Sir Henry de Erskine - Links to Gilbert De Ghent

"Henry de Ghent was also known as Henry Erskine in Scotland. He took the Alost arms, reversed to Scotland: argent, a pale sable. Henry Erskine's device came closest to the original Alost pattern out of those families that took the colours to Scotland." - Page 76

This, the most direct and strongly supporting statement, comes from an article by Ms. Teresa Bostle, President of the Clan Lindsay Society of Australia. It was featured in the March 2002 Newsletter of the Australian Lindsay Society. Ms Bostle used the "Lives of the Lindsays" publication - published in 1840 by Alexander William Crawford Lindsay (1812-1880), 25th Earl of Crawford and Chief of Clan Lindsay and the research report by Ms. Beryl Platts to the Lindsay Society of Scotland as her source material.

https://moultray.wordpress.com/2009/07/20/flemish-counts-of-guines/

Private — very good idea, taking the discussion public; it gives us a written record and also gives a place to discuss not just a particular profile, but protocol in general.

In this case, I myself have absolutely no doubt that many Scottish names are Flemish — there is a wealth of scholarship, including entire conferences, to that effect. Erskine is one of those names. We can take that as given.

But even if we accept that Henry de Ghent was known as Henry Erskine in Scotland (and the only evidence I have been able to find so far is the heraldic evidence you give above; something stronger would be great), we have the problem that so far at least, unless there is evidence I haven’t seen, we simply do not know who connects that Henry de Erskine, who died c. 1120, to the Henry de Erskine who died in 1226.

So not only do we not know how many people there were in between, we can’t know what that line looks like and how to judge it, because we are supposing it, and can’t see it. We don’t actually know that it was direct. Names don’t always work that way.

At any rate.

This is a very strong supposition, but it is supposition, and Geni policy has been, especially recently, to give connections and lines for which there is documentation.

So. Name shown by heraldry, with no documentation; unknown and unnamed generations in between profile and supposed ancestor; that’s why I cut the line.

But it is an interesting problem, and deserves discussion.

Justin Durand, and https://www.geni.com/threads/6000000083210533847, what are your takes on this issue?

I don't think this is as complicated as it sounds. In fact, this is one of the commonest of problems in medieval genealogy. Best practice is to show where the evidence leads but not to make a specific connection that would be speculative.

Beryl Platts was a highly competent scholar, who advanced the theory that heraldry originated in Flanders and originated much earlier than normally believed. Then, based on this idea, she made some speculative connections to some Scottish families.

I think it overstates the case to say it is "fact that Henry de Erskine, the first documented Erskine, is a descendent of Gilbert De Ghent".

It's a theory. A well-received theory, but still a theory.

We will want to deal with the supposed descent from Radbod, King of the Frisians and his new duplicate Redbad (or Radbod) the Pagan King of Frisia in a separate thread.

Lines back to him are unprovable using modern standards of evidence. The different claims all date from the era of great forgery.

Thanks, Justin Durand.

Private User, I meant to link to you above and copied the wrong link!

This "...we simply do not know who connects that Henry de Erskine, who died c. 1120, to the Henry de Erskine who died in 1226."

It is wrong to connect the two Henrys, if the younger is a direct descendant we have no way of knowing how many generations are involved. We cannot know this for certain anyway, even if both are from the same family it might not be a direct line.

No amount of place holder profiles can accurately represent this situation

Alex Moes still they do that in the biblical lines all the time...

I don't know Ulf, i don't look at the biblical parts of the tree.

I've isolated and will merge in the duplicate Radbod, once the Discussion is finished.

> they do that in the biblical lines all the time...

"They" should not do this. The people who work in the Biblical tree are committed to disconnecting lines that violate the rules. The goal is to create a tree that follows the lines given in the Bible.

If you come across a line like this please let us know.

I was under the impression that the name Henrico de Eskyn is noticed only once in Scottish record https://archive.org/details/registrummonaste00mait/page/210 Can some kind friend point me in the direction of a record which mentions Henry de Ghent.

Private wrote, "I disagree with removing of the paternal connection to "Unknown De Ghent" as these entries link Henry de Erskine to his De Ghent, Lord of Aalst progenitors"

I agree if the connection is above all doubt, in this case we are talking about 150 years, with likely 3 missing persons names whitin ca. 5 generations, thoose could be set as unknown de Erskine, and why not, without a stated gender, explaining the connection.
The need to be more specific or exact are overruled with the use of roughly estimated birthyears for thoose in between, as the connection in itself ought to be more iinteresting to keep than to completly abolish, a simple footnote that mentioning the supposed origins are not always something to prefer.

Here's a helpful thought experiment you can do to see if the proof really stands up to scrutiny.

Ask yourself, given the evidence we have, whether any other scenario is reasonably possible.

If it really cannot be any other way without pushing to absurdity, then you probably have a good case.

We're not seeing that kind of scenario here. The whole thing is based on a theory about the origin of heraldry, so it's speculative right at the start. Then there is the problem that we can't say with any reasonable certainty that Henry de Erskine was ever called Henry de Ghent. That seems to also be speculative. Nor is there is any reason to firmly fix the hypothetical Henry de Ghent as a grandson of Gilbert de Ghent. He could have been son, grandson, great grandson, nephew, cousin, son-in-law, or just about anything.

So, we'd have to back off and say that this is an intriguing possibility, certainly worth mentioning, but it's not proved by the existing evidence.