Traditional Genealogy of the Macduffs

Summary of Sibbald, copied from http://www.geni.com/discussions/151727?msg=1058200

1. The 1st Earl is Macduff, who "commanded the king's army against the rebels in Mar, and enjoyed the privilege was granted to him." In an earlier passage Sibbald's editor explains that the holding of a parliament by Malcolm III immediately after his accession rests entirely on the authority of Boeth. The editor thinks it was not properly a parliament, but he says Malcolm III introduced the English title of Thane, which would have been familiar to him because he was educated at the English court. "Hence Duncan Macduff became Thane of Fife, of which he before was chief, (by what title is not known) ...." [Note the name Duncan for Macduff.]

2. The 2nd Earl is Dufagan, Macduff's son, who witnessed Alexander I's charter to Scone: "The name of Dufagan shows him to be the Earl of Fife, 'tho Fife be not mentioned there : for there is no designation of the other Earls there mentioned as assenters, by their province, only their name is set down, and after that Comes." A footnote says, "The genealogists differ about the number and order of the descendants of Macduff, and the individuals from whom different families descended. The editor feels no inclination to enter into these disputes."

3. The 3rd Earl is Constantine, who is mentioned in the charter of Edelrad. Sibbald does not connect him to the earlier earls. He died 1129.

4. The 4th Earl is Gillimichael Macduff, eldest son of Constantine. He died 1139.

5. The 5th Earl is Duncan, who died 1154.

Summary of Peerage of Scotland:

Scots Peerage (1904-1912) was created by Sir James Balfour Paul, Lord Lyon King of Arms. It was based on an earlier peerage work by Peerage of Scotland (1764), by Sir Robert Douglas. Since Scots Peerage gives a more or less modern account of the Earls of Fife, I wondered what Peerage of Scotland might have said.

Nothing new there. The family starts with Mackduff, a Thane who was created Earl of Fyfe by Malcolm III in 1057. His son was Duffgan Comes who witnessed Alexander I’s charter to Scone. His son was Constantine, Earl of Fyfe, then his son Gillemichel, his son Duncan, and so on down.

Maybe not so surprising that this 1767 version is essentially the same as Sir Robert Sibbald’s 1710 account and David Dalyrymple’s 1819 account.

Summary of Scots Peerage, copied from http://www.geni.com/discussions/151727?msg=1058189

1. Sir Robert Douglas (upon whose version this edition of Scots Peerage is based) began the line with Macduff, Thane of Fife, but John of Fordun in the 2nd half of the 14th century was the first to create Macduff, Thane and Earl of Fife. His story was embellished and handed on by Wyntoun, Boece, and Buchanan, but has been discredited by George Chalmers and Dr. Skene.

2. Edelrad or Ethelred, third son of Malcolm III, was undoubtedly the 1st Earl of Fife. He granted land to the Culdees of Loch Leven. The grant survives in two versions. The earlier, shorter version probably follows the original. The difficulty of two Earls of Fife being named in the longer version is explained by the fact that it is later (after 1107). Ethelred apparently died before 1098 when his next brother Edgar became king. Lord Hailes says Ethelred became a churchman but that is a misunderstanding. He was a lay-abbot of Dunkeld like his ancestor Crinan.

3. The next Earl of Fife was Constantine. There is no way of knowing who he was or how he became earl, but he apparently became earl about or before 1107, when he witnessed the confirmation of Ethelred's grant to the Culdees of Loch Leven. His name (Constantine) suggests a royal origin. He is called Constantine Macdufe at least once, but in a charter that might not be genuine "although maintained by able authorities".

4. Gillemichael succeeded Constantine. It is "not improbable" that the earldom first became hereditary for him and his heirs. It has been assumed he was son of Constantine but there is no proof. In a charter of King David to Dunfermline [missing from Maven's list above] there is a clause prohibiting any one of the heirs of Constantine, Earl of Fife, from calling the grant into question. The language implies Constantine was dead. Gillemichael is not mentioned as an heir of Constantine in the charter and he did not witness it. Whoever he was, he held a high position. In King David's confirmation charter to Dunfermline he appears as "Gillemichael Macduf" and is ranked immediately after the earls and before the chancellor and other nobles.

5. Duncan, the 4th Earl, succeeded sometime before July 1136. He was probably, but not certainly, son of Gillemichael. Etc.

What these sources show, especially when taken together, is that the MacDuff line had a single, stable tradition from 1700 through 1819.

This line began to break down between 1819 and 1907, with increasing doubt about the historicity of MacDuff and the identification of Duffagan.

The line from Ethelred seems to be a 20th century fiction, introduced to explain how he became Earl of Fife.

=This affects the following profiles at a minimum:
"Macduff" (at best only semi-historical)
NN, father of Constantine MacDuib (traditionally named as Duffagan)
Constantine, Earl of Fife
Gille Míchéil MacDuff, Mormaer of Fife
Duncan MacDuff, 4th Earl of =

*It seems to me that although Shakespeare's Macduff is very 'semi-historical' - a lot of the evidence points to the fact that there likely existed a MacDuff progenitor

*Positioning his son as traditionally called Duffagan is one thing, but making Duffagan the father of Constantine doesn't appear to be backed up by any sources that you've posted.
Constantine is unconnected to Duffagan anywhere I can find; and the point that he comes out of nowhere is made enough times to make me pause before I name his father.

Look at Tayler for Duffagan as father of Constantine.

I looked at dozens of different versions. These four are just the ones I chose as examplars.

* If Duffagan is named, he is always son of Macduff.

* Constantine is always son of either Duffagan or Macduff.

* Gillemichael is always son or brother of Constantine.

Tayler's version is an "average" of the whole body of literature, which is why I included it even though it is post-1907 and non-academic.

I'm off to bed if I go quiet. It definitely sounds plausible to me - but I'd like to work through whether we're creating a connected line just for the sake of the line.

I take Macduff to stand for a real person, even after rejecting Shakespeare's version.

The article from DNB makes the point: "Even if Æthelred is excluded from their number, it nevertheless remains likely that the first earls were closely connected to the royal house. This is suggested by the fact that two of the first earls, Constantine and Gille Micheil, are called ‘Macduff’—a Scoticized form of two Gaelic words, mac and Dubh, meaning ‘son of Dubh’. In Scotland the only person of note to bear the name Dubh was Dubh, king of Scots from 962 to 966, making it virtually certain that the Macduffs were descended from him. The surname Macduff for his descendants may have come into use as early as 1128."

http://www.geni.com/discussions/151727?msg=1058649

And, as we've said many times before, the supposed descent of Macbeth's wife Gruoch from this Dubh is the main argument in favor of the idea he had a right to the throne after Duncan.

In A. D. M. Barrell, Medieval Scotland (2000) the author says, "The lands of the earldom of Fife in the twelfth century were also less extensive than might have been anticipated. Their personal names suggest that the Earls of Fife were closely linked with the royal house, probably descendants of King Dub, who ruled in the 960s, hence the name MacDuff which is peculiarly associated with this family. [cite to Bannerman] In any event, it can be conjectured that Fife was in crown hands in the late tenth, if not the eleventh century, and that some lands there were retained by the king and later granted to knights. (p. 22)

https://books.google.com/books?id=mFsBMT7tnxIC&pg=PA22&dq=b...

These are just two examples from a much broader literature on the subject. The name MacDuff is documented no earlier than Constantine, but the modern consensus seems to be that the MacDuffs were the old ruling family of Fife, almost certainly descended from King Dubh. There's no proof, and never can be from surviving records, but it's a near certainty.

Ergo, the "Macduff" of these genealogies represents a real person, albeit someone about whom nothing is known except his ancestors and descendants.

> I'd like to work through whether we're creating a connected line just for the sake of the line.

I imagine we'll be discussing that problem for days to come. My thought is that this "traditional" line is already established, plus it's older than mere modern invention. It can't be proved, can't be disproved.

As a functional matter, it's a more workable framework to use for comment and discussion than anything else we've seen.

The Ethelred line popped up because historians began to doubt the existence of Macduff and the identification of Duffagan. It's no coincidence, I don't think, that those two things happened almost simultaneously.

If we leave Constantine's ancestry blank, we'll be revisiting the Ethelred dispute every time we get a new user. If Constantine is connected to Duffagan or Macduff, the line will be easier to navigate and explain.

.

"Duffagan", particularly in the older forms "Dubhagan" (little dark lad) or "Duibhgenn" (dark-haired person), is an authentic Gaelic name.

The former (as "Dubacan") is now found principally in the south of Ireland; the latter was found among the Dal Cais ("Dalcassians") and Osraige ("Ossory") - both of which have connections to the Scottish royal house.

Ossory, in fact, has links to *Orkney* - the mother of Sigurd the Stout (Thorfinn's grandmother) is said to have been Eithne of the house of Cearbhall, of Ossory.

I think we're on approximately the same page by now, and are just hashing out the details.

Finally. Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to do actual research.

Yes, I agree that these guys all came from the same clan, and were hence male line cousins at the least. My thoughts are more in relation to the fact that the descent by primogeniture does not seem to be established at this stage - eg Gillemichiel is not obviously or even likely to have been Constantine's son. It seems clear to me that we cannot prove Constantine's father's identity, and so 'Dufugan' is more likely to have been a male line relative other than his father.
I do understand, however, that without named alternatives, it makes more sense on Geni to maintain the traditional line as is.
I would like us to be able to add a note that acknowledges the questionable veracity of the claim, if it is indeed questionable.