Jims site carries the "traditionally" accepted information about Ludovic Grant. He began with Starr as his basis and has been adding the documentation and making corrections as the errors became evident. That's why I asked if anyone knew if that information came from Starr. Jim will tell you there is information that comes up in the course of his research all the time that disproves the "traditionally" accepted stories. You know how our family stories can be, the folks that gave Starr their information for inclusion in his book were just the same. They didn't always give him the truth, they sometimes gave him the glamorized version of it. And some of it was just outright wrong. We've all had that experience, eh? The story about Ludovic Grant just doesn't add up. If he were, in fact, a clan chief, that would appear in the documentation. By the time he lived, they were keeping good records. The clan chiefs were usually Barons, Baronets, Lords, Knights, and so on after a certain point and their records appear in the Peerage and Baronage records. He simply does not appear in any of them, nor is there any way to connect him to those lines. The Aristocracy was as bad as anybody else, an maybe worse, about wanting to prove who they descended from. They all wanted to prove descent form royal families. But these two are well documented. For Trader Ludovic to be who he is said to be, there would be in one and usually more of these records. Even the illegitimate offspring of the Noble and Aristocratic houses were acknowledged and often raised to positions of prominence, just like their legitimate half-siblings. Witness to that is the clan Grant of Glenmoriston, whose progenitor is said to be the "natural son" of the 2d Laird of Feruchie. They gained a Barony in their own right. This is probably going to be one of those lines we'll have to ask about in the "Stupid Question Booth" on the other side of eternity! Happy time travels! Susan