_Earls David and John._
On the death of Earl Harold Maddadson in 1206, he was followed in
the earldom of Orkney, without Shetland, by his elder surviving
son, David, who also, it would seem, was allowed to succeed to the
Caithness earldom and some of its territory. But out of the Caithness
earldom there had been taken the lands forming the Lordship of
Sudrland or Sutherland held by Hugo Freskyn from about 1196, and this
comprised, as already stated, the parishes of Creich, (then including
Assynt), Dornoch, Rogart, Kilmalie (now Golspie), Clyne, Loth, and
by far the greater part of the parishes of Kildonan and Lairg. Out of
these lands Hugo granted, as already stated, to his relative Gilbert
de Moravia, Archdeacon of Moray from 1204 till 1222, and to his heirs
and assigns whomsoever, all Creich and much of Dornoch parish up to
the boundaries of Ross, and the date of this grant was probably
about 1211. The Mackays were beginning to occupy the western parts of
Strathnavern, their title being probably their swords, and they held
their lands "manu forti," their country being a refuge for their
Morayshire kinsmen, the MacHeths, who were in constant rebellion. The
eastern portion of Strathnavern, and particularly the neighbourhood
of Loch Coire and Loch Naver, and all the Strathnaver valley were
probably insecurely held by members of the Erlend and Moddan family
after Harald Ungi's death at the battle of Clairdon in 1198; and
Gunni, probably a grandson of Sweyn Asleifarson, who had married
Ragnhild, Harald Ungi's youngest sister, after the death in the same
battle of Lifolf Baldpate, her first husband, became chief of the
Moddan Clan there and in Caithness. After 1200 Ragnhild had by Gunni
a son called Snaekoll Gunni's son, who thus became, on his father's
death, the chief representative in Scotland, both of the Moddan family
and of the line of Jarls Erlend Thorfinnson, St. Magnus, and St.
Ragnvald, and of Eric Stagbrellir and of Earl and Jarl Harald Ungi;
and Snaekoll afterwards laid claim to their possessions in Orkney,
as the sole male representative of this line. Gunni and Ragnhild
must have held the Strathnaver lands, and the Moddan family lands
in Caithness, formerly Earl Ottar's estates, till their deaths, and
Snaekoll was their sole known male heir. The Harald Ungi share of the
Caithness earldom lands, which _The Flatey Book_ and _Torfaeus_ state
that Jarl Ragnvald had held, does not appear to have been granted to
David, or to any successor to the Caithness earldom of his line, or to
any other person at this time. Indeed, the line of Paul were the last
persons to whom such a grant would be made.
It was, therefore, to a very much reduced territory and earldom that
David succeeded in 1206, as Earl of Caithness. We hear almost nothing
of him, save that for the latter part of the eight years of his
rule,[1] more or less inefficient probably through ill health, he
shared the earldom and what had been left to him of its lands with
his younger brother John. David died without issue in 1214[2] probably
soon after Hugo Freskyn, and David was succeeded by his brother John
in the jarldom of Orkney and in the reduced earldom of Caithness as
sole jarl and earl.
Immediately after David's death, King William the Lion, who had, in
1211, suppressed a rebellion in Moray of the Thanes of Ross under
Guthred son of Donald Ban MacWilliam whom a few years later he
captured and beheaded,[3] came to Moray again; and, about the 1st
of August 1214, King William demanded, and received[4] Earl John's
daughter, whose name is not known, as a hostage for her father's
loyalty, and a guarantee of the peace then made, under which John was
probably recognised as earl and as entitled to his reduced territory.
His daughter may, at this time, have been her father's sole heiress,
although she did not remain so, because we find that he had a son who
lived till 1226, called Harald. Meantime Bishop Adam, after the death
in 1213 of Bishop John, his half-blinded and mutilated predecessor,
succeeded to the Episcopal See of Caithness,[5] and seems to have
reversed Bishop John's policy of leniency to his flock by exacting
from them heavier and heavier tithes, as years went by.
In 1217, King Hakon's rival, Jarl Skuli, thought Earl John so
promising a traitor as to send him letters forged with the Norse
king's seal.[6] In 1218 John was present at Bergen to witness the
ordeal successfully undergone by King Hakon's mother in order to prove
that king, then a boy, to be her son by the late King Hakon Sverri's
son, and so rightly entitled to the Norwegian crown.[7]
After Earl John's return from Norway, the bishop's exactions of tithes
of butter reached such a pitch that the Caithness folk met near his
house at Halkirk, and demanded that the earl should protect them
against the bishop's rapacity, and, either at the earl's suggestion
or without any opposition on his part, they attacked the bishop in his
house, which was close to _Breithivellir_ (now Brawl) Castle,
where John lived. The Saga gives the following description of this
affair:--[8]
"They then held a Thing on the fell above the homestead where the earl
was. Rafn the Lawman was then with the bishop, and prayed the bishop
to spare the men; also he said he was afraid how things might go. Then
a message was sent to Earl John with a prayer that he would reconcile
the bishop and the freemen; but the earl would come never near the
spot. Then the freemen ran down from the fell and fared hotly and
eagerly. And when Rafn the Lawman saw that, he bade the bishop devise
some plan to save himself. He and the bishop were drinking in a loft,
and when the freemen came to the loft, the monk went out at the door;
and was straightway smitten across the face, and fell down dead inside
the loft. And when the bishop was told that, he answered, 'That had
not happened sooner than was likely, for he was always making our
matters worse.' Then the bishop bade Rafn tell the freemen that he
wished to be reconciled with them. But when this was told to the
freemen, all those among them who were wiser were glad to hear it.
Then the bishop went out and meant to be reconciled. But when the
worse kind of men saw that, those who were most mad, they seized
Bishop Adam, and brought him into a little house and set fire to
it. But the house burned so quickly that they who wished to save
the bishop could do nothing. Thus Bishop Adam died, and his body was
little burnt when it was found. Then a fitting grave was bestowed
on it,[9] and a worthy burial. But those who had been the greatest
friends of the bishop, then sent men to find the King of Scots.
Alexander was then King of Scots, the son of King William the Saint.
But when the king was ware of these tidings" (he took it) "so ill that
men have those miseries in mind which he wrought after the burning of
the bishop, in maiming of men and manslaying, and loss of goods and
banishment out of the land."
From the above account of the matter, it appears that Earl John, who
was responsible for law and order in Caithness at the time, although
invited by Rafn the Lawman to intervene, and although he was on the
spot, did nothing, saying "he could give no advice" and "that he
thought it concerned him very little," and adding that "two bad things
were before them, that it was unbearable" and that "he could suggest
no other choice,"[10] that is, but to pay the bishop's tithes, however
exorbitant, or not pay them, or possibly to make an end of him. It is
clear also that the monk who was with the bishop was to blame for his
exactions. But there is some excuse in the fact that Bishop John had
been censured by Rome for his neglect in collecting the dues of Rome
or Peter's Pence as greatly as Bishop Adam was blamed by the people of
Caithness for his greediness. There is no need to brand Bishop Adam as
a voluptuary for excessive drinking and immorality.[11]
These events took place in 1222, and King Alexander, urged by the
remainder of the bishops in Scotland, at once marched into Caithness
with an army, and took vengeance on the bishop's murderers by
mutilating a large number of those concerned and seizing their
lands,[12] while in 1223 the Pope excommunicated them and also
interdicted them from their lands.
The Annals of Dunstable, however, paint Earl John in much blacker
colours, and state that he himself caused the bishop, who was escaping
from the fire, to be cast into it again, and the bodies of two others
previously slain, his nephew and the monk, to be thrown upon him, and
that King Alexander forfeited half John's earldom.[13]
The Saga says that the king forfeited Earl John's lands for the murder
of the bishop. Wyntoun, however, states that afterwards, at Christmas
festivities at Forfar,
"Thare borwyd that erle than his land
That lay unto the Kyngis hand
Fra that the byschape of Cateness,
As yhe before herd, peryst wes."[14]
By this "borrowing," however, Earl John recovered only the reduced
earldom above described, that is without the Lordship of Sutherland,
to which William de Moravia, Hugo's son, had succeeded between 1211
and 1214, and without that south-western portion of it, which, as
stated, had been given to Gilbert de Moravia by Hugo in 1211, and
without the Moddan family's lands near Loch Coire and in Strathnaver
and Caithness, and without Harald Ungi's moiety or half share of the
Caithness earldom; and, as already stated, the lands appertaining
to this share were probably occupied by his family as represented by
Gunni and Ragnhild, Eric Stagbrellir's youngest daughter, and by the
members of the Moddan clan, and the retainers of the Erlend line.
In 1223, Earl John was again at Bergen, with Bishop Bjarni of Orkney
and others, to consider the rival claims of King Hakon and Jarl Skuli
to the Norse crown,[15] and in 1224 he went thither again to leave
his only son, Harald, as a hostage for his own loyalty.[16] In 1226,
Harald was drowned at sea, probably on his return voyage, thus leaving
John without any male heir, and save for his nameless hostage daughter
or her children, if any, without any direct lineal heirs for the
jarldom and earldom of Orkney and of Caithness respectively.
In 1228 John sent presents to the Norse king, and received in return a
good long-ship and many other gifts; and in 1230 John is found aiding
Olaf, King of Man, a friend of the Norse king, by giving him a like
vessel, "The Ox," to enable him to complete his voyage back from
Norway to his own kingdom, and in the same year John rendered
assistance to the Norse expedition, which had attacked the South
Hebrides, by harbouring its ships in Orkney on their voyage back to
Norway.[17]
From the above facts it is clear that Earl John, though he owed
allegiance to both kings, was more inclined to favour Norway than
Scotland, and that he was more constantly in attendance at the Norse,
than at the Scottish Court. At the same time it became more and more
likely that he would have to choose between his two masters, as war
for the Sudreyar or Hebrides was already certain to break out between
the two countries, and, save for civil war in Norway, would have
broken out at once.
Snaekoll[18] Gunni's son, as the sole male representative of the
Erlend Thorfinnson, St. Magnus, St. Ragnvald, Eric Stagbrellir and
Harald Ungi line remaining in Scotland, who had probably about this
time succeeded, or at least was recognised as next heir to the Moddan
family estates in Strathnaver and Caithness, approached Earl John in
1231, and demanded from him Jarl Ragnvald's lands in Orkney. But the
earl, who held Orkney in its entirety as the representative of the
line of Paul and of Harold Maddadson, who had seized it when Jarl
St. Ragnvald died in 1158, refused to give Snaekoll any part of those
lands; and Snaekoll, failing to obtain any redress, sought the aid of
Hanef, formerly a page, but now Commissioner in Orkney, of the Norse
King, and demanded his help in recovering his lands there. Snaekoll
and Hanef with a large following accordingly crossed the Pentland
Firth to Thurso to enforce the claim, but the earl again angrily
refused to restore the lands in Orkney, and it would seem that he was
also unwilling to let Snaekoll have his rights in Caithness.[19]
Each party occupied separate lodgings in Thurso with their separate
followings, and Hanef and his friends, warned by a messenger of the
earl's reported design of killing them, forestalled it by attacking
the earl first, and they slew him with nine wounds in the cellar of
his lodgings. After the affray they crossed over to Orkney, where they
fortified the small but massive castle[20] or tower of Kolbein Hruga
or Cobbie Row, in the Island of Vigr or Wyre, now called Veira, near
Rousay in Orkney, and provisioned it for a siege, which lasted the
whole winter, and was raised only after both sides had come to an
agreement that all questions arising out of the earl's death at
Thurso, should be referred, not to the Scottish courts, but to the
Norse king, Hakon, in Bergen.
Both parties, with their witnesses, accordingly crossed the North
Sea in 1232, and Hakon heard the case, and punished the partisans
of Snaekoll, some with death and others with imprisonment. Snaekoll
himself, who, as the heir of Jarl Ragnvald, was too valuable a pawn to
be sacrificed, was retained, and lived long in Norway with Earl Skuli,
and afterwards with King Hakon.[21] It is noteworthy that a _gaedinga_
ship (no Jewish Ship,[22] as Torfaeus states, but a ship of the
_gaedingar_ or _lendirmen_ of the Earl of Orkney) was, on the return
voyage, lost at sea; and, bearing in mind the large number of Orkney
notables who had been slain at the battle of Floruvagr in Norway in
1194, men of means and standing must have been scarce in Orkney for
long after this time.
There is a tradition mentioned by Alexander Pope of Reay,[23] the
translator of the _Orcades_ of Torfaeus, that Snaekoll, being deprived
of his rights in Orkney by King Hakon, returned late in life to
Caithness, where the Norse King could not deprive him of anything, and
lived in that county at Ulbster. If so, why did he return?
The answer brings us to a mysterious lady, who is known to us through
a charter[24] of May 1269 preserved in the _Registrum Episcopatus
Moraviensis_ or Chartulary of the Bishopric of Moray, and who is
called therein _nobilis mulier domina Johanna_, the then deceased wife
of Freskin de Moravia, Lord of Duffus, who had died before her. From
her name of Johanna this lady is stated to have been a daughter of
Earl John, amongst others by so eminent an authority as the late Mr.
William F. Skene in a paper "on the Earldom of Caithness," first read
to the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland on the 11th March 1878,
which is reprinted as Appendix V to the Third Volume of his _Celtic
Scotland_ at pages 448 to 453, and the lady is generally known as Lady
Johanna de Strathnavir; and on her descent much subsequent history
depends.
Skene's conclusion is that the half of Caithness which afterwards
belonged to the Angus earls was that half usually possessed by the
line of Erlend Thorfinnson, and that Joanna (or Johanna) was Earl
John's daughter, and, as such, inherited the Paul share of the earldom
and brought it to Freskin de Moravia, when he married her, without the
title.
We doubt the accuracy of this conclusion, for reasons which, however,
rest not on direct evidence, but, like those given in Mr. Skene's
paper, on mere probabilities; and we hold that the converse is true,
and that Johanna was no daughter of John, and that it was the Erlend
half of the Caithness earldom lands that went to her and her husband
Freskin de Moravia of Duffus, while the moiety of Paul, in our
opinion, remained with a nameless daughter of John, and went along
with the title of Earl of Caithness, to her husband Magnus, and so to
the Angus earls of Caithness, though the lands which went with it were
then much curtailed in extent.
But it must be remembered that, in the absence of records, any
solution of this difficult problem at present rests on mere
speculation and guesswork, and the opinions expressed here must
be accepted as mere conjectures unsupported by direct contemporary
evidence, and based only upon reasonable probability.
We propose to attempt to deal with this difficult subject in the next
chapter.