It is always interesting to note claims that some of our colonial cousins feel the need to put up on the internet regarding our ancient family.
Their statements are given as fact but sadly are never really substantiated by any solid or real evidence. We guess it is always easier to influence those who do not have access to any robust research than those who do, as you cannot ask a question unless you are aware a question needs asking, and for this reason we choose to comment.
If not plagiarising the works of others, the usual format and most certainly a modus operandi is to add pieces, in this case in ‘italics’ while quoting a body of the work of others in an attempt to legitimise any claims they wish to make. We are however as usual, more than willing to look at any evidence people have in order to become more educated in any claims and which will help change our minds, but until then……..
In a piece titled ‘An investigation into the Medieval Origins of Carruthers‘ a small part from a publication written by James Alexander Carruthers called ‘The Carruthers Anthology Genealogy’ published in 2014 is quoted.
The book itself is well written and does evidence, although current research would suggest it has some flaws and anomalies in its assumptions to include simple things such as there is no record of our family using a crest on their arms before Holmains. However, there are still some interesting and very viable pieces of information within it.
But this blog is not to pressie the book itself, but to check out the validity of a couple of the ‘added‘ claims tagged on to its quoted content.
Part 1
The facts given in the statements made, compared with our research.
The first statement is; ‘In the Scottish Antiquaries it states that William Carruthers, The Carruthers of Annandale, family and friends took up arms to follow Robert Bruce.’
Now this statement is left open to interpretation and we will go through it for accuracy. 1) Which Robert the Bruce?
The mix-up is partly due to the fact that since arriving in Scotland under the invitation of David I to become Lords of Annandale, the family of de Brus (Bruce) has had 7 family members named Robert Bruce and one William Bruce, all who were Lords of Annandale and therefore Carruthers would have pledged fealty to them all. As such this ‘Robert Bruce’ could be anyone from 1113 to 1312.
2) Which William Carruthers, representing the Carruthers of Annandale?
Looking deeper into this, could it be the William de/of Carruthers, first of our name who was recorded as giving a donation to Newbattle Abbey during the reign of Alexander II (1214- 1249). If it was, it would have fallen into the tenure of Robert Bruce, the 5th Lord of Annandale (1233-1292) as William died in and around 1245.
The second option and the more likely is, William, brother of Thomas Carruthers (the clerk) 1st of Mouswald, who received a charter of lands from King Robert the Bruce in 1320 for services to his family. William was to inherit the title and lands after Thomas bent the knee to the English king in 1334. During this time, the younger brothers of Thomas hid in order that they would not to be forced to follow him in his actions.
Now, to be mentioned as the primary character in the piece, we have to assume that he was already Chief or being considered as one (William Carruthers 2nd of Mouswald). Therefore as it was after his brothers pledge of fealty to Edward III in 1334, that put them into hiding, one has to accept the timeline is accurate. Sadly, it seems the connection between William Carruthers and Robert Bruce ie King Robert I, accepting the Bruce died in 1329, is totally wrong.
3) Where does the ‘Scottish Antiquaries’ fit in?
Well the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, to give it its correct title and of which some of our executives are Fellows, is based in Edinburgh and was founded in 1780 to investigate, share and promote Scotland’s history.
So let us check the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland archives as that is where the claim of evidence is meant to come from.
Research shows that the only piece that suggests that Carruthers supported Robert (the) Bruce, is from: The proceedings of the Society December 10, 1888, pge 20 in a piece called THE BARONY OF MOUSWALD AND ITS BARONS : A PAGE OF BORDER HISTORY. BY JOHN J. REID, B.A., F.S.A. Scot., Curator of the Museum. John J Reid was the father of R C Reid, who co-authored the tome ‘Records of the Carruthers Family’ along with A S Carruthers.
All it says however, and quite clearly is “there is no doubt that the family of Carruthers supported King Robert the Bruce and they were rewarded accordingly‘. No mention of William, no mention of taking up arms, no mention of family and friends.
The only other place where William is specifically mentioned not needing translation, which could be the cause of the problem and we believe this is as the 2nd of Mouswald, is on pge 29 of this same paper where he is mentioned as ‘a brave supporter of the national cause in the reign of David II‘. So not Robert Bruce, but his son David.
William is mentioned in two further places in the same research, but both requiring translation. One in Latin, the other in old Scots:
Crescente igitur rumore arridentis fortunas, quidam benevolus ejus qui diu in abditis latitando cum fratribus in valle Anande nuncquam ad regis Angliae fidem flecti poterat, audiens hoc, congregatis amicis et benevolis [ejus] ad dictum Robertum Stewart accessit, nomine Willelmo de Carrutheris.”
We must remember he was in hiding at the time and translates as :
“Therefore, as the news of his smiling fortunes increased, a certain well-wisher of his, who had been hiding for a long time with his brothers in the valley of Ananda, (Annandale) had never been able to be persuaded to the allegiance of the king of England. Hearing this, he gathered together his friends and well-wishers and went to the said Robert Stewart, named William de Carruthers”
This obviously and in the context of the rest of the text, it refers to the brothers of Thomas who were in hiding in order that they would not be forced to bend the knee to the English King Edward III. The Robert Stewart mentioned above was not of course Robert Bruce, but the grandson of Robert the Bruce, born in 1316 and died in 1390. He was the son and only child of Robert the Bruce’s daughter Marjorie and Sir Walter Stewart, High Stewart of Scotland. He reigned as King Robert II from 1371 until his passing and was the first of the royal House of Stewart.
Prior to this, the Bruce line had nothing to do with what was to become the Stewart dynasty.
So the confusion by the uneducated is that this does not speak of gathering an army in support of Robert Bruce, as this is definately not the case. But rather, as Robert Stewart was David II nephew, he was well placed to help those who shown loyalty to the Scottish throne to regain their lands and titles.
There is also a further mention of William in the same article by John J Reid which quotes Wyntoun in 1335 (Cronykil,.bk. viii. cap. 29,1. 4361.) also on the same page and in Middle Scots:
Quhill this thus gat tretyd was, Willame of Carrothyris ras, With hys brethir, that war manly, And gat till him a cumpany, That as schawaldouris war wa[l]kand In till the vale off Anand.
Again this translates as:
‘While this thus got treated William of Carrothyris raised with his brother, that were many, and got him a company of wanderers in the woods walked in until the vale of Annandale“
It is obvious that William and others were hiding from the English but came out when they felt it was safe to pledge fealty again to David II, and as previously stated, it seems through the intermediary of his nephew Robert Stewart.
Again William was mentioned with his brother and although Thomas was out the picture William was raised with him. It could also have been either of his younger brothers ie John, King David II’s Chancellor of Annandale, progenitor of the Holmains chiefly line or Sir Nigel, Chamberlain to the Regent, killed at the Battle of Durham, also called the Battle of Neville’s Cross in 1346. The battle was a disaster for the Scots, David II was captured and southern Scotland was occupied. David remained a prisoner of the English under Edward III for a period of 11 years, 1357. David died in 1371, leaving no heir, and is nephew Robert Stewart took the throne. It was the Stewart dynasty that would eventually unite the two warring nations, but what is true, if the `Scottish monarchy was in a weak state, the borderlands and the people in it to include our own family, suffered commensurately.
So returning to William, he again was mentioned by Wyntoun along with his ‘brother’ and although Thomas was out the picture William was raised with him. It could also have been either of his younger brothers ie John, King David II’s Chancellor of Annandale, progenitor of the Holmains chiefly line or Sir Nigel, Chamberlain to the Regent, killed at the Battle of Durham, also called the Battle of Neville’s Cross in 1346. The battle was a disaster for the Scots, David II was captured and southern Scotland was occupied. David remained a prisoner of the English under Edward III for a period of 11 years, 1357. David died in 1371, leaving no heir, and is nephew Robert Stewart took the throne. It was the Stewart dynasty that would eventually unite the two warring nations, but what is true
As the Orygynale Cronykil piece was written by Andrew of Wyntoun in 1423, he mentions William in the year after Thomas bent the knee. As such he would of course see William as the incumbent to the estates and title of Mouswald and if it was either of his younger brothers, they would not have held any office at the time. However, their loyalty was obviosly rewarded by the senior offices they came to hold.
So again there is NO mention of following Robert Bruce, taking up arms on his behalf or anything else.
Outcome of our research (Part 1):
Based on our research there is simply NO evidence to support the statement: In the Scottish Antiquaries it states that William Carruthers, The Carruthers of Annandale, family and friends took up arms to follow Robert Bruce.’ but rather weak and false claims to fit an agenda.
- Therefore the statement that was made, on all levels, is grossly untrue.
Part 2
The second statement states;
‘We now know that our DNA ancestors of Gutland landed in Wales, and went up to Rhyderch Hael Castle, Dunbarton Castle, and was given a large piece of land across the Clyde River. It was originally called Cair-muir. Also a more recent DNA find to Sir Cai, who is buried at St. Kentigern. So genealogy and DNA meet up again‘.
1) Ok is this statement at all wrong and if so what is behind it?
Well there are a few issues here which attempt to cloudy the water beside the misspelling of Dumbarton, the capital of the ancient Kingdom of Alt Cut and also again we believe a bizarre attempt to link our family into the legend of King Arthur. This in itself is ridiculous to anyone with any level of education, simply because it is recognised by all respectable academics and researchers to be a ‘legend’.
- (Legend, noun; An unverified story or collection of stories from earlier times considered to be myths)
2) Gutland and Wales, yes/no?
Returning to verified research and away from fairy tales, our own DNA research programme has in fact shown a proven Swedish link (snp) by using the most specific yDNA testing available to us in the form of Big y-DNA 700. It shows however, no link to Gutland nor in fact the island of Gotland.
Further and more importantly, it definitely does not support the suggestion that we arrived in Scotland via Wales during or around the time of St Kentigren but rather our DNA appeared in Southern Scotland from Sweden, around 1000 years before the saint and around 1200 years before the era of the Vikings ie 500 BC/CBE.
Even with a serious lack of understanding of the basic research, you simply cannot claim to use DNA as evidence then ignore the facts when it does not fit an agenda and sadly this is a large part of the issue here.
3) So why mention Wales at all?
Well of course and in many cases, Wales is intertwined with the Arthurian Legend and his stronghold of Camelot. As such, by placing Carruthers there, it attempts to dovetail our family into the previous claims of the posters regarding the legend.
But the only link with Wales that we as a family have is the language (Brythonic) that gives us our name ie Caer Rhydderch pronounced Ruthers, which lives on in modern Welsh. Brythonic itself was the universal language of all Britons (P Celts) throughout the island of Britain. It differs from Gaelic as used by the Gaels (Q Celts) from Ireland. It further attempts to fit in with a fantasy based on the area chosen, that the first chief of Carruthers was Caratacus simply because the name sounds the same. Again there is no evidence to support this, in fact our DNA research strongly proves otherwise!!!
Going back to the Carruthers an update from our Research Project, clearly shows a transition, albeit 500 years BC/BCE, from Sweden into the south of Scotland, with no side trip to Wales and well before the time of Rhydderch Hael (580-614 AD/CE). Accepting that our name is topographical and comes from the area of Carruthers in Annandale, the DNA simply tracks our ancestry back in time but doesnt and cannot change the origins of our family. We have to remember that beyond Sweden and somewhere way down the line, the anthropologists advise us that we all originate in the ‘Cradle of Life‘ in Ethiopia. As an ancerstral home, Annandale works for us and it now seems that we were there durinmg the time of the Celtic Britons, which is way beyond the 900’s AD/CBE, as we first thought.
4) So (Rhyderch) Rhydderch Hael or Rydderch ?
Again there is some serious leaps of faith here in an attempt to link Carruthers with Rydderch Hael and his seat in Dumbarton. Of course, lets not forget some do try to link the historical figure Rhydderch Hael into the Legend of King Arthur, so neither the story of King Arthur nor the supposed link with Rhydderch Hael can stand up to scrutiny on any level.
The Rhydderch of Carruthers fort fame was not it seems Rydderch (Hael), the King of Alt Cut. Rhydderch was a common Celtic name, and the fort from which we take our name was deemed to be on Birrens/Carruthers Hill.
King Rhydderch Hael and the warchief Rydderch are therefore two different people. The warchief Rydderch and the fort Caer Rydderch, from which we took our name was from around around 200 AD/CE and during the time of the Roman occupation. The differential in time therefore is around 300 years between both our Rhydderch and Rhydderch Hael.
Interestingly we are now advised by local historians, that a sub-tribe of the Selgovae who lived in Southern Annandale around what is now Annan were known and recorded as the Anavionenses.
Every day is a school day.
5) Carruthers relationship with St Kentigren
It is also very interesting that the piece that is alluded to in the statement, mentioned by J A Carruthers in his book which connected Wales, St Kentigern, patron Saint of Glasgow also known as St Mungo and the meetings with Rhydderch Hael, and which seems to have stimulated the claims, does not suggest nor mention that Carruthers played any part in this. Interestingly, St Kentigern was born in a small village in Fife in 518 AD/CE, on the east coast of Scotland called Culross, pronounced ‘Coo – rus‘. He died in Glasgow in 614 AD/CE.
In fact when J A Carruthers talks about the Carruthers being ‘Guardians of the Old Kirk Ford at Hoddom‘ which is true, he simply states our duty was to guard a ford near the ruins of the site of the Celtic Monastery founded by St Kentigern in and around 600 AD/CE. However, he does not link us with St Kentigern at all. It simply states that we were Guardians of a ford in the river, assigned by our feudal lords, the Lords of Annandale, to our family. Our remit simply was to protect the ford, prevent crossing or give advance warning against invaders and brigands who may choose to use the ford for access. There is no evidence at all to suggest otherwise and although our ancestors may have known the saint, the role of Guardians, which came from the Bruce’s had more to do with defence, than St Kentigern. It is also important to remember that The family Bruce/de Brus did not enter Scotland until the 1100’s (500 years after St Kentigren).
Once again, this second statement is simply an attempt to have readers believe the comments in italics are pertinent to the information in the book and dovetail into it. Sadly they do not.
In Scottish culture, the statement would be considered as having ‘hee haw’ substance.
6) Cair-muir
Because of the evidence available based on family researchers and historians, both inside and outside of our clan, all the records suggest the ancestral lands of Carruthers and as such our origins as a family, were in Annandale. There is therefore no reference to ‘a large piece of land across the Clyde River‘ originally called Cair-muir relating to our family. It seems that once again bad research or leaps of faith may have led some to wrongly believe that the family Carruth is in fact related in some way to Carruthers, but all the evidence strongly suggests otherwise.
The confusion by folks who have no real concept of our history, have picked up on the fact that the Carruth family pronounce Car-ooth, did live on land in Renfrewshire, ‘across’ the Clyde from Dumbarton, and this is obviously where the confusion has come from. According to the Surname Database, the concept of Caer Muir is probably in itself also wrong as it states that Caruth is a topographical name coming from another fort called Caer Ruadh (caer ruth) meaning ‘red fort’.
Also, George F Black, in his definative text of Scottish surnames clearly states that family of Carruth, and our own family have distinct and separate origins: Carruth, Caruth, Carruth of local origin from the lands of Carruth in the parish of Kilmacolm (in 1359 Carreth), Renfrewshire. The surname is mainly confined to the shire…..………..
Like Caratacus, Carruth may to some sound the same but it is definately not linked genetically nor genealogically to us.
Once again it seems, incorrectly joining the dots of a picture of a horse in an attempt to make us believe what we are seeing is an elephant!
6) Sir Cai
Now, why are we so certain of the attempted link with King Arthur other than previously stated, well Sir Cai, or Sir Kay, is linked as being one of the knights of the round table. He was known in Welsh folklore as a companion and in fact, foster brother to King Arthur. This is mentioned in the Mabinogion attached tales of ‘Culhwch and Olwen’ and the ‘Dream of Rhonabwy‘, where he was the foremost warrior at the royal court.
According to current research and opinion and in part in the Journal Archaeolgy (Feb 2019), academics clearly state in summary, a fact this is supported by all respectable academics in the field, that:
“There is no evidence that anyone called Arthur lived. Nor is there any archaeological evidence to support the existence of Arthur as a real person.” It is further suggested that the ‘authors of the tale cobbled together various different ancient tales, characters, and episodes to create the now-beloved Arthur figure‘
Again, and in a similar vein to the whole Arthurian legend, Sir Cai is a fictional character. For that reason, there is no evidence of his existence and as such, definitely no evidence he was buried at St. Kentigern. Simply put: No body, no DNA and therefore obviously no meeting of genealogy.
This is especially true as Carruthers DNA was in southern Scotland many hundreds of years before Rydderch Hael and St Kentigern were even born as previously stated and evidenced.
Interestingly the grave of the saint is reputedly in Glasgow Cathedral on the site, legend says, of the church that he built.
Outcome of our research (part 2):
Once again, based on the our research and available evidence, there is simply NOTHING to support the statement: ‘We now know that our DNA ancestors of Gutland landed in Wales, and went up to Ryderch Hael Castle, Dunbarton Castle, and was given a large piece of land across the Clyde River. It was originally called Cair-muir. Also a more recent DNA find to Sir Cai, who is buried at St. Kentigern. So genealogy and DNA meet up again‘. As we have come to expect, again rather weak and false claims to fit an agenda.
- Therefore the second statement and again on many levels, is grossly inaccurate and untrue.
–WARNING–
Please be aware that not all you read on the internet is factual, nor is it researched well but rather, and in some cases, it is simply inaccurate opinionated information to feed an agenda and ego.
We are here as the ‘flame of truth’ of and for our family to ensure accuracy is available for all those who wish it and most certainly for many Carruthers generations to come.
Promptus et Fidelis
Excellent George… Thank you for this article!