According to King George II in 1746, the Boyd’s name started in 1111 A.D. In 1746, when you were being executed, it seems that it was “tradition” that your family history was compiled for you. This was the case with William Boyd, fourth Earl of Kilmarnock and Lord Balmerino. In the paper Memoirs of the Lives and Families of the Lords Kilmarnock, Cromertie and Balmerino, Together with A Faithful Nattative of the Procesings againft them: and the Genuine Speekes of the Lords Kilmarnock and Cromertie, 1746, as printed by T. Gardner, London, page 6 it says (written as printed in the paper with my putting the word into modern English in square brackets) - “The Earl of Kilmarnock takes his Title of Earl of from a Royal Borough of that name, in the Shire of Cunningham: The firft [first] remarkable Man of his Family, and the firft [first] who affumed [assumed] the Sirname of Boyde, is faid [said] by Scotch Genealogifts [Genealogist], to be Robert, Son of Simon, third Son of Allan, Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, in the Year 1111; fo [so] in Right of this Robert, from whom the Earl of Kilmarnock is lineally defcended [descended], this Branch of the Name of Boyde claims to be Chief, and acted in that Capacity, when Chieftainfhip [Chieftainship] was in Repute in that Part of the Country; but for more than a Century and a half, Chiefs in that part of Scotland, neither have nor claim any other Advantage, but that of Precedency. Hiftorians [Historians] have left a Blank in the Genealogy of the family, from the laft [last] memtioned Robert Boyde, in the Year 1111, to a Defcendant [Descendant] of his, called Sir Robert Boyde; who, in the Year 1263, gave figual [sigual] Proofs of his Valour and military Skill, in that famous Battle of the Larges, fought by the Scots againft [against] the Norvegians, who attempted to make a Defcent [Descent] upon that Part of the Country; for which (for it feems [seems] in thofe [those] Days Merit was rewarded) he obtained a Grant from the Crown, of feveral [several] Lands in the Shire of Cunninghham:* He was fucceeded [succeeded] by another Sir Robert , who, like his Predeceffor [Predecessor], exercifed [exerised] his Valour in Defence of his King and Country; and like him, happeneing to live in a Age when Virtue was the only Way to Preferment [Preserment], he received as a Reward of his Service, the Lands of Kilmarnock, from Robert the Firft [First], then King of Scotland; which Lands have continued ever fince [since] in the Family, and now give the Title of Earl to the prefent [present] Lord.” * Cunningham is the northern part of Ayrshire. King George II (or his servants) in doing this tree says the name Boyd started in 1111 A. D., but he does not cite any source. (I think that he would have failed his University Exams for not citing his sources.) The second problem is to “whom” does this date apply to “Robert Boyd” or his father “Simon” when it says “The firft [first] remarkable Man of his Family, and the firft [first] who affumed [assumed] the Sirname of Boyde, is faid [said] by Scotch Genealogifts [Genealogist], to be Robert, Son of Simon, third Son of Allan, Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, …” From the Chart handed out at Dean Castle, it tells us that the first Sir Robert Boyd died in 1240. So, does the date 1111 A. D. apply to the birth of “Simon”, rather than the birth of Sir Robert Boyd? And this Sir Robert Boyd would not have taken the name Boyd from his birth but at a later time in his life. There is no evidence that “Simon” was “Simon Boyd” and his name would “most likely” be recorded as Simon FitzRobert after his father Robert Fitz Walter. In The Scots Peerage, Vol V, pp 136-137 it says that “That Walter the Steward had a brother Simon, and that he witnessed the foundation charter of Paisley in 1160 as Simon, frater Walteri filii Allani, is not disputed, but this charter was executed, not at Paisley, but at Fotheringay in Northamptonshire, and not only is there no evidence that he ever subsequently came to Scotland, but Mr. J.H. Round (1) appears to prove conclusively that this Simon was only uterine brother to Walter, and that he was the Simon 'de Caisneto' alias 'de Norfolc,' who held the Manor of Mileham.” (1) From Genealogists, N.S., xviii. 13 – (Where N.S. is New Series), The Origins of the Stewarts and Their Chesney Connexion, pp 1-16, c 1902, Dr J Horace Round. So, this would show that “Simon” had several names in this period, but he does not appear to have taken the name Boyd, as was used by his son Sir Robert Boyd. The third problem is what does this date of 1111 A. D. apply to? If this is the date of Simon’s birth – as appears most likely – this will depend on when Alan FitzFlaad died. I do not know enough Clan Stewart history to know if this date is correct or not, but I have seen later dates than 1111 A. D. for Alan’s death – which I can’t put my hands on at present. (I will have to contact Clan Stewart to see they can resolve this problem of his date of death.) So even if Aveline married in the same year as Alan died, you would not expect that Simon would be born until the next year after her second marriage. Whatever these dates are. The fourth problem is term “Robert, Son of Simon, third Son of Allan, Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, .. “. To the best of my knowledge Allan never went to Scotland and nor was he ever “Lord High Chancellor of Scotland”. So, if this statement is incorrect what else is wrong? As shown by Dr J Horace Round, in 1902, Simon was not the “third son” of Alan FitzFlaad and Aveline de Hesdin, but, was the eldest and only son of Aveline and Robert FitzWalter, sheriff of Norfolk. So, while King George II in 1746, has said the name Boyd “started in 1111 A. D”, there are a number of questions about this date for the start of Clan Boyd. But at this time there is no alternative date that might be used. If in your readings about Clan Boyd History, Scottish History and English History, you come across further data that might show some light on this problem of when and with whom did the name “BOYD” start with, we all would like to hear about that data and what it says. I would also like your “views” about these two paragraphs’ of 1746 on the origins of the name Boyd? Thank you Mike Boyd Chairman Historical Committee, HBS 3/4/2018

D Doug Boyd ???? On Sat, Aug 31, 2019, 10:02 AM Mike Boyd <[email protected]> wrote: > According to King George II in 1746, the Boyd’s name started in 1111 A.D. > > > > In 1746, when you were being executed, it seems that it was “tradition” > that your family history was compiled for you. This was the case with > William Boyd, fourth Earl of Kilmarnock and Lord Balmerino. > > > > In the paper Memoirs of the Lives and Families of the Lords Kilmarnock, > Cromertie and Balmerino, Together with A Faithful Nattative of the > Procesings againft them: and the Genuine Speekes of the Lords Kilmarnock > and Cromertie, 1746, as printed by T. Gardner, London, page 6 it says > (written as printed in the paper with my putting the word into modern > English in square brackets) - > > > > “The Earl of Kilmarnock takes his Title of Earl of from a Royal Borough of > that name, in the Shire of Cunningham: The firft [first] remarkable Man of > his Family, and the firft [first] who affumed [assumed] the Sirname of > Boyde, is faid [said] by Scotch Genealogifts [Genealogist], to be Robert, > Son of Simon, third Son of Allan, Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, in the > Year 1111; fo [so] in Right of this Robert, from whom the Earl of > Kilmarnock is lineally defcended [descended], this Branch of the Name of > Boyde claims to be Chief, and acted in that Capacity, when Chieftainfhip > [Chieftainship] was in Repute in that Part of the Country; but for more > than a Century and a half, Chiefs in that part of Scotland, neither have > nor claim any other Advantage, but that of Precedency. > > > > Hiftorians [Historians] have left a Blank in the Genealogy of the family, > from the laft [last] memtioned Robert Boyde, in the Year 1111, to a > Defcendant [Descendant] of his, called Sir Robert Boyde; who, in the Year > 1263, gave figual [sigual] Proofs of his Valour and military Skill, in that > famous Battle of the Larges, fought by the Scots againft [against] the > Norvegians, who attempted to make a Defcent [Descent] upon that Part of the > Country; for which (for it feems [seems] in thofe [those] Days Merit was > rewarded) he obtained a Grant from the Crown, of feveral [several] Lands in > the Shire of Cunninghham:* He was fucceeded [succeeded] by another Sir > Robert , who, like his Predeceffor [Predecessor], exercifed [exerised] his > Valour in Defence of his King and Country; and like him, happeneing to live > in a Age when Virtue was the only Way to Preferment [Preserment], he > received as a Reward of his Service, the Lands of Kilmarnock, from Robert > the Firft [First], then King of Scotland; which Lands have continued ever > fince [since] in the Family, and now give the Title of Earl to the prefent > [present] Lord.” > > > > * Cunningham is the northern part of Ayrshire. > > > > King George II (or his servants) in doing this tree says the name Boyd > started in 1111 A. D., but he does not cite any source. (I think that he > would have failed his University Exams for not citing his sources.) > > > > The second problem is to “whom” does this date apply to “Robert Boyd” or > his father “Simon” when it says > > > > “The firft [first] remarkable Man of his Family, and the firft [first] who > affumed [assumed] the Sirname of Boyde, is faid [said] by Scotch > Genealogifts [Genealogist], to be Robert, Son of Simon, third Son of Allan, > Lord High Chancellor of Scotland, …” > > > > From the Chart handed out at Dean Castle, it tells us that the first Sir > Robert Boyd died in 1240. So, does the date 1111 A. D. apply to the birth > of “Simon”, rather than the birth of Sir Robert Boyd? And this Sir Robert > Boyd would not have taken the name Boyd from his birth but at a later time > in his life. > > > > There is no evidence that “Simon” was “Simon Boyd” and his name would > “most likely” be recorded as Simon FitzRobert after his father Robert Fitz > Walter. > > > > In The Scots Peerage, Vol V, pp 136-137 it says that > > > > “That Walter the Steward had a brother Simon, and that he witnessed the > foundation charter of Paisley in 1160 as Simon, frater Walteri filii > Allani, is not disputed, but this charter was executed, not at Paisley, but > at Fotheringay in Northamptonshire, and not only is there no evidence that > he ever subsequently came to Scotland, but Mr. J.H. Round (1) appears to > prove conclusively that this Simon was only uterine brother to Walter, and > that he was the Simon 'de Caisneto' alias 'de Norfolc,' who held the Manor > of Mileham.” > > > > (1) From Genealogists, N.S., xviii. 13 – (Where N.S. is New > Series), The Origins of the Stewarts and Their Chesney Connexion, pp 1-16, > c 1902, Dr J Horace Round. > > > > So, this would show that “Simon” had several names in this period, but he > does not appear to have taken the name Boyd, as was used by his son Sir > Robert Boyd. > > > > The third problem is what does this date of 1111 A. D. apply to? If this > is the date of Simon’s birth – as appears most likely – this will depend on > when Alan FitzFlaad died. I do not know enough Clan Stewart history to > know if this date is correct or not, but I have seen later dates than 1111 > A. D. for Alan’s death – which I can’t put my hands on at present. (I will > have to contact Clan Stewart to see they can resolve this problem of his > date of death.) So even if Aveline married in the same year as Alan died, > you would not expect that Simon would be born until the next year after her > second marriage. Whatever these dates are. > > > > The fourth problem is term “Robert, Son of Simon, third Son of Allan, Lord > High Chancellor of Scotland, .. “. To the best of my knowledge Allan > never went to Scotland and nor was he ever “Lord High Chancellor of > Scotland”. So, if this statement is incorrect what else is wrong? > > > > As shown by Dr J Horace Round, in 1902, Simon was not the “third son” of > Alan FitzFlaad and Aveline de Hesdin, but, was the eldest and only son of > Aveline and Robert FitzWalter, sheriff of Norfolk. > > > > So, while King George II in 1746, has said the name Boyd “started in 1111 > A. D”, there are a number of questions about this date for the start of > Clan Boyd. But at this time there is no alternative date that might be > used. > > > > If in your readings about Clan Boyd History, Scottish History and English > History, you come across further data that might show some light on this > problem of when and with whom did the name “BOYD” start with, we all would > like to hear about that data and what it says. > > > > I would also like your “views” about these two paragraphs’ of 1746 on the > origins of the name Boyd? > > > > Thank you > > > > Mike Boyd > > Chairman > > Historical Committee, HBS > > 3/4/2018 > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > ___________________________________ > NOTE: Use the data on this list as a finding tool, just as you would any > other secondary source. When you find the name of an ancestor listed > confirm the facts in original sources. > > Clan Boyd Society, International > (The Clan Boyd Web site is down, I am trying to get it back up and working. > _______________________________________________ > Email preferences: http://bit.ly/rootswebpref > Unsubscribe > https://lists.rootsweb.com/postorius/lists/[email protected] > Privacy Statement: https://ancstry.me/2JWBOdY Terms and Conditions: > https://ancstry.me/2HDBym9 > Rootsweb Blog: http://rootsweb.blog > RootsWeb is funded and supported by Ancestry.com and our loyal RootsWeb > community >