Macbeth and Lulach revisited

Question

An interesting interpretation given by Alex Woolf in Pictland to Alba: 789-1070, based on both the Annals of Ulster (AU) and the Annals of Tigernach (AT), is that, given two seemingly independent sources (the annals), Lulach actually preceded Macbeth in death. 

AU 1058.2 Lulach son of Gilla Comgáin, high-king of Alba, was killed in battle...

AU 1058.6 Macbethad soin of Findláech, high-king of Alba, was killed in battle...

AT 1058.1 Lulach, king of Alba, was slain...

AT 1058.65 Macbethad son of Findláech, high-king of Scotland, as slain...

Woolf, p. 264: "More curious is the fact that AU and AT, at this point seemingly independent witnesses, both place3 Macbethad's death after Lulach whereas all the kings-lists grant Lulach a reign of several months following Macbethad. Had this apparent mis-ordering occurred in a single chronicle we might have dismissed it as a slip but the coincidence of both making the same slip would seem odd. The simplest solution to the proboem is to presume tat Macbethad had demitted the kingship to Lulach, willingly or under duress, but was actually still alive when his successor was slain...

"If Macbethad had in fact demitted the kingship this could still lave him alive to be killed by Mael Coluim in August 1058."

Obviously, a fuller quoting of Woolf might give a better view of things, which would include Marianus' chronicle for more precise dating. And, I must admit that this is not an area of expertise in which I operate. So, given AU and AT, might a reevaluation of the dating and order of these two kings be in order?

Thoughts?

Answer 1

Thanks Pip

Alan Orr Anderson's Early sources of Scottish history, vol. 1, p. 600 in notes 3 and 4, mentions that these two Irish chronicles reverse the deaths of Macbeth and Lulach, but over the page on p. 602, the translations of Marianus Scottus and Duan Albanach, both place the death of Lulach after Macbeth.

I don't know for sure in this case, but it's not unusual for medieval Chronicles to be out by a year or two.  Also most chronicles that still exist in our time, are not the original, but various copies made over the years, and as we know the more times something is copied, the more likely it is that mistakes will arise.

Comments

Woolf emphasizes the difficulties of the annals repeatedly through his book: editing at later dates, ulterior motives for inclusion of material. Really, I cannot imagine the amount of patience and dedication this requires. 

I think I'm less concerned about the exact dating, which is always difficult to pin down, even when finding corroborating sources The dating in the two annals I presented above could be off, but even if both were off, they'd be off retaining the same order of death.

In general, and not related to this post (because my mind often wanders hither and yon), Macbeth's profile seems to be a little repetitious in some areas. It also doesn't the alternative spellings. Certainly "Macbeth" was not the spelling in his lifetime and should be discarded in favor of one more likely, and certainly not as a nickname. Further, I believe that the LNAB, while a good attempt to give him something, anything, as a last name, would not a patronymic would be more appropriate? Further, as I see that many other royalty give full titles as nicknames, would not High King of Scotland also be considered? Lulach has a similar title (but not High King as in the annals) on his profile.

And, while I am at it, let me question the use of MacRory as a surname for Macbeth's wife and in-laws. Who was Rory? 

I think I'm getting over my head here. I've had an issue about the legendary genealogies for the Macneil chiefs for a while, much less any of those in the Insular world.

---

If we are to trust Wikipedia, the Annals of Ulster were likely put together in the late 15th century, and relied on earlier chronicles, so I'm a bit puzzled as to why Alex Woolf would state that the two annals were independently reporting the deaths of Lulach and Macbeth.

I definitely don't have expertise in this area, but the obvious solution would be that the person compiling the Annals of Ulster, had access to the Annals of Tigernach, and copied the mistake.  But as I said I'm not an expert.

---

Here (Manuscript sources 1.), the date given is 1489, so Wikipedia can be trusted, I believe. 

For AT: Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson B 502, ff. 1–12; vellum; c 1050–1150 So, AT would be nearly contemporaneous.

Thank you most kindly for your responses, John!

---

"And, while I am at it, let me question the use of MacRory as a surname for Macbeth's wife and in-laws. Who was Rory?"

"Rory" was Macbeth's paternal grandfather, Ruairi or Ruaidhri, whom Gaelic genealogical tradition says was a member of the Cinel Loairn, senior branch of the Dalriadan royal house. The same "Rory" was also paternal grandfather of Gillacomgan mic Maelbrigthe.  But this was well before hereditary family surnames, and before women began adopting their husband's surnames, so no, Gruoch's two husbands were never surnamed "MacRory" or "mac Ruairi," nor did Gruoch ever bear that surname.  Nor was Gruoch ever surnamed "MacAlpin" or "McAlpin."  "MacAlpin" did not then exist as a hereditary surname, but simply meant literally that a particular man (not woman) was the son of Alpin.  Similarly, "MacRory" wasn't a hereditary surname, but meant that a man (not woman) was the son of Rory/Ruairi. But both Macbeth and his first cousin Gillacomgan were grandsons, not sons, of Rory, and thus they should not be alleged to have borne the surname MacRory.

As for Gruoch, daughter of Boite, she was "inghen Boite" -- her father's name was NOT her maiden name. Gruoch belonged to the Clan Dubh (Duff) branch of the Dalriadan royal house.

---

Well put, Jared!

I’ve noticed in some of the annals that a patronymic is given, but those were hardly family names.