Genealogical account of the family of Edmonstone of Duntreath

70 NOTES TO GENEALOGICAL ACCOUNT OF
seems at the first drawing to have resembled that as now emblazoned, a modern ducal
one, is changed into that resembling Mr. RiddelPs transcript, something more like an
Earl's without the balls, — and the crest has been gone over with a pen. There is an
obvious desire in Crawfurd, as will be stated more at length hereafter, to ignore the
existence of the Ednam as the elder branch of the line, and I cannot but think that may be
a reason for the omission of the annulet in the attested copy, which Mr. Riddell found in
the original. But the annulet does not appear at that early period to have been considered
as a mark of cadetcy. The circumstance of it being the distinction, as now, of the fifth
son, Mr. Riddell states to be modern, and more modern in Scotland even than in England.
He thinks it might possibly be 'a maternal difference distinguishing the Duntreath from
the main stem (of which there are several contemporary instances in other families) ; in
other words, part of the arms of the Lady, wife of the Edmonstone of that Ilk and mother
of the Culloden or Duntreath founder,' whoever that was. ' Or, on the other hand, it might
have been a difference derived from a feat in chivalry by such as the chivalrous Archibald
Edmonstone (as mentioned by Fordun) at the end of the fourteenth century, he having borne
away the ring at some encounter.' At the same time, this badge seems somewhat arbitrarily
omitted, for Mr. Riddell has furnished me with a sketch of a seal of Sir William, grandson
of him to whom the Garvock seal belonged, in which the arms are given in full, without
the annulets, and with the coronet and crest. It was appended to the Infeftment upon a
Royal Precept of Archibald Napier of Monteith in lands in Monteith, to which the official
seal of William Edmonstone of Duntreath, as Stewart of Monteith, is affixed. It is dated
January 20, 1507. Again, in the arms of Duntreath at Dunkeld, as mentioned above, the
annulet is omitted ; and, on the other hand, in the list of arms made by Sir James Balfour,
Lord Lyon, in 1680, in MSS. in the Advocates' Library, the coat of Edmonstone of Dun-
treath is given with the annulet.
Note 22, Page 14.
Mr. Riddell writes — 'The coronet at the time is remarkable, being differently in the
fifteenth century from now, only borne above the helmet by Peers, and not in any instance
I am aware of extended to commoners.' He adds in another letter — ' The coronet strikes
me as a peculiar and unprecedented bearing then in the case of William Edmonstone of
Duntreath. Could it have referred to some claim grounded upon promise or contract to
the Earldom of Lennox which is countenanced by a tradition or kind of writing in the
family ? ' The tradition to which Mr. Riddell alludes is an assertion in a MS. pedigree,
not Crawfurd's, to the effect that the Duchess of Albany made a grant to Sir William and
his wife, the Countess of Angus, of the Earldom of Lennox in fee. But this succession was
defeated by the attainder of Murdoch, Duke of Albany, and Duncan, Earl of Lennox,
father of the Duchess. There is evidently, however, a great confusion of facts and dates,
and I cannot discover the slightest authority upon which such tradition rested. Craw-
furd took no notice of it, and assuredly he was not a person to neglect anything likely to
aggrandise his employers.