General Notes

Burke's Peerage is not sure whether this person is named Janet or Mariota.  I have named her Mariota Janet to indicate the uncertainty. See below for an indication that there may have been two sisters, a Mariota and a Janet, that married different people--or the Mariota/Janet that married Robert, 1st Lord Boyd came from a later generation of Maxwell as indicated by Burke's (see discussion below about inconsistancies in Burke's lineage) and the Mariota/Janet of this generation married William Porteous.  I have portrayed two separate sisters in my ancestry, but welcome any further information on it.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Burke's has a fairly major screw up with the ancestors of Mariota/Janet. In the Kilmarnock, Baron line which contains the Boyd lineage, the marriage of Robert, 1st Lord Boyd to Janet or Mariota Maxwell is given. Burke's states that Mariota/Janet's father is Robert Maxwell of Calderwood described in the Farnham, Baronet line.

Under the Farnham line where the Maxwell of Calderwood lineage is given, one would expect to find a Robert Maxwell of Calderwood with a daughter Mariota/Janet who married Robert, 1st Lord Boyd.  Not only one, but two different generations, one (Robert) the grandson of the other (John), supposedly had daughters that married the "1st Lord Boyd".

The "Robert" (grandson, who had an un-named daughter marrying 1st Lord Boyd) died in 1531 while his supposed daughter Mariota/Janet died by early 1473--58 years earlier?--not likely.  The grandfather (John), which names his daughter Mariota/Janet marrying 1st Lord Boyd, is the son of a marriage of 4 Dec 1450 and is dead by 1490--again born to a marriage and died way too late for Mariota/Janet and the wrong name (John-not Robert)! To compound matters, this "John" married Janet/Marion Boyd daughter of Thomas Boyd 5th Lord of Kilmarnock (who also happens to be father of Mariota/Janet's husband Robert, 1st Lord Boyd)-therefore having Mariota/Janet Maxwell marrying her mother's brother!

There is a Robert Maxwell of Calderwood, married 1402, grandfather of the "John" and great great grandfather of the "Robert", who seems to be perfect--but in a screwed-up lineage, who knows?  I have designated this Robert Maxwell of Calderwood as father of Mariota/Janet and discounted the other Robert and John.

My impression is that all of the mistakes are in the Farnham line--not in the Kilmarnock line.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandy Hotson, originally through a post-em and subsequently through e-mail, has information that a daughter of Robert de Maxwell married a William Porteous and subsequently "Hawkshaw", one of the estates owned by the Maxwell family, was passed on to the Porteous family.  I did some searching and found the following supporting information for that theory at a web site: www.applegate.co.uk/fam_his/381-415.htm.  The page is entitle "The Tweedie Archive, Tweedie/Tweedy Genealogy".

A History of Peeblesshire

J. W. Buchan and Rev. H. Paton. Published 1925-7.

HAWKSHAW, CARTERHOPE AND FINGLAND

These three hill farms lie north of Earlshaugh, and may be conveniently dealt with together, as, although they are now owned by different proprietors, they were one holding in early times. The Fingland and Hawkshaw burns flow direct into the Tweed opposite the lands of Glenbreck, but the Carterhope burn flows into the Water of Fruid, which joins the Tweed below the Hawkshaw burn.

The property, a £15 land of old extent, was apparently royal demesne until the time of King Robert the Bruce, who granted it to Sir David de Lindsay, Lord of Crawford, for his homage and service, and the services of two archers in the King's host. In this grant only the lands of 'Hawkeschaws' are referred to, but it is clear that at that time and later, Carterhope and Fingland were considered to be parts of Hawkshaw. Part of Hawkshaw was also known as Glengonvir or Glengonar...........

[there followed a discussion of the Lindsay and Crawford heritage, which I skip]

Turning back to deal with the grant of the lands to Sir John Maxwell of Pollok, which was confirmed in 1372, there is record of an indenture made at Dumbarton in the year 1400 between Sir John of Maxwell, Lord of Nether Pollok, and his son Robert, on the one side, and Sir John of Maxwell, the son and heir of the Lord of Nether Pollok, on the other side, according to which it was agreed that Robert and his heirs should have the 'Hawkschawland, Fynglen, and Carterhope in Twede muir' with certain lands in the sheriffdom of Lanark. Thereafter the lands continued to be held by a branch of the Maxwell family, and they were sub-feued to the family of Porteous, but when this took place there is no record. The result was that a third superiority was created - the Crown being the over-superior of the barony of Crawford Lindsay or Crawford Douglas, the successive proprietors of that barony being the superiors of the Maxwells, and the Maxwells and their successors being the superiors of the family of Porteous and their successors.

The chartularies of the barony do not go back beyond the beginning of the seventeenth century. In 1626 the holder of the third superiority was Edward Maxwell, son of Sir James Maxwell of Caldercross, and it is reasonable to infer from that entry that the Maxwell family had been in continuous possession since the grant confirmed in 1372. In 1635 Sir James Maxwell of Caldercross, Baronet, was the proprietor, and he transferred his right of superiority to Sir William Murray of Stanhope, Baronet, from whom it passed in 1696 to his son, Sir David Murray, and in 1738 to Sir David's son, Sir Alexander. In 1738 the owner of this superiority was James (Stewart), fifth Earl of Galloway, and his son Alexander, the sixth Earl, conveyed it in 1763 to William Loch, a writer in Edinburgh.

Dealing now with the right of property, this was held by the family of Porteous for almost three centuries. There was a 'tower' on the banks of Hawkshaw burn which is marked on Blaeu's map, and near it in ancient times was a chapel on the banks of Fruid Water, the remains of which were still visible in the eighteenth century, 'standing in a cemetery which was not then altogether forsaken.'

There was a WILLIAM PORTEOUS of Hawkshaw in 1439. In 1467 THOMAS PORTEOUS of Hawkshaw is referred to. He took action against Walter Tweedie of Drumelzier for some wrong which is not specified, and obtained a judgement in 1478 on behalf of himself and the widow and children of Herbert Porteous. On 27th October, 1479, the Lords of Council in Edinburgh ordained that:


'Jofra Litil and William Litill sall restore to Thomas Porteous of Halkschawis 18 score of scheip with yowis, price of the pece, 4s.; spulzeit, takin and withholdin be the said Jofra and William out of the landis of Halkschawis.'

[the article goes on to detail many other Porteous family members in subsequent centuries.  The above information supports Sandy Hotson's supposition that Janet (or maybe Mariota) married William Porteous.  I have indicated such a relationship in my ancestry.]