Fraser Critique

The House of Grant: the Norman Origin Reassessed

by and ©Peter Grant, 2002, this Revised Version 2010

The story of the origin of the House of Grant is a long and sometimes contentious one which crystallises into two versions, a Norse or an Anglo-Norman one. The story of the Norse origin has been written (awaiting publication) up by Adrian Grant as “The Siol Alpin”. This gives an account which sets out a plausible and credible history showing how the early Chiefs could be descended from a Norse line and how this line fits into a contemporary time frame of both Norse and Scottish history.

It is therefore time to re-assess the Norman version of events as both cannot be correct. I set myself four questions to answer in this re-assessment.

• When did the Norman story supplant the previous traditional clan version of a Norse origin?
• Why has it been allowed to survive for over a hundred years unchallenged if wrong?
• What is the basis for this claim?
• Is this claim sustainable in the light of new evidence?

To answer the first question I needed to trawl through as many accounts of the Grants as I could find, surprisingly there are not that many, only three books have been solely dedicated to the family, The Chiefs of Grant by Sir William Fraser, The Rulers of Strathspey by the earl of Cassillis, A History of Clan Grant by the late Lord Strathspey. I did not include Isobel Grant as her short book has very little to say and I know from private correspondence that she herself had expressed some reservations as to a Norman origin.

Other MS included Genealogical Collections (1729) edited by Walter MacFarlane, early traditional texts which had circulated within the clan which include The Monymusk MS, The Birkenburn MS, there were other MS circulating within the clan, The Carron MS, and the Bonhard MS both for the moment lost but believed to conform closely to other early texts. All three editions of History of Moray by Lachlan Shaw plus the editor’s notes and additions to both the second and third editions, by John Grant of Elgin and J. F. S. Gordon – The Baronage by Douglas – Annals of the Parish of Elgin by Robert Young and the History of the Priory of Beauly by Edmund Batten.

From the earliest, 1729 Although first published in 1729 an analysis of the MS indicate a pre 1714 origin. until 1877 not one writer put forward a case for a Norman origin, they either believed in a Norse one or were at best ambivalent Shaw makes a fairly typical remark when he says “From what country to fetch the Grants originally I know not.” Apart from the clan MS, Batten, Fraser and Strathspey none of these authors were writing exclusively about the Grants, they only feature as a part of their work but all manage to give a pedigree.

The critical book was by Edmund Batten, published in 1877 for the Grampian Club and devoted to the history of Beauly Priory, he is the first person that I can find to put forward a case for the Grants being of Norman origin. History of the priory of Beauly – Edmund Batten 1877. pp53, pp55. His theory was taken up by Fraser who quoted Batten in his Chiefs of Grant published just six years later in 1883. Fraser expanded on Batten’s theory and was able to quote seemingly impressive source material. Chiefs of Grant, - Sir William Fraser 1883. vol 1 pp1-8.Cassilis published a few years later in 1911 and followed the line taken by Batten/Fraser which has been the “official” line ever since, this is the version which comes up in all reference books and post 1883 works on the clans.

• The answer to my first question is 1877; this was the key date when the Norse version was formally supplanted by the Norman origin.

Why this version has been unchallenged for 125 years must be conjecture, there is no way of knowing how members of the clan felt when this view was first proposed. What we can say is that when the then chief privately published Fraser’s massive three volume history of the Grants as The Chiefs of Grant in 1883, Fraser very firmly stamped his credentials on the clan as their official historian. Fraser was by then the doyen of Scottish historians and knighted not long after and it seems unlikely that anyone at the time was going to set out to challenge his views. When Cassillis published what he intended to be no more than a cut down version of Fraser’s work in 1911 this only helped to support the Norman claim and there it has remained to the present day.

The clan as a cohesive force had long ceased to exist and between 1883 and 1911 we had three chiefs in quick succession with Sir James Ogilvie-Grant becoming chief in 1884 and the Grant and Seafield estates being bequeathed to Caroline, Countess of Seafield – a period of upheaval within the clan. I suspect that the chiefs of that time had more to worry about than the origin of distant ancestors. The clan societies of the day were more of a social club comprised of professional people who were unlikely to rock the boat.

Only three years after Cassillis, we had the World war followed by a peace dominated by economic uncertainty and yet a further World war. This long period of time gave the Norman theory time to bed in and become established. There is no evidence that anyone during this period was in the least concerned about the origin anyway. It has only been since a post war revival in clan awareness – new societies and the late Lord Stathspey’s book in 1983 that interest in our clan history began to revive. Many authors of popular Scottish and clan history simply plagiarize and regurgitate previous writers and over time what was a theory becomes by default a “fact”. It should also be remembered that line went via Sir Francis Ogilvie-Grant then living in New Zealand and completely cut off from any local Strathspey lore and as effectively a “remittance man” of the Dowager Lady Caroline; he no doubt had other problems in hand than those of his ancestors.

• The Norman theory survived through inertia, nobody challenged it and the longer it remained unchallenged the firmer it became until the Norse origin became more or less forgotten.

The historic basis for the claim is quite seductive and plausible, it only becomes less so when investigated more deeply. Although Edmund Batten was the first writer to propose the Norman origin it was Fraser who developed this and who is the writer general referred to by subsequent authors and students of the clan history and it is his developed version which I will refer to.

There are three strands to Fraser’s argument, firstly an etymological one based on the name Grant being derived from the French Grand, Ibid, - vol 1 pp 2. [the etymological argument is open to wildly differing interpretations and there are possibly stronger contenders than Grand.] the second strand based on the apparent “fact” that as the name of Grant is found recorded in England prior to Scotland this is indicative of a migration from England to Scotland. Ibid, - vol 1 pp 3. And his main argument based on historical data suggesting that the Grants first went north to Scotland with Sir Walter Bisset at the end of his exile from Scotland in 1249. Ibid, - vol 1 pp 6.

I propose to ignore for the moment the first two arguments because however attractive they may or may not appear the fact that the third argument, the historical one does not work on chronological grounds negates the first two as irrelevant. I will be return to these in more detail below as part of a fuller account of the Norman case, I propose here to only to detail the historical argument as put forward by Fraser and why it does not work.

It is important when discussing Fraser’s work to recall his own words “the present work [The Chiefs of Grant] treats only those members of the family or the name who appear in historic times and authentic records”. Ibid, vol 1 pp 1. In other words he ignores all the traditional MS although he was well aware of them and starts his history from Sir Laurence Grant, Sheriff of Inverness. 1258-66. he forgets that absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence. Only the first few pages of Vol. I of his history are concerned with what we could call the pre- recorded history of the Grants.

The historic argument is based on the story of a William le Grant or members of his family migrating to Scotland with Sir Walter Bisset in 1244 on his return from exile.

The facts as told by Fraser are that Ibid – vol 1 pp 3-6 “in 1242 John and Walter Bisset are forced to leave Scotland having been accused of the murder of Patrick earl of Athol at Haddington. In the following August, King Henry iii [of England] bestowed the manor of East Lowdham in Nottinghamshire, upon Walter Bisset, who went to England, while John passed over to Ireland. The object of the grant, as set forth in the charter, was to maintain Walter Bisset in the King’s service as long as the later pleased. The manor of East Lowdham adjoined the manor of East Bridgeford, the property of the English Bissets, which was about this that time held by William le Grant and his wife Albreda. It is distinctly stated that William le Grant held his manors by right of his wife and in trust for her heirs, but it is an important fact that shortly before the appearance of the Grants in Scotland, in attendance on or as companions of John Biset, Lord of the Aird, a William le Grant was not only a neighbour of the Bissets in England, but was also allied to that powerful family by marriage. ……The exile of the Bissets from Scotland was not of a long duration, as Walter Bisset appears as a witness to a charter of King Alexander ii of Scotland…dated 13th Jan 1249…….John Bisset, Walters nephew, and founder of the Priory of Beauly, died between 1244 and 1258, leaving a son John Bisset, that Lord of the Aird who, in the last named year, entered into agreement with the Bishop of Moray to which Laurence and Robert le Grant were witnesses. In view of these facts, and as it is in this agreement that the Grants are first named in Scotland, the suggestion is a very probable one, that the Grants were brought to Scotland from England by John and Walter Bisset on their return from the exile of 1242. This remark is qualified by the statement of the same writer, that John Bisset, the exile did not go to England or did not remain there, and no evidence exists of his return to Scotland. But it has been shown Walter Bisset of Aboyne, who was the neighbour of William le Grant, the husband of Albreda Bisset, did return to Scotland. Laurence and Robert le Grant may have come to Scotland in his train, and after his death, which took place in 1251, they probably continued their attachment to his family. Any weight which can be assigned to the traditional accounts of the family tends to support the above statement, as it is uniformly asserted that at a very early period the Grants possessed lands in Stratherrick, and Walter Bisset was lord of that territory”.

• The extracts above form the basis of the claim that the family of Grant is of an Anglo-Norman origin, I have highlighted some of the text for clarity. It is a very plausible scenario particularly if it were to be the only option which it is not - the footnotes and historical facts are in the main correct but the deductions wrong and I feel sure that the survival of the theory for so long to some extent due to students accepting Fraser at face value and not investigating further. I also feel that if Fraser were alive today he would accept the new evidence without question.

The new evidence is based on a more detailed understanding of the facts behind the Batten/Fraser proposition. Walter and John Bisset were indeed exiled from Scotland by Alexander ii, being accused of implication of the death, probable murder of Patrick, earl of Athol. [This is one of history’s “who dunit”s as the truth of this case has never been proved.] Both Walter and John Bisset went initially to Ireland on exile in 1242; they later meet Henry iii in Wales in the same year. History of the priory of Beauly – Edmund Batten 1877. p47. John was to take service with Henry iii, opting to fight in Guienne in return for a knight’s fee in Ireland and takes no further part in this history.

Walter put up an ingenious argument to Henry, namely that the king of Scotland had no right to disinherit him since the king of Scotland was the liegeman of the king of England and that he Walter, was unconvicted without the king of England’s assent. This was an argument that would have appealed to any king of England at that time and one which gave Henry another chance to meddle in the internal affairs of Scotland. The extended Bisset family not only held considerable land in England but were well known to the English crown with a record of royal service.

In 1243 Henry iii, granted Walter the manor of East Lowdham until such time as he or his heirs regained their estates in Scotland. Chart, 31 Hen, iii. m.13. It is also quite true that this manor adjoined the Manor of East Bridgeford, was a property of the English Bissets. This was held not by William le Grant [Graunt] through his wife Albreda Bisset but by Warin de Basingbourn who at that date was married to Albreda, a Bisset heiress who also held the manor of Athelington [now West Allington] in Lincolnshire. Warin de Basingbourn’s life can be easily verified: he came of age in c1248 Cal. Pat. 1247-58, 33. [See VCH Cambridge / Armingford Hundred.] and died in 1269 Cal .Inq .pm. 1, p.225. [as above ] – his father also a Warin died in 1229 Rot. Litt. Claus. (Rec. Com.), i. 323, 549; Pat. R. 1216-25, 172; Bk. Of Fees, ii. 1433. [see VCH Cambridge / Armingford Hundred] and our Warin’s son was Edmund Cal. Close, 1272-9, 511-12; Rot. Hund. i. 51 [see VCH Cambridge as above] so the only possible tenant of East Bridgeford and Athelington c1243 would be Warin. I have found a date of 1240 for his marriage East Bridgeford – A. Du Boulay Hill, M.A. (1932) OUP p28. to Albreda so if correct he was firmly in control of East Bridgeford throughout Walter’s exile and until long after his [Walter’s] death. It may just be a coincidence that Walter got East Lowdham at that time, it might have been fortuitously available or indeed it might have been the family connection that obtained it but its importance has been over stated due to the Bisset connection and too much read into it without further research.

As one of the main thrusts of Fraser’s proposition hinges on who was or was not in tenancy of East Bridgeford at this date, a further explanation is due. The key to Fraser’s thinking should have been his reading of Dr Thoroton’s Nottinghamshire (1677), which gives a genealogy showing an Albreda, married to a Warin de Basingbourn. Thoroton’s Nottinghamshire 1677. p293. It is not clear if he ever read this book although he refers to it as a footnote, because if he had he would have seen that the date given for the marriage of Albreda to William le Grant was 1293 [possibly mistakenly] shown as 21E, 1. the twenty first year of the reign of Edward the First. Fraser should have realised then that this date made his proposition untenable. The genealogy shown is poorly presented and it had been assumed wrongly that Albreda had married twice and that as a result of the second marriage there was a daughter named Beatrix, the whole genealogy of the Bisset family is further confused by the numerous women all named Albreda.

While I knew that Warin’s dates were the most important I did harbour a doubt about his wife remarrying again at what would be very late in life. If the marriage was for the protection of the estate rather than pro-creation for the estate, a second marriage could still work, but there is no evidence that this happened in this instance. The crown had a nasty habit of marrying off widows and heiresses to members of the court or people who were owed a favour and one way around this was for the family to act quickly and marry off the widow to a safe person of their choosing. This practice was eventually brought to a stop as a clause in the Magna Carta. However further research East Bridgeford – A. Du Boulay Hill, M.A. (1932) OUP p28. showed that Albreda and Warin had two daughters, Albreda and Constantia, and that Albreda married William le Graunt 1274 they in turn had a son Eustace le Grant and a daughter Beatrix.

1244, and back to Walter Bisset, he joined Henry iii on a campaign against Scotland. This seems to have been a half hearted venture and petered out at Newcastle. A Peace was made at Pontland History of the priory of Beauly – Edmund Batten 1877. p46-47. [Foedera, vol. 1, 248.] a village nearby where Walter was a witness for the English side and John Bisset the Younger of Aird, the son of the exiled John Bisset signed as a witness for the Scottish side. Walter then appears in various English state papers in the service of the crown and involved as a messenger between the king and Ireland. In 1248 Walter was captured by the Scots in the form of Alan of Galloway Alan of Galloway was a natural half brother of Patrick the murdered earl. Bower, Continuation of Fordun, b.ix., c.62. when Dunavarty castle was captured. Walter seems to have been able to make his peace with king Alexander ii probably by turning his coat and gaining his freedom in exchange for information of English intentions. He appears to have had a good relationship with Alexander prior to his exile and it may well be that the king by exiling him saved his life. He appears as a witness to a royal charter dated 13th Jan 1249 also a deed by Gregory de Manderville in 1251 History of the priory of Beauly – Edmund Batten 1877. ib., p.93. and was dead by 1251.

• The claim for an Anglo-Norman origin is not sustainable in the light of a reappraisal of the evidence.

We can see that William le Grant did not marry Albreda de Basingbourn [Bisset] until 1274 [we have two conflicting dates for this event 1274 (Du Boulay Hill and 1293 from Thoroton and I have taken the earlier date] This is 16 years after Laurence and Robert le Grant appear as charter witnesses in Scotland. c1258 Robert le Grant was granted land at Coulmony by John Prat and in the same year Sir Laurence and Sir Robert le Grant are witness to an agreement between the Bishop of Moray and John Bisset. (Registrum Moraviense, pp133-135) these are the first surviving record of the name of Grant so far found recorded in Scotland. So we can say that Grants were recorded in Scotland well before the William le Grant marriage - in fact we could turn Fraser’s argument upside down and even suggest that this William came North to South and not the other way as he proposed.

Walter Bisset did not return from exile and reclaim his estates; he was captured as a traitor and subsequently in someway gained his freedom. The evidence is that Aboyne was retained by the crown The castle of Coull (Aboyne) seems to have remained a royal castle until 1291 when it became a Durward property. [The Castle of Coull –Alistair Lilburn of Coull. 1984. but he may have regained a small estate at Lessendrum. [He also interestingly seems to have held some land in Yorkshire] VCH: Yorkshire, North Riding p69. Sir Walter Bisset held Ovington in demesne of the lord of Bedale. [Cur.Reg.R. Mich. 37 Hen. Iii, m.30.] Walter would not have been a good choice as someone to promote one’s interest in Scotland at that time.

The only conclusion that we can come to is that Grants were active and recorded in Scotland before any dates suggested by Fraser for an English migration north or conversely the English Grants which he relies on are recorded after the Scottish Grants and this must rule out any suggestion of an Anglo-Norman origin at this time.

Having demonstrated that Batten/Fraser case for an Anglo-Norman origin for the House of Grant does not work on chronological grounds and therefore any secondary evidence proposed by Fraser was irrelevant. I now want to return to look at the other issues raised by Fraser, in relation to an Anglo-Norman origin.

These issues revolve around:-
• Sir Laurence and Robert Grant’s “arrival” in Scotland.
• The Pratt/Bisset English and Scottish connection.
• An earlier migration north.
• The English Grant’s.
• The etymological argument.

I started my research with an open mind; I was in the Anglo-Norman camp in so far as I gave it any thought at all, having been brought up with this version of the origin. So like most Grants my history of the Grant’s started with Sir Laurence who is portrayed as the first Grant in Scotland and the father of the House of Grant, whereas he is actually the first Grant found in Scottish recorded documents, not necessarily the same thing. In some accounts it is hinted that he had a father named Gregory who is depicted incorrectly as having been sheriff of Inverness The appointment of Sheriff is recorded in the Register of the Great Seal of Scotland An extract shows that Laurence Grant (le Gra[u]nt) as the third recorded sheriff after M[ichael] Mowat and Thomas the Doorward, lord of Lundie. There is no corrobating evidence to place Gregory as Sheriff of Inverness. there has been no explanation where Gregory or Laurence and his brother Robert came from except to presume that they had migrated north with Walter Bisset after his exile in 1244 and were related to William le Grant of Lincolnshire wife of Albreda Bassingbourn.

If Laurence Grant and relatives had migrated north on or around 1244, which we now know they didn’t they could have been little more than opportunists or fairly penniless knights; there are only two records so far found of any of that name holding land in England An Ivo le Grant and nephew John are recorded in a Release and Quit Claim in the Thurgarton Cartulary. We know from this source that Ivo was alive in 1222.There was also around the same time a Hayne le Graunt living at Scopwick in Lincolnshire. at or near to that period and compared to Scotland, English records of the period are prolific.

We know Robert the assumed brother of Sir Laurence obtained from Sir John Pratt [whose sister is believed to have been Marjory, who married Gilbert of Glencarnie the younger] a charter to the land of Clonmanache on the Findhorn. The charter is undated but believed to be about 1258; two of the witnesses were Sir John Bisset of the Aird and Sir William, son of Augustine. The charter states that there had been past disputes over this land between Robert Grant and Sir John Pratt’s father [un-named]. Grant by John Pratt to Sir Robert le Grant. [circa 1258]

So only 14 years after their supposed arrival they are seen to be acquiring land but as these disputes had been with Sir John’s father it suggests an earlier interest in the land possibly up to a decade back which would put the Grants in the Findhorn area disputing land rights maybe only 4 years after their supposed arrival in Scotland, I find this hard to accept. Fraser The Chiefs of Grant. By William Fraser. Vol I p, 9. “The fact that the lands had been in dispute between the elder Prat and Sir Robert le Grant, certainly indicated that the later had resided sometime in Moray…” also accepts that Robert le Grant had resided sometime prior to this date in Moray.

More telling still is the date of Laurence’s role as Sheriff [1263] The Office of Sheriff in Scotland by C.A.Malcolm. just 19 years after the family’s supposed arrival in Scotland. This does not add up – in theory there is no reason why this could not have been achieved in this time scale but I think the reality is somewhat more complicated. Had Laurence arrived in Scotland in time of war or unrest he might well have been imposed on the population as Sheriff but there is no grounds to suspect this was the case. The role of Sheriff which later generally became hereditary was at this period a direct appointment from the king, the sheriff was the king’s man and it is inconceivable that anyone would be appointed who was not known and close to the king.

Inverness at that time included all of Ross, Sutherland and Caithness, in effect most of northern Scotland wherever the kings writ ran, except for the Western Isles and the north east coast. The job description for this role would have required someone who held the kings trust, an ability to manage the local barons both in a political and military sense, powers of leadership, military prowess and last but by no means least knowledge of the people and territory that he was Sheriff of. The appointment of Laurence Grant as Sheriff, a first generation migrant in preference to established barons and families of standing would I am sure have produced jealousies which would have made his job untenable and the king would have been well aware of this in making the appointment.

None of this suggests to me a first generation newcomer; it suggests someone who had a stake and background of the area long enough to be able to compete with the local barons and to hold his own ground. And as we know that Laurence was indeed Sheriff 1263 or 1264 Exch.R. 13 and 1266 Exch. R., i.19 the only logical conclusion is that he and his family were already well established in the locality and had been there long enough to have earned the trust of the king and the respect however grudging of the other established families of note and power.

The connections between the Grants and Bissets in Scotland are not in dispute, we have shown that the supposed English connection does not work in the way that Batten and Fraser proposed. Cassillis quotes Fraser who in turn quotes “Calendarium Genealogicum” Calendariom Genealogicum, 6 EDW. i. P265. Inq, p, m. 24 Walterus Prate alias Prat de Retford. as showing a family of the name of Pratt holding lands in Nottingham and proposes that the Bissets, Pratt’s and Grants in the person of William le Grant were all near neighbours in England as well as in Scotland. He therefore makes the assumption that they all went north together to make their fortunes.

The inquisition post mortem which Fraser quotes concerns a Walter Pratt of Retford, in Nottinghamshire and identifies his seven year old son Adam as his heir. This document can be dated to 1278, which is 34 years after Walter Bisets supposed return to Scotland and 15 years after Laurence was first appointed sheriff of Inverness. It was also 4 years after William le Grant married Albreda de Basingbourn.

While Retford is approximately 25 miles from East Bridgeford and where Bissets and Grants lived it is entirely possible that they might well have known each other but there is no evidence that that these Pratt’s were in anyway connected to the Prat’s already established in Moray, as equally there is no firm evidence linking these Grants with the Grants in Scotland, of which more later.

The Prat’s were of Flemish extraction and while there was a steady trickle of Flemings into England and Scotland for a long period the main impetus came when Count Eustace, ii. of Boulogne came to England in 1066, his followers were rewarded with land by William, i. They moved into Scotland as the Flemish influence increased, originally as a result of the marriage of Maud de Lens to David i, of Scotland, and again when Mary daughter of Malcolm iii, married Eustace of Boulogne. When Henry ii of England oppressed those Flemings who had supported Stephen de Bois, some returned home and some like the Boulonnais from the East Midlands went north to Scotland where they already had relatives and were made welcome.

In summing up we can say that there were Pratt’s in the Nottinghamshire area around the time of the Bisset exile but the only known record is some 34 years after the event. The evidence produced so far is circumstantial at best and cannot be taken as proof of any connection between the Grants and Prat’s already in Scotland and those in England. The interpretation put on this single document is at best optimistic but more a case of trying to make the “evidence” fit a pre-determined result.

A scenario which could account for an Anglo-Norman origin would be if the Grants were indeed Anglo-Norman but had made the south north migration at an earlier date; this is a purely speculative theory as I can find no evidence to support this idea.

In 1175, William the Lion of Scotland returned to Scotland having been captured by English forces while mounting a very opportunist raid on England, in an effort to regain Northumberland for the Scottish crown. Everyman’s hand was raised against Henry, ii of England, led by those of his own sons; Henry was seen as Christendom’s bad guy after the death of Thomas a Becket. William saw this as his opportunity to regain Northumberland but was captured at Alnwick in 1174 and eventually taken as prisoner to Falaise in Normandy where he was forced to make peace with Henry.

In December 1174 the Treaty of Falaise 26. The Treaty of Falaise (December 1174) as given in English Historical Documents. Vol.11. OUP. . was signed between England and Scotland at Falaise. Although glossed over by most Scottish historians this was a humiliating agreement for the Scots “This is an intensely feudal document and a savage treaty,” Introduction in English Historical Documents vol 11. p 446. William not only became liegeman to Henry but he committed in this treaty “every man of respect of Scotland…..all the bishops, abbots and clergy ….” The submission of the Scottish Church to the English Church and so on, a complete feudal take over.

William was released before Christmas 1174 and returned to Scotland with the promise to Henry that he, the Bishops and Scottish nobles would meet Henry, at York the following year when they would all personally swear their fealty to Henry and his son. This treaty was renounced by Richard I of England in 1190. We know that as he went back north he collected various Anglo-Norman knights to serve him in Scotland. Fraser tells us that among these were Bissets, Balliol’s, Bruce’s and others The Chiefs of Grant. Vol, i. P, 5.

Some of these knights may well have been known to him from his period of holding the Honour of Huntingdon, at one time the largest Earldom in England, traditionally held by the heir to the Scottish throne as a gift of the king of England. William, who himself was culturally more Norman than Scottish would have had no difficulty in recruiting knights with the prospect of acquiring land and prestige in a new land. And we can be reasonably sure that Henry also had an interest in some of these knights, the Bissets were in English and Norman service and a Manasser Bisset was Henrys steward, it is probably that it was his brother Henry who went north, although we know that Bissets had been active in Scotland before this date. William Bisset (the Carpenter) was witness to a charter of Malcolm iv, in 1153. And David I settled Robert Biset at Upsetlington, 1140

If the Grants had been among these knights even as retainers of the Bissets it would have been a more logical time to migrate and puts their arrival in Scotland 75 years earlier than the Batten/ Fraser proposition. The consequences of this earlier date would have made Laurence and Robert, third or even fourth generation Scots depending on the age of the first migrant, and comfortably account for Laurence being Sheriff as it answers all my previous objections and reservations. Third generation Grant, aligned to the Bissets, knowing their patch, holding property and known to the king suddenly makes sense, for a member of an increasingly powerful family to hold the position of Sheriff. It also accounts for Laurence’s father Gregory, who we can take as second generation, married to Mary Bisset, daughter of John Bisset of the Aird who gets Stratherrick as a dowry. “Genealogical Collections” vol 1. pp 85-96. Bisset genealogy by Rev James Fraser, Minister of Wardlaw. Note this ms is considered suspect but is the only ms found so far covering this marriage. Alan Grant, traditionally Gregory’s father then assumes the role of first Grant, he fits the role of first named chief by the traditional numbering sequence and with a life span say 1155-1210 fits the role of the first Grant going north aged approx 19.

It’s an intriguing idea but lacks any supporting evidence – it ignores the prospect of a Scandinavian origin and the fact that so far no one of the name of Grant has been found in England at this early date, although hereditary surnames were still in their infancy. However were there to be no Scandinavian theory this idea of an earlier migration would make more sense than Fraser’s later one.

We now have to try and account for the “English Grants,” Why, because as various individuals named Grant appear in English records at an early date the inference has been drawn by some that this is evidence that Grants were more prominent in England than Scotland and further proof that they originated first in England.

Accepting the dearth of Scottish records surviving from this period we are left with the first recorded name of Grant surviving in Scotland as 1258 when Laurence and Robert le Grant are recorded as witnesses. Registrum Moraviese, pp.133-135. I think in view of some of the text in this document we can very safely assume that Grants were in Moray by 1248, so in order for the English Grant theory to hold we would need to be looking for a substantial number of Grants recorded in England prior to say 1248.

They don’t exist. The earliest named Grant I have so found in England is an Ivo le Grant, 1222 his nephew John and a Heyne le Graunt all in Lincolnshire followed by Richard le Grant. Chancellor of the diocese of Lincoln 1228, “Dictionary of National Biography”, Grant, p, 401; “Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury” [W. H. Hook. 1876] Chapter ii, Richard Grant. later Archbishop of Canterbury, all the other named Grants are either un-dated or post 1248. The jury is still out on whever or not Richard le Grant was or was not a Grant, in his favour we now know that the first bishop of Moray, Richard of Lincoln, a clerk in orders to William the Lion, who on becoming bishop adopted the rules and structure of his Alma Mata, Lincoln. If Richard had been a Grant and taken Holy Orders it would not be surprising for him to turn up in Lincoln and had he done so it would also be reasonable to assume that he brought members of his family or friends south with him. However some serious doubt is cast on his being a Grant, the Dictionary of National Biography also refers to him as Richard of Wethershed, possibly either from Sussex or Suffolk the exact location cannot now be identified. He was also known as Le Grand, from his stature or Magister Richardus Magnus, so great care must be taken in assuming him to be a Scottish Grant.

That there were Grants recorded in England at an early date is not in dispute, however their exact status is unclear, some were clearly domiciled in England but for how long we have no idea, some were probably itinerant, traders, merchants, soldiers. They represent a statistically insignificant number to indicate anything, were many more dateable Grants to be found in England prior to 1248 they could still only be seen as an indication of an origin from England, supporting evidence to more conclusive primary evidence, is totally lacking. The most likely answer for the majority of these Grants found in England at this time would be either migration south probably via trade, military service or marriage.

It is entirely possible that some people derived their name from the nickname Grand, as in large or huge, as surnames became fixed their heirs took on this name by default; and although called Grant they did not have nor did their heirs, any connection with the Scottish family of Grant. A significant number of surnames are derived from nick names. “History through Surnames” by W.O.Hassall, Pergamon Press. p, 23; “Oxford Dictionary of Place Names, Ed E. Wkwall. Oxford.; “A Dictionary of British Surnames” P.H.Reany. Routlage and Kegan Paul. 1958.

We need to consider the history of surnames; every surname had a meaning once even if today we are unable to say with complete certainty what that meaning was. In general terms the origin of a surname is seldom an official affair, they mostly derive from either a personal name, an occupational name, a place name, a pet name or nick name. Hereditary surnames are considered to have become settled in England by 1400 but most are very much earlier than that. During the reign of Edward I of England (1272-1307) the country was taxed to pay for his wars in Wales and Scotland and the names of those who paid these taxes, many thousands were written up by individual village and form part of the “Subsidiary Rolls”. “How Surnames Began” C.M.Mathews. Littlewood Press. 1967, p, 11.

In the case of Grant, it is entirely possible that some people derived their name from the nickname Grand. In the past writers have tended to equate the Anglo Norman word Grand in terms of impressive, noble, or splendid rather than its correct derivation of large, tall, huge. If this was indeed the case it would account for some English families widely separated by distance to end up carrying the hereditary name of Grant, derived from a historically acceptable nick name but having no blood connection with any Scottish Grants.

This leads us neatly to where does the Scottish name of Grant derive, the Etymological argument. The basis of this is that the meaning or derivation of the word Grant comes from a source generally assumed to be linguistic, crudely put, “sounds like”. This is a game everyone can play; the proponents of an English East Anglian origin have put forward place names which carry part or all of the word Grant, as have the proponents of a Scandinavian or Scottish indigenous origin. Many of these names seem at first glance to be quite convincing and may in the end prove to have some merit however so far none in my opinion have that knockout argument that carries real conviction. There is no question that the name has a meaning but the exact derivation remains elusive. Can we exclude the Anglo-Norman derivation, “Grand”? not entirely as at the same period that hereditary names were becoming the norm in Scotland the court and nobility were still part of the wider Norman culture and heritage and we can not rule out the possibility that the nick name principle of Grand worked as well in Scotland. If however we ignore any thought of any Anglo-Norman influence we come back to a derivation from a place or person native to Scotland, many have been put forward and could be right but so far we lack sufficiently convincing evidence to back any as being possibly the origin.

My personal view is that a Scandinavian derivation of the word is unlikely, no obvious or convincing one has been found and if one accepts the chronology of the Scandinavian origin by the time Andlaw (Grant) was active and he would have been the first candidate to be called Grant; the Scandinavian link was already getting weak. There is no evidence that Andlaw spent any significant time in Scandinavia although he would have been raised in its culture and custom. I think that the most likely derivation is from Scotland but for the moment I am keeping an open mind as to where.

Akin to the etymological argument is the Heraldic one; this is where components of the Arms of Grant are used to produce an argument inferring an origin of the family to suit the proposer. While I do not dispute that there must be a meaning to the three Crowns, they are not unique in heraldry and do appear elsewhere. My concern is in trying to place a meaning on a heraldic symbol which pre-dates formal heraldry. If the Lord Lyon knocked on your door and told you he was preparing Arms for you, what would you like to depict, I am sure that most of you would arrive at some pictorial symbol which reflected something personal to you and your family and no doubt the Grants did the same and while their symbol could be almost a folk memory I still think that for us to try and put a meaning on it is dangerous and time wasting.
Earlier I demonstrated that the principle evidence put forward by Edmund Batten and Sir William Fraser, as to an origin of the House of Grant as a result of a migration north around 1244 does not stand strict scrutiny on chronological grounds.

The secondary evidence used by Fraser, which also brings the 1244 migration into doubt. I have shown that the assumption that Sir Laurence and Robert Grant were early migrants is extremely unlikely and the reasons why I believe this. I have also questioned the Bisset – Pratt – Grant relationship as proposed by Fraser. A scenario for a migration 75 years earlier has been shown as a possibility but with no evidence to support this theory. I have put forward reasons why it could have been possible for people to have carried the name Grant in England but have no relationship with the Scottish Grants and have briefly discussed the Entomological argument and the dangers of inferring too much from the Grant Arms.

In conclusion I find the evidence for an English or Anglo-Norman origin to be non-existent and the proposal for such an origin by Sir William Fraser to be false. Rightly or wrongly and however flawed the traditional version of the origin of the House of Grant circulating within the clan until displaced by Fraser in 1883 must be reconsidered as the basis for such an origin.