Historical and genealogical memoirs of the House of Hamilton

MEMOIRS OF THE HOUSE OF HAMILTON. *&
Rathgate, there can be little doubt that she was his wife, and the individual Janet
here mentioned.
The author having understood that Dr. Hamilton of Bardowie objected to the account
given at pp. 44 and 209, regarding the original descent of the family of
Bardowie, addressed a letter to that gentlemen, offering to instrt in the Supple-
ment any remarks upon the subject he might favour him with, but reserving to
himself the right of making whatever comments upon the same he might judge
proper. Accordingly, the Doctor sent him the following statement containing tlte
substance of his objections.
" Dr. Hamilton objects to the commencement of the account given of his mother's fa-
mily in the note at p. 209 of Mr. Anderson's Work, on the following grounds. First; there
is no proof that the Lairds of Galbraith ever held any part of Bothernok, except as
Vassals of the Jfamiltons, and Bothernok could not therefore come to the Hamiltons by
.-i marriage of Sir William Keith with the heiress of Galbraith; Secondly, there is no
proof that John Hamilton of Bothernok ever received a confirmation of his charter from
•Sir John Hamilton of Cadyow as superior. His charter, contained in the chartulary
of Lennox, is direct from Duncan, Karl of Lennox, upon his own resignation, and not
on that of any Laird of Cadyow, which would have been the case, had he been a
younger son of that family. We may therefore conclude, that the II. John de Hamil-
tin mentioned by Mr. Anderson (p. 210.) is the same person- with the I. John de
Hamilton, mentioned p. 209.
In 1394 this John de Hamilton of Bothernok, as appears from the same chartulary.
obtained a new charter from the same Earl Duncan, and witnessed by the same persons;
in favour of himself and Margaret Frazer his wife. Thirteen years previous to this, we
find David de Hamilton and Janet de Keith his spouse, acting as superiors of these
lands, and among the witnesses to a confirmation charter granted by them, appears John
Hamilton, their son and heir. From this Dr. Hamilton infers, that John Hamilton of
Bothernok, who obtained the charters from Duncan, Earl of Lennox, was the son and
heir of David Hamilton and Janet de Keith, who granted the confirmation in I3SF.
But this John, Dominus de Bothernok, having been married to Margaret Frazer, could
not be Sir John Hamilton of Cadyow, who married a daughter of Sir James Douglas
of Dalkeith, and therefore his father, who married Janet de Keith, was not Sir David
Hamilton of Cadyow, but a David Hamilton of Dalserf and Bothernok, whose widow
afterwards married Sir Alexander Stewart of Darnley; although Dr. Plamilton cannot
follow Mr. Anderson in supposing that she was the daughter of Sir William Keith of
lialston, who was killed in 1336.
The reasons which have induced Mr. Anderson to suppose the two David Hamiltons
to be the same, although ingenious, do not appear to Dr. H. to be conclusive.
In the first place, it being admitted that David Hamilton of Cadyow, who witnessed
the charter by William Galbraith (1381) is a different person from the David de
Hamilton who confirmed the charter, this last could not have been David Hamilton, the
second of that name, Dominus de Cadyow, if what Crawford states, on the authority of
Hamilton of Wishaw, be true ; he alleges that Sir David Hamilton, the elder of Cad-
yow, died in 1373, and therefore the David Hamilton of Cadyow alive in 1381 must