Lang Will: Grahams of Cumberland \u2013 part two<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Cumbrian Grahams are likely descended from the notorious reiver clan, who were infamous in the 16th century.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The big question is: who were the reiver Grahams, and where did they come from?<\/p>\n\n\n\n
As I explained in this introductory post<\/a>, not every member of a clan was a blood relative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It was more about strength, support, safety and loyalty than blood.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So your (and my) Grahams may be descended from a clan leader. Or from some local cottager who rode with them and took the name, in exchange for the clan\u2019s protection from its troublesome neighbours.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The head of the reiver Grahams was William, known as Lang Will. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He likely came from Hutton Parish, northwest of the Debatable Land, from \u2018a place called Moskesso or Maskesswra\u2019. <\/p>\n\n\n\n He arrived with his eight sons in the English Debatable Land about 1516, according to Queen Elizabeth\u2019s Chancellor Lord Burghley, having been banished out of Scotland<\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The eight sons were for sure adults by 1528 (at the latest).<\/p>\n\n\n\n And for sure by 1541, they were causing havoc.<\/p>\n\n\n\n William Graham of Mosskeswra was outlawed owing fines and his lands given away, in 1515.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Your (and my) Grahams may (or may not!) be descended from Lang Will.\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n But who were his parents?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Talking about Lang Will\u2019s lot, Queen Elizabeth\u2019s Chancellor Lord Burghley wrote: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere are also another sort of Grames, which inhabit upon the rivers of Levyn and Sarke, which are not of this race, but by course of tyme have maryed together, and are become of one partie to the nomber of foure or five hundred, allmost all evel disposed.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The point here is that when Lang Will took refuge in the Debatable Land, there were already many of the \u2018other sort\u2019 of Grahams living on the border.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Your (and my) Grahams may be descended from this \u2018other sort of Grahams\u2019.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n But who were they, and how do they fit in with Lang Will?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n According to Lord Cecil Burghley: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cBy this William doe the Earls of Mounteth and Montrose in Scotland claims interest of the service of all Grames as descended out of their houses.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n In other words, the \u2018great\u2019 Graham families of Montrose and Menteith claimed kinship with the reiver Grahams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n (The main image is the memorial to the great James Graham, 1st Marquess of Montrose, in St Giles’ Cathedral, Edinburgh).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Mosskesswra\/Moskesso\/Mosskessen was in the parish of Hutton. It is accepted that Lang Will had (and forfeited) land there, circa 1515.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Dalkeith Grahams occupied land at Mosskessen<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is \u2018accepted\u2019 (but not proven) that:<\/p>\n\n\n\n Peter\u2019s grandson Henry (c1218-1303) married the daughter of Roger Avenel. No one knows her Christian name, sadly, but through her, Henry acquired Roger\u2019s lands. Including Mosskessen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Henry\u2019s great-grandson John, \u2018the Last,\u2019 died in 1362, having given all his estates to assorted relatives: sisters, cousins\u2026 <\/p>\n\n\n\n So, Mosskessen, in the 1200s and 1300s, was in the hands of a branch of the Grahams who (probably!) shared a common ancestor with the Menteith and Montrose Grahams.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And there the trail goes cold\u2026<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2026except records show there were Grahams at Mosskessen in the 1470s.<\/p>\n\n\n\n And we know that Lang Will was kicked out of Mosskessen in 1515.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We don\u2019t know Lang Will\u2019s age in 1515, or how old his sons were.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We do know that John The Last died in 1362. If Lang Will was born, say 1470, that leaves a century between them. That\u2019s several missing generations. And yet clearly, while John the Last may have been the end of his line, one or more of his cousins, or relatives on the Menteith\/Montrose branch, did have descendants with a claim to Mosskessen\/Hutton parish.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Over on the Menteith branch, Sir Patrick Graham (1382-1414) married Eupheme Stewart. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Their children included Malise Graham, who was accorded the title Earl of Menteith (long story). They also had a daughter Euphemia, who became a countess and duchess (long story).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The relevant thing is that in 1463, Euphame gave up some of her lands, in a trade with the Douglases, in order to get land at Mosskesswra, Nether Dryfe and Bedokholme in Hutton. Which was then granted to \u2018William the Graham\u2019.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Rewind to 1456, and the Douglases had:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u2018successfully sued William, Robert, Richard and John Graham, regarding their claims to certain lands in Hutton, lands the Grahams claimed had been in their family’s possession for over a hundred years<\/em>\u2019<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Which tells us that in the late 1450s:<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is possible that one of these men (William, Robert, Richard, John) was the father of Lang Will. <\/p>\n\n\n\n One popular theory for the origins of the Border Grahams is that Lang Will was a descendant of John with the Bright Sword. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The problem with that is this theory says John with the Bright Sword was a son of Malise Graham (c1406-1490).<\/p>\n\n\n\n The actual John with the Bright Sword fought alongside William Wallace. He was killed in 1298. <\/p>\n\n\n\n In the 13th century, Henry Graham of Dalkeith (grandson of Peter) and his son Nicholas took three scallop shells as the main symbol in their coats of arms.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Pretty much every other armigerous Graham since (and non-entitled ones!) has included three scallop shells.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Lang Will\u2019s son William (of Carlisle in 1553) took arms that suggested he was claiming descent from Malise Graham, the 1st earl of Menteith. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Which really doesn\u2019t work (for reasons given above).<\/p>\n\n\n\n Perhaps he simply wanted to imply he was connected to an earl, rather than being the son of a man who\u2019d forfeited his land and been made an outlaw?!<\/p>\n\n\n\n With records sparse, and the ones that have survived time often sketchy and confusing, a lot of people hope the answers can be found in DNA testing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n After all, the \u2018body in the car park\u2019 was confirmed as Richard III through a DNA comparison with a proven descendant. Although it did open a new puzzle<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But that is for part 3<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\nKey point two: Lang Will<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Key point three: the \u2018other sort of Grahams\u2019<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Back to Lang Will<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Key point four: Mosskesswra<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
THE Grahams<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
Back to Lang Will<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
The missing link<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Euphame Graham<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
John with the Bright Sword<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Back to Lang Will \u2013 coats of arms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Conclusion<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n
The DNA thing<\/h2>\n\n\n\n