I haven’t been able to find any modern works on the origin of Walteri Filli Alani, (as called on his seal). Hence I have had to accepted that the latest authoritative author on the subject was Horace J. Round, who published "Studies in Peerage and Family History” in 1901. However, his interest (as seems true for later author) was the origin of the Fitzalan family (i.e. ancestors to the Earls of Arundel) and not the actual origin of Walteri Filli Alani. For he accepts that Walteri Filli Alani was a member of Fitzalan family simply because: “This was established at some length by Chalmers in his Caledonia (1807) on what he declared to be ‘the most satisfactory evidence.’” He does reference Riddell’s “Stewartiana” published in 1843, however essay just re-integrates the 1807 claims of Chalmers. Chalmers assumed that there was an associated between Walter son of Alan (who is only found in Scotland) and William son of Alan, a noble from Shropshire (whose house is the ancestor to the prominent family of the Earls of Arundel). How does Chalmers show that Walter son of Alan found only in Scotland is the brother of English Lord William son of Alan? He does so by two facts: 1. Chalmers says: “Now; Richard Fitz-Alan, the Earl of Arundel, being with Edward III., in Scotland, during the year 1335; and claiming to be Stewart of Scotland, by hereditary right, sold his title, and claim to Edward III., for a thousand marks” Hence by the Earl of Arundel claiming hereditary rights to the Stewart of Scotland he must be related to the family of Walteri filli Alani. However, I have found no modern confirmation for this hereditary claim. Instead modern author Oliver Thomson writes instead on the subject: “… Richard Fitzalan, Earl of Arundel, Lord of Oswestry applied to Edward III for the vacant position of the Royal Steward of Scotland. He was turned down but did visit Scotland to lead the English siege of Dunbar in 1338” From “The Rises and Falls of the Royal Stewarts”, 2001. He nor any other author I can find reasserts Chalmers hereditary claim, suggesting that it has not been verified. Hence useless new evidence is emerges, i.e., a modern transcription to the text in question, Chalmers claim cannot be relied on thte truth of this subject. 2. Chalmers identifies that then Walteri Filli Alani founded the Cluniac priory of Paisley by arranging with Cluniac abbot of Wendlock, Shropshire, to supply the monks. This he and others have used to justify Shropshire as the origin of Walteri Filli Alani and relationship with the Fitzalan that held land elsewhere in Shropshire. This said, King Edmond of Scotland was sent to the Cluniac Abbey of Montacute in Somerset following the events of 1097. Should I assume that the Cranmores are original from Somerset? With some speculative ideas, as in the manner of Chalmers, I am sure I could associate the Royal Scottish family with a local Somerset family... . After reviewing the two reasons why Royal Stewart originate from Anglo-Norman nobility I find the justification wholly lacking. Bernard.> Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:15:52 -0700 > Subject: Re: Royal DNA > To: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > From: gen-medieval@rootsweb.com > > On Thursday, June 9, 2016 at 1:39:13 PM UTC-7, Bernard Morgan via wrote: > > The Stewarts's Y-DNA emerges from a common ancestor to the Gaelic tribes > > of north Ireland and western Scotland. And the originator of the DF41 > > branch is given a age range of about 2000-2500 years ago. > > > > Given that the Stewarts claimed up to the 17th century to native Gaels > > of Scotland, is it correct that they are descended from a Anglo-Breton? > > For this idea requires them accept a rhythmer's fantasy as to their > > origin and for their ancestors to have travel to Brittany before making > > the return trip (via a circuitous route) back to the homeland of the > > their ancient relatives. The law of parsimony would suggest we that they > > never left Scotland and that the Anglo-Breton origin is a product of > > 18th century Anglicization of Scotland History? > > Genealogy doesn't always follow parsimony, or you wouldn't have a noted Scottish queen who was born to an English prince, not in England but in Hungary. > > Still, we needn't talk in generalities here. We have the pedigree, the contiguous chain of names running from the Breton nobles to the Stuart kings. Where, then, is the flaw? Which link was the erroneous creation of the those 18th century anglophiles? > > It may be that the Stuart DNA does not match the accepted Breton pedigree due to a crypto-paternity event, rather than to a conspiracy of historians from 'down there'. > > taf > > ------------------------------- > To unsubscribe from the list, please send an email to GEN-MEDIEVAL-request@rootsweb.com with the word 'unsubscribe' without the quotes in the subject and the body of the message