Comments in refutation of pretensions advanced for the first time, and statements in a recent work "The Stirlings of Keir and their family papers"

WITH DRUMPELLIER'S EXPOSITION, &c. 203
Alexander, Vicecomes de Strivelin 1 On the contrary, as he thus figures,
he can only be held a humble individual or retainer, and upon parallel
grounds — independently of what otherwise ^:)e7' se, as shown, fixes the point
— if Alden Dapifer was not High Steward of Scotland, no more can the
said Alexander be deemed the great Vicecomes. The last, in striking
contrast, has always the precedence befitting his manifest rank — while never
surnamed Stirling — besides publicly and officially figuring on the most exalted
occasions ; and therefore we may safely consign this humble Alexander, the
son of Patrick de Strivelin, who is equally a stranger with his son, so pre-
jjosterously adduced by the Keir Performance, to that obscm-ity and oblivion
from which he shoidd not have been dragged.
But even this is not all. The Keir Performance,^ after some irrelevant other iu-
ci dental
remarks touching " Thomas de Strivelyn, Archdeacon of Glasgow," ''^ who so and pre-
_ _ _ posterous
much precedes this secondary and unknown Alexander in the foregoing anomalies
testing clause in 1225, actually styles him, without the least ground for Keir work.
' See pp.
such inference, "the supposed brother" of that very individual, after he had 5. 6.
been metamoqihosed into the great Vicecomes, that he might be made as
dignified as possible, while it adds that another equally, in truth, obscure
" Gilbert de Strivehng," also mentioned there, " may have been a brother or
other relative of (the above) Alexander and Thomas."
True genealogy is not a thing thus casually or carelessly to rest upon such Appre-
loose ruminations. " May have beens," perchances, empty suppositions, and nature of
suchlike, in which the Keir Performance indulges, are repudiated, and excluded genealogy.
from regular discussion and argument. And it was long ago sagaciously
rejoined by an antiquary, when it was said one, after such fashion, may have
been either brother or cousin of a party, that in truth he was " neither " —
which may relevantly here apply. In quitting this, after all, insignificant topic
— though intended to be of high consequence to Keir — we must advert to
* We really, it is to be regretted, are con- — that is, from the coutext, of the humble, di-
stantly stumbling upon some piece of careless- scure Alexander, last in the testing clause iu
ness and unprecision in the Keir Peiiorm- 1225 — when, on the other hand, he had quite
ance.^ It gives us a full excerpt from Craw- a different Alexander in view, whom he directly
ford's Lives of tJie Officers of State relative to specifies, — viz., "Alexander Strivelyn, ?«!7fs — a tms proves
the above Thomas's family and history, but donator to the Abbacy of Arbroath pro anima }j!,^'^.^t''
without the least reference to the page. Hence Emerqerda' filioe ReqisScotice'" — henceaA/w'tf/ti, misiepre-
.,.,.„ J ■ • seiitation
we are necessitated to find it out ourselves ; quite distinct and of far greater note and im- in the Keir
while he states the fact so as to lead one to be- portance. — (See Crawford's Lives, who quotes '^^ '
lieve that Crawford actually had said that here from the Chartulary of Cambuskenneth,
Thomas " was a younger brother of Alexander " p. 12.)