daughter,
named Euphemia, who became Countess of Ross at her father’s
death. She afterwards entered a convent, and entrusted the
management of her estate to her grandfather, the Regent, with the
intention, it was supposed, of resigning it in favour of her
mother’s brother, the Earl of Buchan, Albany’s second son.
Donald, Lord of the Isles, who had married Euphemia’s aunt,
Margaret, the only sister of the deceased Earl Alexander, insisted
that Euphemia, by becoming a nun, must be regarded as dead in law,
and demanded that his wife should be put in possession of the
earldom. The Regent, however, refused to accede to the claim, and
Donald took up arms to enforce it. At the head of ten thousand
men, he suddenly invaded and took possession of the district. He
was encountered at Dingwall by Angus Dow Mackay of Farr, at the head of a large body
of men from Sutherland. The Mackays were routed with
great slaughter, their leader was taken prisoner, and
his brother was killed. Elated with his success, Donald
pressed on through Moray, laying waste the country with
fire and sword, and penetrated into Aberdeenshire, for
the purpose of executing his threat to burn the town of
Aberdeen. He was encountered at a place called Harlaw,
in the Garioch, about fifteen miles from that city, by
the Earl of Mar, at the head of the chivalry of Angus
and Mearns—the Ogilvies, Maules, Lyons, Lindsays,
Carnegies, Leslies, Leiths, Arbuthnots, Burnets,
&c., who, though few in number, were better armed
and disciplined than the Highlanders of whom Donald’s
host was composed. In the words of old Elspeth’s
ballad, in the ‘Antiquary ‘—
‘If
they hae twenty thousand blades
And we twice ten times ten,
Yet they hae but their tartan plaids
And we are mail-clad men.’
The battle, which was fought on the
24th of July, 1411, was
long and fiercely contested, and night alone separated the
combatants. The Earl of Mar lost one half of his force, and among
the slain were Sir James Scrymgeour, Constable of Dundee; Sir
Alexander Ogilvie, the Sheriff of Angus, with his eldest son; Sir
Thomas Murray; Sir Robert Maule of Panmure; Sir Alexander Irvine
of Drum; Leslie of Balquhain, with six of his sons; Sir Alexander
Straiton of Lauriston, and Sir Robert Davidson, Provost of
Aberdeen. The Earl of Mar and the survivors of his little army
were so exhausted with fatigue that they passed the night on the
battlefield, expecting the contest to be renewed next morning; but
when the day broke they found that Donald and the remains of his
force had retired during the night, leaving a thousand men, with
the chiefs of Macintosh and Maclean, on the battlefield, and,
retreating through Ross, they gained the shelter of their native
fastnesses. ‘It was a singular chance,’ says Sir Walter Scott,
‘that brought against Donald, who might be called the King of
the Gaels, one whose youth had been distinguished as a leader of
these plundering bands; and no less strange that the Islander’s
claim to the earldom of Ross should be traversed by one whose
title to that of Mar was so much more challengeable.’
After the death
of the Countess of Mar, the title and estates should have
devolved on the heir of line, Janet Keith, wife of Sir Thomas
Erskine, and great-granddaughter of Earl Gratney, but Earl
Alexander, who had only a life interest in the earldom, resigned
it in 1426 into the hands of the King, James I., and received a
grant of the titles and estates to himself for life, and after
him to his natural son, Sir Thomas Stewart, and his lawful heirs
male. Earl Alexander died in 1435, and his son having
predeceased him without issue, the earldom, in terms of the
recent charter, reverted to the Crown. Sir Robert Erskine, the
son of Sir Thomas and Lady Janet, claimed the earldom in right
of his mother, as second heir to the Countess Isabel, 22nd
April, 1438, before the Sheriff of Aberdeen, and, in the
following November, was invested in the estates. He assumed the
title of Earl of Mar, and granted various charters to vassals of
the earldom; but, in 1449, James II. obtained a reduction of his
service before an assize of error, and took possession of the
estates, no doubt in order to carry out the favourite policy of
himself and his father, of weakening the dangerous power of the
barons. It was subsequently conferred on John, second son of
James II., who was put to death in 1449 for alleged treason
against his brother, James III. The next possessor of the
earldom was Cochrane, one of the favourites of that monarch, who
was hanged over the bridge at Lauder in 1482. It was then
granted, in 1486, to Alexander Stewart, Duke of Ross, a younger
son of James III. On his death it reverted to the Crown, and in
February, 1561-2, it was conferred by Queen Mary on her natural
brother, Lord James Stewart, afterwards the celebrated Regent;
but he speedily resigned it, preferring the dignity of Earl of
Moray. The Queen then, in 1565, bestowed the title on
John, fifth Lord Erskine, the descendant and heir male of Sir
Robert Erskine, who had unsuccessfully claimed it a hundred and
thirty years before. From that period downwards the Mar honours
have followed the varying fortunes of the family of Erskine, one
of the most illustrious of the historic houses of Scotland. The
greater part of the extensive estates which in ancient times
belonged to the earldom had, by this
time, passed into various hands, and could not be recovered; but
the remnant which still remained in the possession of the Crown
was gifted to the new earl.
On the death of
John Francis, sixteenth Earl of Mar and eleventh Earl of Kellie,
in 1866, his cousin, Walter Coningsby Erskine, inherited the
family estates along with the earldom of Kellie, which were
entailed on heirs male; while the ancient earldom of Mar was
claimed by John Francis Goodeve, the only son of the late earl’s
sister, who thereupon assumed the name of Erskine. His claim was
at first universally admitted. He was presented at Court as Earl
of Mar, his vote was repeatedly received at the election of
representative peers, and his right to the title was conceded even
by his cousin, Walter Coningsby Erskine, the new Earl of Kellie.
By-and-by, however, Lord Kellie laid claim also to the earldom of
Mar, but he died before his petition could be considered by the
House of Lords. It was renewed by his son, and was in due course
referred to the Committee for Privileges. In support of the claim
it was pleaded that the title of Earl of Mar, conferred by Queen
Mary on John, Lord Erskine, in 1565, was not the restoration of an
ancient peerage, but the creation of a new one; that the original
earldom of Mar was purely territorial, one of the seven ancient
earldoms of Scotland, and was therefore indivisible; that this
dignity terminated at the death of Earl Thomas in 1377; that
William, first Earl of Douglas, his sister’s husband, must have
obtained the earldom by charter and not by right of his wife, as
at his death the title and estates descended to their son James,
second Earl of Douglas, while his mother was still living; that
her daughter, Isabella, became the wife of Sir Malcolm Drummond,
who was styled Lord of Mar and of the Garioch, not earl; that her
second husband, Alexander Stewart, obtained possession of the
territorial earldom of Mar in right of his wife, but did not
become earl until he obtained seizen under the Crown; that he
survived the Countess for many years, and acted, and was treated
by the Crown, as the owner in fee of the earldom, and that on his
death the Crown entered into possession of the estates in terms of
the charter granted to the earl by King James I.; that from this
period downwards the lands had been broken up and disposed of by
the Sovereign at his pleasure, different portions of them having
been granted at various times to royal favourites, and that the
title had been conferred in succession upon several persons who
had no connection with its original possessors. The territorial
earldom, it was asserted, was indivisible, and could not be
separated from the title, and as the former had ceased to exist,
the ancient dignity could not be revived. It was, therefore,
contended that Queen Mary must have created a new dignity when on
her marriage to Darnley in 1565 she raised Lord Erskine to the
rank of an earl; that the fact that throughout Queen Mary’s
reign he ranked as the junior and not the premier earl, as must
have been the case if the title had been the old dignity revived
in his person, shows that his earldom was a new creation, and that
as there is no charter in existence describing the dignity
conferred upon Lord Erskine, the prima-facie presumption is
that it descended to heirs male.
On the other hand,
it was pleaded by Mr. Goodeve Erskine,. who opposed Lord
Kellie’s claim, that inasmuch as the earldom of Mar was enjoyed
by two countesses, mother and daughter, it could not be a male
fief; and that as Sir Robert Erskine is admitted to have been
second heir ‘of line and blood’ to the Countess Isabel through
his mother, Janet Keith, great-granddaughter of Donald, third
earl, he was de jure Earl of Mar, though excluded from the
title and estates by an act of tyranny and oppression on the part
of James I., who was at this time bent on breaking down the power
of the nobles, and for that reason illegally seized the land and
suppressed the dignity of this great earldom; that the Erskines
never relinquished their claim to the earldom, while it remained
‘in the simple and nakit possession of the Crown without ony
richt of property therein,’ and made repeated though
unsuccessful efforts to recover their rights; that Queen Mary had
in express terms recognised the right of Sir Robert Erskine’s
descendant, John, Lord Erskine, to the earldom of which his
ancestor had been unjustly deprived, as she said, through ‘the
troubles of the times and the influence of corrupt advisers,’
and had declared that, ‘moved by conscience, as it was her duty
to restore just heritages to their lawful heirs, she restored to
John, Lord Erskine, the earldom of Mar and the lordship and
regality of Garioch, with all the usual privileges incident and
belonging thereto, together with the lands of Strathdon, Braemar,
Cromar, and Strathdee.’ Queen Mary, therefore, it was contended,
did not create a new peerage but restored an old one; and
even if the title conferred upon Lord Erskine had been a new
creation, the presumption is that, like the original dignity, it
would have descended to heirs female as well as male. With regard
to the assumption that Queen Mary must have granted a patent or
charter conferring the ‘peerage earldom.’ on Lord Erskine, it
was pointed out that there is no proof that any such document ever
existed, that there is not the remotest allusion to it in any
contemporary history, and that Lord Redesdale’s suggestion that
the deed may have been accidentally destroyed, or that the Earl of
Mar may have destroyed it to serve some sinister purpose, is a
mere conjecture, wholly unsupported by evidence. When it was
proposed to restore the forfeited title, in 1824, to John Erskine
of Mar, it was remitted to the law officers of the Crown, one of
whom was Sir John Copley, afterwards Lord Chancellor Lyndhurst, to
investigate whether he had proved himself to be heir to his
grandfather, the attainted earl. They reported in the affirmative,
and the attainder was reversed in his favour. It was noted as an
important fact that John Erskine was declared in the Act to be the
grandson and lineal heir of his grandfather through his mother—a
striking proof, it was said, that the earldom restored by Queen
Mary was not limited to heirs male. Mr. Goodeve Erskine rests his
claim to be the heir of his uncle on the very same ground on which
his grandfather based his claim to be the heir of the Jacobite
earl, viz., through his mother; and it was argued that, since the
claim was regarded as valid in the one case, it ought to be so
held in the other also. Great stress was laid on the position
which the earldom occupies in the Union Roll, as showing that it
has all along been regarded as the original dignity, and not a new
creation. In 1606 commissioners were appointed by James VI. to
prepare a roll of the Scottish peers, according to their
precedence, and the document prepared by them, which was corrected
by the Court of Session, is known in Scottish history as the
‘Decreet of Ranking‘— the official register of the peerage
of Scotland—the basis, in fact, of the Union Roll. Now in this
nearly contemporary document the earldom of Mar has a much higher
antiquity assigned to it than the date of 1565, the earl being
placed above several earls whose titles were conferred in the
fifteenth century. On the Union Roll it has the date of 1457
prefixed to it.
These arguments,
however, failed to satisfy the Committee for Privileges,
consisting of Lords Redesdale, Chelmsford, and Cairns, who decided
that the dignity conferred by Queen Mary on Lord Erskine was a new
and personal honour, and is held on the same tenure as the other
peerages possessed by the Erskine family, all of which are limited
to heirs male. This decision has not given universal satisfaction.
A considerable number of influential Scottish peers, including the
Earls of Crawford and Balcarres, Stair, Galloway, and Mansfield,
the Marquis of Huntly, Viscounts Strathallan and Arbuthnot, and
Lord Napier of Ettrick, have repeatedly protested against the Earl
of Kellie’s claim to vote as the Earl of Mar, whose name stands
fifth on the Union Roll. An elaborate work in two volumes octavo
was prepared by the late Earl of Crawford and Balcarres to prove
that a miscarriage of justice has taken place in consequence of
the decision of the Committee for Privileges on the Mar peerage
case. Mr. Goodeve Erskine, who continues to assume the title of
Earl of Mar and Baron Garioch, asserts that though the Committee
for Privileges have unwarrantably authorised the Earl of Kellie to
assume a title which never had an existence, and is a mere figment
of their own imagination, their decision has no bearing on his
right to the ancient earldom of Mar, which is claimed by no one
but himself, and of which he is the undoubted lineal heir.
The feeling that
injustice was done to Mr. Goodeve Erskine by the decision of the
Committee is so strong that a Bill, entitled ‘Earldom of Mar
Restitution Bill,’ has been brought into the House of Lords,
with the signature and under the authority of the Queen, for the
purpose of restoring the ancient earldom to Mr. Erskine. It was
read a second time on the 20th of May, 1885, and referred to a
Select Committee, who reported that the preamble had been proved.
The Bill passed through both Houses of Parliament without
opposition, and became law before the close of the session.
The Earldom of Mar in Sunshine and in Shade during Five Hundred Years
Volume 1 | Volume 2
The Scottish Lyon Office of Arms
By Joseph Foster and Are there two Earls of Mar? by J. H. Round
(pdf) |
