Robert Bruce, of Easter Kennet

Sharon Doubell C

4/10/2023 at 8:54 AM

Birth Date 1533 1532
Death Location Dumblane, Perth, UK Culross, Blairhall , Fife, Scotland (United Kingdom)

Private User

4/11/2023 at 7:38 AM

Dear Sharon,

Could you please unlock all the locked fields.

Regards,

Neil

Sharon Doubell C

4/11/2023 at 11:32 AM

Hi Neil - I don't think fields are locked. What do you need to change?

Private User

4/11/2023 at 2:38 PM

Dear Sharon,

The name fields are locked. This man is occasionally noticed as Robert Bruce of Easter Kennet, but more frequently as Robert Bruce of Blairhall. In Scotland the name of a man's heritable property is added to his surname, I would like to change both surname fields to read Bruce of Blairhall.

Thanks,

Neil

Private User

4/11/2023 at 3:51 PM

Sharon?

Private User

4/11/2023 at 3:53 PM

Who is this cowboy, he just asks you to unlock the profiles and has a field day! He is just doing his own thing?

Private User

4/11/2023 at 5:18 PM

Sharon he has deleted the profile of Robert Bruce of Blairhall and Easter Kennet!
Please look into this as its highly suspicious,
just can't see how someone can just do as they please!

Private User

4/11/2023 at 5:20 PM

Neil?

Private User

4/11/2023 at 5:21 PM

Is this your doing Sharon?

Sharon Doubell C

4/12/2023 at 6:51 AM

It's still there Philip. It never was deleted by anybody.

Neil - thanks for that - I actually just recurated it from Ben who no longer works on Geni, and left a note looking for primary sources. I see you added a whole number of those. Thankyou.

Happy to change to Blairhill, as you so accurately show in those sources - This profile had no suffix at all, and it seemed prudent to add something to distinguish him from the other Robert Bruces in the line, before he got smerged. Blairhill is good.

Check to see if you're happy.

Private User

4/12/2023 at 9:04 AM

Ok Sharon, In the charters Robert is refered to as Easter Kennet.

Sharon Doubell C

4/12/2023 at 10:22 AM

Open the profile and read it, Philip. Neil has attached numerous charters where he's referred to as 'of Blairhill'. If you add the ones that name him 'of Easter Kennet' to his About - then we can discuss the two.

Sharon Doubell C

4/12/2023 at 10:47 AM

I found these in the last discussion: https://www.geni.com/discussions/222593?msg=1627480

Scott Jeffrey

4/12/2023 at 2:47 PM

Neil, I understand the logic behind the naming conventions, however the main downfall with this is if the person has multiple “ heritable property” they could use all of them. It is still the case, you just have to look at the current British Royal Family. Most hold numerous titles and when they are in those locations they will use those titles (yes there are higher priority title and minor titles, but nonetheless they still use them).

I would urge caution with this, and probably use “Robert of Blairhill and Easter Kennet” (or Robert of Easter Kennet and Blairhill, if you know which one is classed as the higher status). Simply changing the name to Blairhill will cause confusion to anyone outside of this discussion, or we will end up in the situation just like the Clackmannan issue, and keep going in circles!

Just a suggestion.

Private User

4/13/2023 at 12:03 PM

Ok Sharon

Sharon Doubell C

4/13/2023 at 12:30 PM

I'm good with that Scott.

Private User

4/14/2023 at 11:17 AM

Dear Sharon,

I agree with your views on multiple “ heritable property." It is certainly true that Robert Bruce is sometimes noticed as Robert Bruce of Easter Kennet (I have added one document to his overview which identifies him as such), but he is more frequently noticed as Robert Bruce of Blairhall. Of more significance, perhaps, in his last will and testament, dated 12 September 1617, he signed himself as "Robert Bruce of Blairhall" (that is undoubtedly how he thought of himself). An abstract which mentions the relationships highlighted in his will is included in the overview of his profile. This abstract does not mention his signature but links to all five pages of this deed are also included, and this can be found on the fourth page.

I would urge you to correct the surname information on his profile (presently locked). In Scotland territorial designations are recognised as part of the surname. This man was Robert Bruce of Blairhall, not Robert Bruce, of Blairhall.

Regards,

Neil

Sharon Doubell C

4/14/2023 at 12:46 PM

In terms of territorial designations as surnames - have a look at the Medieval Naming Conventions.

Private User

4/17/2023 at 3:29 AM

Can you let me have a link to Medieval Naming Conventions.

Sharon Doubell C

4/17/2023 at 8:56 AM

https://www.geni.com/projects/Medieval-Europe/3198

The Blairhill doesn't become their fixed surname, automatically passed to all descendants.

Private User

4/20/2023 at 5:10 AM

Dear Sharon,

Many thanks for sending me the link to Medieval Naming Conventions. It contains a link to 'Coalition for the Standardization of Geni Naming Conventions', which informs us thus:

"In Scotland, territorial designations are part of the surname, & do not go into the Suffix field. The surname, including the territorial designation, is properly used by the head of the family, his wife, oldest son, and all daughters. Younger sons use the surname alone, unless they acquire their own property. Look at primary sources to determine whether someone used a territorial designation; & remember that a place name is only a territorial designation when a person is "of" a place. If they are "in" or "at" then it's a mere description of residence."

A link to 'Coalition for the Standardization of Geni Naming Conventions' follows:

https://www.geni.com/projects/Coalition-for-the-Standardization-of-...

I hope that this is helpful.

Regards,

Neil

Private User

4/25/2023 at 2:24 PM

Dear Sharon,

Here is a living example of the correct form:

James Comyn Amherst Burnett of Leys

I hope that this helps to convince you that in Scotland, territorial designations continue to be part of a man's surname.

Regards,

Neil

Scott Jeffrey

4/25/2023 at 8:34 PM

Neil, I fully agree with you. However what if they have multiple “ heritable property"? As this was the basis of the questions asked. i know that they still existing Scotland and Various other countries as well, but if we go back to the original question being “ heritable property", would it not be sound to have them all added?

Just getting my head around this issues as well..

Regards

Scott

Private User

4/26/2023 at 2:53 AM

Dear Scott,

I agree with you. In the particular case of Robert Bruce of Blairhall I have absolutely no objection to him being identified as "James Bruce of Blairhall and Easter Kennet," although I do not know enough about the history of his landownership to say that he died in possession of those parts of Easter Kennet that had previously been held by his father. It is surely worthy of note, though, that when he made his last will and testament on 12 September 1617 he signed himself as Robert Bruce of Blairhall.

Regards,

Neil

Sharon Doubell C

4/26/2023 at 9:59 AM

Neil, I'm not arguing for a personal preference - I'm following what was decided for medieval naming fields on Geni many years ago: "Birth Surname Field - ONLY if the name has become a Surname that is passed on to future generations". https://www.geni.com/projects/Medieval-Europe/3198.
If you want to discuss a change to that - you need to do it with all the Medieval Curators, and get a consensus - because it affects hundreds of profiles already filled in.

Erica Howton C

4/26/2023 at 6:24 PM

Sharon, I don’t think it would affect many profiles, because what Neil describes is what we’ve always done for Scots profiles. As Justin D. outlined in 2010. The surname varies from generation to generation and from brother to brother depending on their property.

Erica Howton C

4/26/2023 at 6:28 PM

I should also point out that the profile under discussion is in an era that has surnames. And the directive at project is for the era “before” surnames.

Sharon Doubell C

4/26/2023 at 11:06 PM

Erica Howton we're talking about Medieval Naming conventions as a whole. This profile is on the border of that, so will affect its predecessors.

This is the bigger picture I'm trying to take into account; and you're welcome to weigh in on too:

1. The Medieval Curators (You didn't consider yourself one then, but that doesn't mean you don't now) decided together to standardise the use of Geni's fields on Geni profiles, because so many people from different countries worked on all of them and they kept being renamed with every merge. It was an embarrassing mess.

2. We (and there were many of us then, before Curators started refusing to work on these lines because of the continual stress of trying to please every individual user's conflicting demands) - Justin pretty much drove it - decided on a convention that would at least halfway include everybody's patterns.

3. So, there are hundreds and hundreds of 'of' Medieval profiles outside of Scotland affected by this too.

4. Anybody who pushes to change the policy to become idiosyncratic to the country of the profile, in the era of the profile, and the country of the modern Geni user looking through their own country's version of it's history of this profile's country and era - has to commit to revisiting this and convincing everyone that a) the medieval standardization policy should be dropped, or that b) we should standardize them all according to the Scottish medieval usage.

5. That person has also to commit to changing the hundreds of medieval profiles to restandardize the name placement in each of their Geni fields.

6. The issue to be raised is where on Geni to put 'surnames' that are not inherited by all the children; that are actually descriptors of property ownership which disappear the minute the property is sold. Logically, on Geni, this functions the same way titles in the Geni suffix field function, not the way surnames that are inherent in the person do - hence adding them there right now.

I just don't feel strongly enough about this to start that whole process up again, and deal with the backlash of other countries objecting that the standardization is now according to Scotland. You may, though.

Erica Howton C

4/26/2023 at 11:37 PM

Let me think on the right way to phrase a response. There should be no need to impose “Area Specific Rules” for Scotland elsewhere.

Private User

4/27/2023 at 4:04 AM

Woah. I had never heard of any agreement to create a standard for all medieval profiles, and it makes no sense to me.

This project — https://www.geni.com/projects/Coalition-for-the-Standardization-of-Geni-Naming-Conventions/1357 is what I know, and it contains very clear distinctions between one medieval place and another.

I wrote the Welsh. Which, should we agree on a standard for all medieval profiles, and then changed everything, would be a very devastated tree.

Robert Bruce, of Easter Kennet - Alt. data

Participants:

Profiles Mentioned:

Related Projects:

Create a free account or login to participate in this discussion