On the Lairds of Duffus

from: http://duffus.com/lost.htm

There is some false information here, but some possibly new as well.

The accepted progenitor of the De Moravia line was a somewhat misty magnate named Freskin of Friskinus, probably of Pictish origin, although sometimes declared to have been one King David the First's imported Flemings.

This Freskin has a better-documented son, William De Moravia, who had a charter from William the Lion in 1169, of the lands of Duffus, Roseisle, Kintrae, and others ". . . which lands his father, Freskin held in the reign of my grandfather, King David." Duffus Castle, then, was the seat of the family which once con-trolled the entire Province of Moray. Freskin is elsewhere entitled Dominus de Duffus. Freskin also had a son, Hugh.

** 2 errors: This Freskin was not the one called Dominus de Duffus, that was the second Freskin (son of Walter who was son of Hugh). Secondly, Hugh was not Freskin's son, he was his grandson (Hugh's father was William de Moravia, mentioned above). **

Hugh had a son William, who became first Earl of Sutherland. William, son of Freskin, carrying on the main line of the family, had a great grandson, another Freskin, who produced no son but two heiresses. Mary the elder, was married to Sir Reginald Cheyne in 1286, and in 1305 her husband approached the all-conquering King Edward the First of England for permission to fell 200 oak trees " to build his manor of Duffus." Cheyne and Mary De Moravia once again produced only two daughters, and the elder, who was the heir to Duffus, another Mary, married a far-out cousin, Nicholas, second son of Kenneth, 4th Earl of Sutherland. So Duffus came back to the original male descendants of the first Freskin, even though now called Sutherland.

To go back: What took Freskin's grandson, William, north and gained him so much land and power in what was then Sudrland, the South land of the Norse Caithness; and Orkney territories, We do not know --probably, in the usual way, he married into it. Anyway, he became powerful enough to be created first Earl of Sutherland. Thereupon, this branch seems to have dropped the surname of De Moravia and adopted that of Sutherland. The third Earl signed the famous Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, the fourth died at Halidon, and the line went until 1514 when the ninth Earl died insane.

But we are not concerned with the Sutherland earldom. Nicholas Sutherland, seventh in descent from the first Freskin, thus became Lord of Duffus. After this, something of a silence descends upon Duffus--or at least, records do not survive to declare much otherwise. Until, in 1530 stirring doings come to light, not around the main seat of Duffus, but in Sutherland. In that year we read that William Sutherland , Lord of Duffus, was killed by Clan Gunn, at Thurso -- the Gunns allegedly insti- gated thereto by the Bishop of Caithness.

The reason for the murder of Duffus is not revealed -- but we discover that the dead man's brother was the Dean of Caithness. This was the period prior to the Reformation when there was a tremendous amount of sculduddery amongst the lords and laird to get relatives into positions in the collapsing Church, whereby, when the crunch came the great Church lands would gravitate towards the incumbents. lt may well have been something of the sort here, with Duffus seeking to get his brother, the Dean, into the Bishop's seat.

** The murdered William was the 6th Laird of Duffus... then came William the 7th, then Alexander the 8th. This history is incorrect, then, and omits William the 7th. **

The next laird, Alexander, son of William, seems to have carried on the policy of conducting his mishaviours far from home. We that in alliance with the Earl of Caithness, he attacked the Town of Dornoch in 1567, and again laid waste both town and castle in 1570. A year or two earlier, his brothers with the Lord of Duffus's consent, had seized the castle of Berriedale and held it for some time against its true owner, the Lord Oliphant. This was probably all still part of the Reformation land-grab aftermath, with the Catholic -Protestant rivalry further complicating the issue. This Alexander seems to have suffered a change of heart, for we read that in 1571, having put to death certain "sureties" who had surrendered to his ally, the Earl of Caithness, he became so overcome with remorse that he fell ill and soon pined away and died. Odd for the man who had sacked the town of Dornoch twice!

** The next Laird discussed is Alexander's grandson William (10th), he died leaving a young heir, Alexander. Alexander became the 1st Lord of Duffus, and was tutored by our ancestor James of Kinminite (called The Tutor of Duffus). James was William the 10th's brother, thus was the second son of William the 9th. **

The laird who, succeeded in 1616 carried on the family tradition by becoming "much embroiled with the neighboring lairds, especially in Sutherland." He died suddenly in 1626 at an early age, leaving an heir, Alexander, of only four years. This Alexander, however, was the man who painted the Duffus colours on a wider canvas. He must have been a precocious youth, for he was one of those who went to Edinburgh to greet King Charles, the First in 1641, whereupon the grateful monarch knighted him. He can have been only nineteen at the time. However, his admiration for the unfortunate Charles seemed to have cooled, for he took the opposite Covenant side, and his estate suffered at the Royalist hands in consequence. Indignant, he petitioned Parliament for redress, and succeeded in winning compensation of, L 10,000 Scots--to be paid by the English Parliament.

On the proceeds, presumably young Sir Alexander Sutherland went abroad, and traveled extensively in France and Holland--Scotland was no doubt a good place to be out of during the Commonwealth period. But Holland was where King Charles the Second was in exile, and in June 1650, when Charles sailed back to his own country, Sir Alexander came with him. They landed at Garmouth in Moray, only a few miles from Duffus, and it may well have been Sir Alexander's influence which brought the Royal exile there. At any rate, within six months, Alexander was created a peer, as the first Lord Duffus.

But Cromwell was to rule the land for another ten years, and the new Lord Duffus soon found himself in trouble. He was ordered to hold the city of Perth for King Charles and given 600 men to do it. He held out for exactly twelve hours--and was thereafter fined L1500 by the Lord Protector. When at last the Restoration came, Lord Duffus in due course went to London with the now Merry Monarch.

Reading between the lines, it is probable that the new peer earned his honours by more than the fact that he brought Charles from Holland to Moray--or even by his twelve-hours' defence of Perth. Charles was chronically short of money, inheriting an empty treasury and Alexander Sutherland was rich. As well as all the original lands of Duffus and in Sutherland, one of his predecessors had married an heiress with great estates in the Elgin area.



from: http://www.scotsites.co.uk/eBooks/sagatimechapter9.htm

We now have to fix the date of Freskin de Moravia, nephew of William, dominus Sutherlandiae since about 1214. Freskin, as stated, was undoubtedly the husband of Johanna of Strathnaver, and became on his marriage owner of her lands there as well as of a moiety of the Caithness earldom lands.

Freskin was, as also stated, the eldest son of Walter de Moravia of Duffus, second son of Hugo Freskyn of Strabrock, Duffus and Sutherland by Walter's marriage with Euphamia, probably, from her name, a daughter of Ferchar Mac-in-tagart, who became Earl of Ross.[23] As Ferchar granted[24] certain lands at Clon in Ross about the year 1224 to Freskin's father Walter de Moravia of Duffus without pecuniary or other valuable consideration, it has been concluded, probably correctly, that this grant was made on the occasion of the marriage of Walter to Ferchar's daughter Euphamia; and Freskin, their heir, was born in or after 1225, and had become dominus de Duffus by 1248 on his father's death. Johanna, on our hypothesis, would have to be born by 1232 at latest, that is, before or soon after her supposed father Snaekoll went to Norway, and from her supposed father's date she could hardly have been born before 1225. Snaekoll's date can be ascertained with comparative accuracy. For his mother lost her first husband, Lifolf Baldpate, only in 1198, at the battle of Clairdon, and she can hardly have married Snaekoll's father, Gunni, much before 1200. From these dates Snaekoll could have been born by 1201, and married in Scotland between 1224 and 1231, and Freskin and Johanna would thus be of very suitable ages to marry each other, and their marriage therefore would take place after 1245, or possibly as late as 1250. If Johanna was the daughter of a younger child of Ragnhild, she might be born later than 1225.