The "Ethelred Charter" - Fact or Forgery?

It should further be noted that several charters of the same period (late 11th-early 12th century) *have* been declared spurious, and Lawrie notes (some of) them as such. They include:

X. Charter by Malcolm III to the Church of Dunfermline;
XV. Charter by King Edgar to Durham, "AD 1095" (two years before he was crowned);
XVI. (possibly spurious) Confirmation by William II of England;
XVII. Charter of King Edgar, "A.D. 1095" (see above);
XXXVI. (possibly spurious) King Alexander I, Charter to Scone Priory.

It has come to my attention that the "short version" anachronistically uses the "royal we", which was not even customary in *England* until the reign of Henry II and which is found in no other charter where there is a single donor (Macbeth and Gruoch, and Malcolm and Margaret, are excepted because they issued joint donations). That, along with the chronological problems, places it in the category of "dubious".

This seems relatively straightforward.

There are two documents. One of them, the "shorter version" is in the form of a grant from Ethelred. "We Ethelred by the grace of God son of Malcolm king of Scotland, Abbot of Dunkeld insuper Earl of Fife, give and concede ..."

The other, the "longer version" is in the form of a confirmation. "Ethelred, man of venerated memory, son of Malcolm King of Scotland, Abbot of Dunkeld insuper Earl of Fife, has given ..."

In the grant Ethelred is alive ("We Ethelred ... give and concede"). In the confirmation Ethelred is apparently deceased ("Ethelred, a man of venerable memory").

The grant is witnessed by Earl Maddock, Ethelred's brother Edmund, and Chaplain Sirach. The confirmation is witnessed by a great many more, including Ethelred's brothers David and Alexander, as well as Constantine, Earl of Fife.

These lists of witnesses are consistent with the form of each. The grant requires a minimum of witnesses, but the confirmation gathers together everyone who might have a stake in contesting the validity of the grant.

On another thread there was a tussle about Constantine, Earl of Fife, being a witness to the longer version because it describes Ethelred as "insuper Earl of Fife". The meaning of "insuper" isn't entirely clear. Normally it means "and also", but Ethelred and Constantine can't have both been earls of Fife at the same time. .

John Bannerman (1993) argued that the translator of the longer version was thrown off by the use of a singular Gaelic verb for a joint grant, which Bannerman thought must mean that Constantine made the grant jointly with Ethelred and that he (not Ethelred) was the Earl of Fife.

This is a very odd argument. It suggests Bannerman was not aware of the shorter version, which also says Ethelred was "insuper Earl of Fife". Bannerman also seems not to be aware of Lawrie's editorial note about the shorter version: "'Insuper may be a mistake for a word meaning 'formerly.'"

The shorter version was published in Lawrie's Early Scottish Charters (1905), so it would be odd if Bannerman was not aware of it.

On that other discussion thread, I pointed out some other authority (I've forgotten who it was) who also was apparently unaware of the shorter version. He argued that the longer version has a confirmation not a grant, and that the longer version must therefore refer to a time when Ethelred really was "also Earl of Fife". He thought here should be no conflict between Ethelred as Earl of Fife at the time of the grant and Constantine as Earl of Fife at the time of the confirmation. In other words, not knowing the existence of the shorter version in the form of a grant he was confident it must have existed.

There was also some discussion that "insuper" might be an erroneous expansion of some other Latin word that might, perhaps have been abbreviated as "in."

I don't see that any of this speculation about insuper is necessary. In the grant Ethelred is Abbot of Dunkeld and also Earl of Fife. That language is repeated in the confirmation. I don't know if that would have been a legal requirement at the time, but it would be today. Even if not a requirement at the time, it certainly makes sense to repeat the same language.

After all these details, the question seems very straightforward to me. There are two documents, a grant and a confirmation. The apparent problem of wording in the confirmation is a red herring. And, if these are both forgeries it would be the only example I've ever seen where someone decided one forgery wasn't enough.

> the "short version" anachronistically uses the "royal we"

I think you are misreading this usage. It is the "ecclesiastical we" not the "royal we". Appropriate for bishops and certain eminent abbots. Different timescale.

It's easy to find ecclesiastical charters from near this time that use the "we". Search on things like "nos dedisse" and "nos concessisse". Here's one place to start with some examples from Robert, Bishop of St. Andrews in the 1150s:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wuxJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA324&dq=...

> David would not have been of age to confirm anything before then [1100]

That's probably about right. Maybe 1097, depending on when he was born..

Unless I'm seriously mistaken the age of consent for men in Celtic Scotland was 14. They could marry and be witnesses, and their consent was required for transactions made by their guardian ("tutor") on their behalf.

Even as late as the 15th century there are a few celebrated lawsuits involving the alleged kidnapping of men aged 14 and a bit older in order to influence them to give their consent to transactions made for them by their tutors.

Explaining the law in 1838 William Bell says "he becomes invested with certain powers in the management of his own affairs". By then, the guardian for a man under 14 was called a "tutor" and for a man 14 to 21 was called a "curator".(A Dictionary and Digest of the Law of Scotland)

Wow! so there were two documents. Now that's interesting. Thankyou for all your trouble finding them & transcribing them, Maven.

=After all these details, the question seems very straightforward to me. There are two documents, a grant and a confirmation. The apparent problem of wording in the confirmation is a red herring. And, if these are both forgeries it would be the only example I've ever seen where someone decided one forgery wasn't enough.=

Agreed, Thanks also for the research points on the 'we' and on the age, Justin.

The most interesting thing - unless I'm reading it wrong - is the absence of Constantine as Earl of Fife in the original. It suggests that he was only Earl of Fife later, when he was ratifying it, and Ethelred was originally the Earl of Fife.

Shew - cutting edge stuff :-)

Argument that it's the "ecclesiastical we" supports the thesis that Ethelred *really had* taken clerical orders under the Roman rite (his mother would have insisted on that if he were going to do it at all) and therefore was under the Roman clerical rule of celibacy (which his mother was enthusiastically pushing on a reluctant Scottish Church).

And if *that's* the case, it cuts HARD against the argument that he could have married anybody, at any time.

Then we get the question of "who was "Maddock", and what was he Mormaer/Earl *of*?"

Ex hypothesi it can't be Fife, and probably wasn't Moray (an unfriendly domain).

Per "Electric Scotland", "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." That's close enough to "Maddock" for working purposes. (The validity of Electric Scotland's statement is, however, unknown, as this is not one of Lawrie's charters.)

OTOH the domain of Mar certainly predates Malcolm's time, and even Macbeth's - the Annals of Ulster record that "Domnall son of Eimen son of Cainnech, earl of Marr in Scotland" was killed in battle at Clontarf in 1014 (he fought with Brian against Sigurd); cross-referenced with the (probably mid-12th century) War of the Gaedhil with the Gaill[, which] records the participation of "Domhnall son of Emin" at Clontarf in 1014, adding in a later passage that "Domhnall son of Eimhin" was among those who were killed in the battle[379].

Copypasted from other thread:
Forged, or "re-created after the fact", charters were actually fairly common. http://medievalwriting.50megs.com/word/forged.htm

In many cases, they were "re-created evidence" of what everyone knew to be true (King so-and-so had granted such-and-such to this church somewhere around that time) and they had simply lost or mislaid the proof (or it had been given verbally without written follow-up).

In other cases, well....

I must say that the style of a charter written in the 1150s isn't a strong argument for the authenticity of one written in the 1090s - clerical or secular. There don't seem to be any other (verified) firsthand clerical charters of the exact period (cartulary notices, yes, but they don't use the same formulas).

The first authenticated(?) use of "Dei gratia" in a royal grant is one by King Edgar, dated to "c. 1100" (any time between then and 1107). Several previous examples have been declared spurious, and one is probably a later reconstruction ("the original is lost").

I'm still not sure what to make of it, but if it's a "pious fraud" by the monks of Lochleven, it casts doubt on the idea that Ethelred was mormaer of Fife, and if it's genuine it means he was almost certainly not anyone's husband or father. So either way it blows up the "Aed=Ethelred" hypothesis.

I did some reading about the background of this charter. Interesting stuff.

St. Serf was a saint venerated in western Fife. The Culdee church named for him was on an island in Loch Leven in Kinross, just over the border from Fife. It was re-established as an Augustinian priory in 1150 at the instigation of David I.

Auchmoor, the property Ethelred gave to St. Serf's, was on the east side of Loch Leven, so in the same area.

Now, here's an interesting piece. There is a grant to St. Serf's of property (Kirkness) in the same area from Macbeth and Gruoch.

https://books.google.com/books?id=wuxJAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA231&lpg...

Macbeth and Gruoch's grant was later confirmed by Malcolm III. Then in 1128 there is a complaint to the king from the monks of St. Serf's that Robert of Burgundy was infringing on their lands at Kirkness. The king summoned a large group of men for a perambulation, including Constantine, Earl of Fife (and a man named Macbeth, thane of Falkland).

There is a little history of St. Serf's here:
https://books.google.com/books?id=R6bOAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA20&lpg=...

Another source discusses a charter collection in the St.Andrews cartulary assembled by the monks of St. Serf's when they had to defend their property rights at Kirkness about 1130 (apparently the same complaint dated 1138 above).

https://books.google.com/books?id=U-2vCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA497&lpg...

According to this source (p. 503), the charter from Macbeth and Gruoch is one of only three surviving charters from Macbeth, all three of them grants to St. Serf's. One of these, it says, is the closest we have to a contemporary record of Gruoch's name. Her name also survives in a local well. The author thinks this suggests the land actually belong to Gruoch rather than to Macbeth "whose patrimony was in Moray".

I wonder if anything can be made of this.

This area is near the earldom of Fife and might have belonged to it, which would be why the earls of Fife are so often involved in these transactions -- Gruoch and Macbeth granting Kirkness, Ethelred granting Auchmoor, Constantine confirming Ethelred's grant, and Constantine being summoned for a perambulation. St. Serf's seems to have been a favorite charity for this group (Macbeth's two other donations), which would make sense because St. Serf himself was a popular saint from western Fife.

The charter from Ethelred says explicitly that Auchmoor was a property that "had been given to him by his parents when he was of a very young age". Family inheritance? That doesn't seem likely if Auchmoor was part of an assemblage of lands formerly held by Gruoch and perhaps confiscated by Malcolm III. Granted to Ethelred when he was very young. Perhaps as part of the earldom of Fife? Or was he perhaps married or betrothed as a child to the Fife heiress?

There seems to be some potential here for further understanding these relationships.

> the style of a charter written in the 1150s isn't a strong argument for the authenticity of one written in the 1090s

A very misleading argument.

The problem you claim to see with using an example from the 1150s to illustrate the practice in the 1190s comes from the nature of the surviving records. It's not a real problem.

The surviving records are in two different forms -- the grants themselves and memoranda of the grants. The grants use 1st / 3rd person (I / We grant). The memoranda use 2nd person (He / She granted).

In Scotland, the earliest surviving ecclesiastical charters take the form of confirmations. There is no way to prove that the original grant used the "ecclesiastical we" because the original grant does not survive.

The earliest ecclesiastical charters that take the form of grants are from this time. They all use the "ecclesiastical we" exactly as we would expect.

The use of the "ecclesiastical we" is older and more widespread throughout Europe than the use of the "royal we".

This charter from the 1150s is itself proof of that. It uses the "eccelesiastical we"even though the chancery of Wiliam I (ruled 1164-1214) was still not using the "royal we" even though it had been adopted in England.

Moreover, the use of "dei gratia" (by the Grace of God) does not correlate with using either the "royal we" or the "ecclesiastical we". Just as an interesting aside, William I, that same guy who did not use the "royal we", added "dei gratia" to his style in 1173/4. There is a nice discussion of the way David I used "dei gratia" here, along with some comments about whether the earlier use by Edgar is authentic. Notice the absence of the "royal we".

https://books.google.com/books?id=pQ1pkV89xiIC&pg=PA12&lpg=...

Justin, please use Internet Archive for book links - Google tends to shut down their information (especially the part(s) you want) very unpredictably.

Or, alternatively, copypaste the important bits into a document or a post before they go away.

Maven, the links will have to be as I find them.

Well then unfortunately I have no access to the discussion you referred to. :-(

I can certainly help you find a particular discussion if you tell me what it is. If, on the other hand, you want me to transcribe pages of material from a book that's too new to be in archive.org, that's probably never going to happen.

How about this one?

>Moreover, the use of "dei gratia" (by the Grace of God) does not correlate with using either the "royal we" or the "ecclesiastical we". Just as an interesting aside, William I, that same guy who did not use the "royal we", added "dei gratia" to his style in 1173/4. There is a nice discussion of the way David I used "dei gratia" here, along with some comments about whether the earlier use by Edgar is authentic. Notice the absence of the "royal we".

https://books.google.com/books?id=pQ1pkV89xiIC&pg=PA12&...=...

Couldn't access the information - Google just said the pages weren't available. :-( (They do that, to try to force you to buy the book.)

Your link seems to be a bit different than the one I get by clicking on mine.

https://books.google.com/books?id=pQ1pkV89xiIC&pg=PA12&lpg=...

Unfortunately, that's one I can't help you with. I don't find it in a search of archive.org. The relevant material is 2 pages of very dense text. Maybe you can get it through Interlibrary loan.

The basic idea is that there is almost no pattern to the way the clerks of David I's court used dei gratia. Of two formulas, one with dei gratia and one without, the full form appears more rarely than the short form and appears more often in copies. In some cases it might have been inserted on the copy even where it didn't appear in the original. The clerks seem to have had a preference for the short form. It is clearly not true that the long form was used early in David's reign and the short form later in his reign. Etc., etc.

If you are talking about the part of the paragraph about William I, that's not sourced from this link. It's from my general reading. Should be easy to find on the Internet. I would do it for you but then we'd get caught in that same circular problem that my links don't work for you.

At this point I'd rather get off the charter and start tracking down the people behind it. The mysterious "Maddock", for instance.

Otherwise we'll just get stuck in Maze Of Little Twisty...again.

Before we move on, this is something I don't know would work for you, but perhaps worth a try -- when I go to the link you get, then enter "dei gratia" into the search box, it goes to the full link -- for me.

Not much more helpful - just bits and bobs. :-( I don't think Google Books likes me tonight. :-(

Maybe Madadh of Atholl.

---

Madach, s(d) of Melmare (br of Malcolm III, King of Scotland, 1057-98) was witness to the charter of Scone dated 1115 as "Madach Comes," i.e. Madach Earl of Atholl or Athole. He married about 1133, probably as a 2nd wife, Margaret, daughter of Haco, Jarl of Orkney, which island was then part of the Kingdom of Norway, and died between 1142 and 1152. His widow married Erland Ugni, Jarl of Orkney, who was killed 1156. (Complete Peerage, 1:304)

(d) He is, however, sometimes called s. of Donald Bane.*

*Either father would make him grandson of Duncan MacCrinan

---

The first Earl of Atholl who appears in actual Scottish record is Earl Madach, or Madeth, who is named as a witness to the foundation charter of the Abbey of Scone, granted by King Alexander I, which is usually said to be granted in the year 1113-14, but was probably after 1116. Earl Madach is described by the Norwegian writer Torfaeus as a magnificent prince, and the cousin ('patruelis') of King David I. He bore the same relation to King Alexander I, as he was the son of their uncle, Melmare (called by the Norwegian writers 'Melkofr'), who was the younger brother of Malcolm III, 'Ceannmor,' their father. Earl Madach also appears as a witness to a charter by King David I to the churhc of Dunfermline, dated between 1124 and 1127, and to two charters to the monks of Coldingham, which must be dated about or after 1140, while the latest record of him, so far as has been ascertained, is in a charter by the same King to the monksof Melrose, dated 1142 or 1143. Earl Madach died some time before 1152, when his wife Margaret returned to Orkney. He appears to have been married twice. If so, the name and parentage of the first wife are unknown. About 1133 he married Margaret, daughter of Hakon, Earl of Orkney, who survived him and married, secondly, Erlend Ungi, who was also made Earl of Orkney, and was killed in 1156. (Scots Peerage, 1:415-416)

I don't think that's the same guy. We need someone who was adult, or even *old*, by 1094. ("My brother Edmund" as witness means it cannot possibly be later than that.)

That was my initial thought, too. But the dating could work. He doesn't have to be old, just old enough to witness a charter.

Geni says Máelmuir was born 1035, which is a reasonable guess if he was younger than Malcolm born c1031. Geni puts Madach's birth at 1085. Again, a reasonable guess. That's what I use.

But Madach could be much older or much younger. Any date would work between, say 1055 (when he father was about 20), and say, 1105 (so he would be about 20 when his son was born). I use a birth date of about 1126 for Madach's son Malcolm. Geni uses about 1133.

The real problem, I think, is that the Madach of the charter has to been an earl by 1094, which means Máelmuir has to be dead. Geni thinks Máelmuir died in 1128 but the question is more complicated than that. He either died in the 1130s or his date of death is unknown.

Lawrie, Early Scottish charters prior to A.D. 1153, has a bit about Madach, Mormaer of Atholl under his notes for XXXVI:

p. 30. Madach comes. It is assumed that he is identical with Madeth comes in No. LXXIV. [1128], ante, p. 63; with Madoc comes CXXVII [c1140], ante, p. 97 ; with Maduc consul and Madd' comes, witnesses to the two charters of Swinton (C. [c1135] and CI. [c1135], ante, pp. 79, 80) ; and with Madd' Comes, witness to CXLI. [c1143/4], ante, p. 108.

To him Sir James Dalrymple (Coll., p. 378) allotted the earldom of Atholl, on the authority of a passage in Torfaeus (Hist. Oread., lib. I., cap. 22, p. 100): "Elocata Margareta Comitis Haconis filia Maddado Comiti de Atjoklis omnium Scotiae principum facile nobilissimo, patrueli quippe Davidis Scotiae Regis in praesens regnantis ; sato patre Melcolmo fratre Regis Melcolmi Davidis patris " ; and, cap. 25, p. 109 : " Sveinus Asleisis filius, Haebudis in Scotiam ad amicos salutandos profectus, longo tempore Joclis, alias Atjoclis (alpibus seu montanis) apud Comitem Maddadum, qui Margaretam Comitis Haconis Pauli filiam uxorem duxit, moratus," etc.

Sir James Dalrymple and Lord Hailes (Annals, I., p. 52) are of opinion that Torfaeus was wrong in saying that Melcolm was the father of Maddad, Earl of Atholl, they say he was Donald Bane. Sir Archibald Dunbar calls Maddad's father Melmare, a brother of Donald Bane. Earl Maddad is said by Torfaeus (p. 100) to have married Margaret, daughter of Earl Haco, G. E. C. (Complete Peerage) and others have difficulty in holding that this lady could be the mother of Malcolm, whom they call the second earl, and they make Margaret, Earl Maddad's second wife.

https://archive.org/stream/earlyscottishcha00lawruoft#page/284/mode...

This Maddach is the only man I could find with a similar name that Lawrie does not identify with Maddock from the Ethelred charter (XIV). Easy to see why – the date doesn’t cluster with the others. There is a gap of 30 plus years, which is enough to raise doubt.

Maybe someone can find one I missed.

I wonder if we can get anywhere with this:
(Wikipedia, but Electric Scotland has similar information)
Early mormaers or earls[edit]
The first Mormaer of Mar is usually regarded as Ruadrí (fl. 1131), mentioned in the Book of Deer. Some modern sources give earlier mormaers, i.e. >Muirchertach (Latinized as Martachus)< and Gartnait (sometimes Gratnach), mentioned respectively in charters of the reigns of king Máel Coluim III (relating to the Céli Dé establishment of Loch Leven) and king Alexander I (relating to the monastic establishment of Scone), though in these cases certain identification with a particular province is difficult.

And even more difficult when you can't locate the relevant charter - do we have one, or just a report that he witnessed one?

Gartnait is vouched for in several sources, including the Book of Deer notes.

I'm not following. Are you suggesting that Maddock might be someone named Muirchertach?