Heir to the Dormant Earldom of Breadalbane and Holland?

[gabe879]

Hello,

I'm interested in finding out more about the dormant title of the Earl of Breadalbane and Holland (Holland in Lincolnshire, not the country in mainland Europe).

Earl of Breadalbane and Holland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The title itself passes down as such:
"Heirs male of the son chosen to succeed him, failing which to the heirs male of his body, failing which to his own heirs male, failing which to his heirs whatsoever"

The 1st Earl of Breadalbane and Holland was John Campbell:

John Campbell, 1st Earl of Breadalbane and Holland - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"He married Lady Mary Rich, daughter of Henry Rich, 1st Earl of Holland and his wife Isabel Cope on 17 Dec 1657, with whom he had two sons, Duncan, styled Lord Ormelie (d. 1727), who was passed over in the succession 1685 due to his "mental incapacity", and John Campbell, 2nd Earl of Breadalbane and Holland (1662-1752)" So, seemingly unusually, his title passed to his second son John Campbell (1662–1752) styled Lord Glenorchy, and not to his first son Duncan Campbell (1659–1729) styled Lord Ormelie.

The last Earl of Bredalbane was John Romer Boreland Campbell, 10th Earl of Breadalbane, who was born in 1919 and died in 1995. On his death, his titles fell into dormancy.

Person Page

Genealogy Royal Noble Peer Duke Count Lord Baron Baronet Sir Peer Database Family Tree Europe Nobility Knight Peerage Marquess Earl

www.thepeerage.com

I am curious about any pretenders to this title, and any unwitting legitimate heirs to it, and whether it is possible that the 1st Earl's descendants through Duncan (Lord Ormelie) may be considered heirs, if none from the line of John Campbell (Lord Glenorchy) can be found. There is a Hungarian that made some claim to the peerage about 20 years ago, but it doesn't seem as though much came of it:

Ex-cabby to become earl?

A Hungarian former taxi driver living in Budapest has emerged as the heir to a Scottish earldom, according to the genealogist who unearthed his claim.

www.deseret.com

Hungarian taxi driver claims Scots earldom

A FORMER taxi driver from Hungary who was brought up in a hovel is the heir presumptive to a Scottish earldom, it was claimed last night.

www.heraldscotland.com

Or perhaps the legal fees just weren't worth it as I believe the peerage in this case has no accompanying lands or wealth at all.

Concerning Duncan Campbell (Lord Ormelie), some sources seem to claim he had no issue, or none recorded, but others that he had a son James Campbell (1680-1745) who moved to Caroline County, Virginia, married Mary Catlett (1696-1751) in 1728, and had a son (maybe only one child) Joseph N. Campbell (1740-1794), who had many children (Joseph Jr., Mary, William, Mathew, Elizabeth and Zaccheus) of which I can find issue only from Zaccheus, and then there are further descendants in America from him etc...I'm mostly curious though about the legitimacy of this initial heritage into America, and whether it's possible if someone from this line, if it exists, would or could become the legitimate heir to the peerage, now that the line derived from the second son of the 1st Earl is dormant.

As an additional historical note, it was evidently considered at the time very unusual and perhaps illegitimate for the second son to inherit, and the above claim to incapacity in the first son may not have been true:

The Campbells of Breadalbane

Electric Scotland is all about the history of Scotland, Scots and Scots-Irish people in Scotland and around the world.

electricscotland.com

"JOHN CAMPBELL, Lord Glenorchy, born in 1662, whom he nominated in terms of his patent as his successor in the earldom and in his extensive estates. There is no reason to suppose that his eldest son, Duncan, Lord Ormelie, whom he passed over, had given him any personal offence, or had done anything which warranted this treatment. The probability seems to be that the cunning and suspicious old Earl was apprehensive that though the part his clan, under the command of his eldest son, had taken in the Rebellion of 1715 had been condoned by the Government, they might after all revive the offence and deprive him of his titles and estates. He therefore disinherited Lord Ormelie in favour of his younger brother. The unfortunate youth seems to have passed his life in obscurity without any steps having been taken to preserve a record of his descendants. In 1721, however, at a keenly contested election of a Scottish representative peer in the room of the Marquis of Annandale, the right of the second Earl to the peerage was called in question on the part of his elder brother on the ground that any disposition or nomination from his father to the honours and dignity of Earl of Breadalbane ‘could not convey the honours, nor could the Crown effectually grant a peerage to any person and to such heirs as he should name, such patent being inconsistent with the nature of a peerage, and not agreeable to law, and also without precedent.’ Strange to say, these weighty objections were overruled by the peers, and by a decision which is quite unique, Lord Glenorchy was confirmed in his ancestral honours and estates. He was remarkable only for his longevity, having died in 1752 in his ninetieth year."

some other pages that may give some context:

THE CAMPBELLS OF BREADALBANE

Breadalbane and Holland, Earl of (S, 1677 - dormant 1995)

Thanks for any help on this topic

 

[gabe879]

As an additional follow-up concerning current claimants:

Second earldom claim may set up legal battle

A LEGAL battle is likely to be waged over the future of a Scottish earldom created more than 300 years ago.

www.heraldscotland.com

The other contender "...Sir Lachlan Campbell, a lieutenant in the Royal Greenjackets...claims that the last earl appointed his father, Colonel Sir Guy Campbell, as heir to the earldom of Breadalbane and Holland, so it follows that Sir Lachlan is the rightful successor" and that "Sir Lachlan also believes he can prove the legitimacy of a seventeenth century marriage involving John Campbell, which was previously thought to be illegitimate," but I don't see any update on this claim anywhere, or if it was ever resolved.

 

[Kataryn]

That the title of the earl is "dormant" can only mean that they suspect there might be some heirs left. And according to the wording the "heirs male of his body" means Lord Ormelie and potential descendents. So the family tree has to be checked from the last earl upwards for further male heirs till the first earl, the the Ormelie line down for heirs male. After that it's "failing which to his own heirs male" - that's the 1st earl upwards to the next heir male who has living male descendants today. And if all else fails, in case there isn't any male heir to be found, to female heirs of the last earl and then further upwards. It sounds quite difficult but I guess there are some documented lines of Campbells left, so no need to look for female heirs.
I would need the complete letters of the title to see if any earl after the first could have chosen his successor or if that was meant only as a privilege for the first earl.

 

[gabe879]

That the title of the earl is "dormant" can only mean that they suspect there might be some heirs left. And according to the wording the "heirs male of his body" means Lord Ormelie and potential descendents. So the family tree has to be checked from the last earl upwards for further male heirs till the first earl, the the Ormelie line down for heirs male. After that it's "failing which to his own heirs male" - that's the 1st earl upwards to the next heir male who has living male descendants today. And if all else fails, in case there isn't any male heir to be found, to female heirs of the last earl and then further upwards. It sounds quite difficult but I guess there are some documented lines of Campbells left, so no need to look for female heirs.
I would need the complete letters of the title to see if any earl after the first could have chosen his successor or if that was meant only as a privilege for the first earl.

Thanks for your reply. Concerning the letters of the title, you mean something like the patent issued to the original 1st Early? I can see this link:

Peerages: Letters Patent

peerages.historyofparliamentonline.org

but I don't see any accompanying text. And from there the rest of the Earls of that line:

Peerages: of Breadalbane and Holland (Earldom)

peerages.historyofparliamentonline.org

but that site doesn't seem to have much in terms of the actual text. It does mention a special remainder:

"Note: SR to nominated younger son by first wife and hm, failing whom to hm, failing whom to heirs whatsoever"

So that does specify that the "son chosen to succeed him" is the younger son by his first wife (ie John/Glenorchy). HM must mean "heirs male," so "failing whom to hm" would include Duncan/Ormelie's descendants if (only if?) all of John/Glenorchy's line down to today was extinguished? And SR means what? Senior?

If the current line via "younger son by first wife" is extinguished (which seems plausible given the dormancy and apparent failure of the claims of Sir Lachlan Campbell and Huba Andras Campbell, which were presumably thoroughly investigated by the genealogists involved), then as you suggested it would revert to "heirs male" ie to Duncan/Ormelie. So, the questions are:
1) Are there zero male heirs from the John/Glenorchy line?
--Seems plausible again given the above that claimants from that line are sparse and all failed. I believe Lachlan's claim was denied in part because he was claiming heritage from an illegitimate son of the 1st Earl born after John/Duncan, who would of course come after Duncan (if at all) in inheritance. Presumably, if such a claim were being investigated at all, then the search for heirs branching off from the 2nd through 10th Earls had all turned up nothing?
2) If #1 is true, then did Duncan/Ormelie have issue that lived (into America or otherwise)?
--and that furthermore had male descendants all the way down to today.

Concerning #2, where would be the best source of information on this line? I believe there are some efforts by a north American Campbell DNA project that could prove useful, but I'm not sure if DNA from the 10 earl is available to do a Y match to. I think it's spearheaded by Kevin Campbell at wikitree:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Campbell-37992

FamilyTreeDNA - Genetic Testing for Ancestry, Family History & Genealogy

With our premier suite of DNA tests and the world’s most comprehensive matching database...your DNA has met its match!

www.familytreedna.com

doing DNA work to supplement missing genealogical info for North American Campbell, for example:

https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Campbell-1535

 

[gabe879]

and another interesting page on wikitree, underneath the ancestors tab, which has some more notes on Duncan's potential lineage: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Campbell-3510

 

[gabe879]

Related historical document the "Statement of the Breadalbane case" published 1866:

Statement of the Breadalbane case [with reference to the claim of Donald Campbell.] : Sinclair, Alexander, Genealogist : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

SCO

archive.org

Apparently, Duncan eloped with a woman named Marjorie and had children:

These ballads will be proved traditionally to refer to the elopement of Duncan Campbell with Marjorie Campbell. Extracts from the parish register show that Duncan Campbell and Marjorie Campbell were having lawful children baptised. The baptisms of their second son, John, and female children, are registered. The nonregistration of the baptism of Patrick, their eldest son, may be accounted for, by the same necessity still existing for concealment, which occasioned the elopement, viz., to screen Marjorie's father from the resentment of the Earl. The carelessness about registration, and especially about designating the parties registered, may also be accounted for by a state of society, in which every clan formed an exclusive community, permanently located in a district where every body knew every body. It may, at the same time, be remarked, that these registers themselves bear evidence of having been tampered with — leaves having been abstracted and others substituted. [See Extracts and Precognitions of Isabella's descendants, who call her the daughter of "Lord Ormelie."]

I'm not certain if his sons Patrick or John are real, or if real considered legitimate, or if legitimate had any issue who lived.

 

[gabe879]

and from that document a clearer picture of the context for John coming before Duncan in inheritance:

Fired with indignation at the treachery of the King and his ministers, and the insult to himself personally involved in the violation of the Treaty, the Earl of Breadalbane and his eldest son, Duncan, determined to throw their powerful influence into the opposite scale, and accordingly set about the organization of their countrymen for the restoration of the Stuarts. The enterprise presented brilliant prospects of success; but, as the issue of battles does not depend upon human calculations, the Earl, who had resolved to commit himself, and his eldest son, and his two grand-sons, to the uncertainty of war, had entered into an arrangement with his eldest son, and his two grandsons, to secure the succession to the honours and estates to his second son, John, in the event of failure. That the arrangement was purely political, appears in the clearest light by the fact of the second son setting himself in opposition to his father, brother, and the whole Bread albane clan, and siding with their enemies. Hence, clauses in the entail clearly show that the accession of Duncan, or his surviving heir, was made contingent on the success of the enterprise. The clauses are — "And the heir male of the said Colin Campbell, his body, which failing, to such one or more persons, to be nominated and designated by the said John Campbell, Earl of Breadalbane, by any writ under his hand, at any time in his lifetime, to be his heirs of tailzie, and to succeed him in the lands, earldom, titles of honour, dignities, and others." As Colin Campbell was an old unmarried man at the above date, and he never was married, he must have been introduced for a purpose, which his death in 1716 rendered nugatory;— [See his last will and testament] — while the reservation, "by any writ under the Earl's own handwriting," must have referred to the reponing^of^Duncan (or his surviving son or sons) in his rights, in the event of success. Hence the blind hostility of the clan, which compelled John, the so-called second Earl, to take shelter in the crowded streets of London, until the Rebellion of 1745. [See the Deed appointing Commissioners, and the Precognitions.]

 

[gabe879]

and furthermore:

John, the second son of Duncan Campbell, in Auchinniscallan, married Mary Campbell, daughter of Mr Campbell of Blarchaorainn, and had three sons and one daughter, viz., Alexander, Colin, Patrick, and Margaret. — [See his testamentdative.] His eldest son, Alexander, had married the sister of Sir Evan Cameron of Fassifern, and Colin an English lady. Both died very suddenly after their marriage; and their sudden deaths, had so strongly impressed their brother, Patrick, who was a captain in the 42d Royal Highlanders, with a superstitious dread, that it deterred him ever after from marriage. — [See the Precognitions.]

Patrick Campbell, eldest son of Duncan Campbell, Auchinniscallan, married Jean M'Nab, aunt of Francis M'Nab of M'Nab. — [See Precognitions.] In 1750 he, then only son of Duncan Campbell in Auchinniscallan, received from the third Earl a charter of Westerstick, &c, which was registered in 1752. — [Which see.] Patrick Campbell and Jean M'Nab had a son baptized, called Duncan, in 1715. — [See extracts of his baptism.] This son Duncan Campbell, Carquhin, or rather Coirechunna, married Janet Mf Andrew, Fernan. — [See extract of their proclamation of banns, 1746.] Duncan, notwithstanding the remonstrances of his grandfather's— who went among the people of Glenorchy to dissuade them from rising with his grandson [See Precognitions], until France should perform the promises that Power had given to himself and to his father in 1715 — joined Prince Charles with all his personal friends.

and later in the same document:

The third Earl, then, had no alternative, but to place a creature of his own, in possession, to hold the estates in trust until the heir should be able to claim them. But it appears that he had no confidence in this person, and therefore he inserted in the entail the clause to the effect, that some persons may have been overlooked or omitted by the maker thereof, and that the honours might be thereby separated from the estates, which was contrary to the spirit and meaning of the settlement of 1704, and of the entail then about to be created, in which case, however, it was thereby provided and declared, that the party succeeding to the honours, and making good his claim in course of law to the said titles and honours, should also be entitled to the whole estates, in the same way as if his name were contained in the destination of heirs in the said settlement, and to compel the heir, who might be in possession, to denude in his favour of the whole estates.

The third Earl's doubts were not belied, and when John Campbell succeeded to the estates, he assumed the titles and resolved, by the assistance of Lady Betty, his wife, to keep possession at all hazards, and to sacrifice honour and gratitude to selfishness and ambition. He, therefore, demolished the chapel in which his benefactor's grandmother, Lady Mary Rich, and her eldest son, Duncan, had been interred, casting into the Tay the gravestones on which their names had been engraved, and, in 1826, broke the two pillars that were at the gate of the chapel, the inscriptions upon which he had before in his blindness, overlooked. Again his lady — for the grey mare seems to have been the better horse — and he appeared one dewy morning, before sunrise, in the burying-ground at Blairmore, ten miles from Taymouth Castle, sacrilegiously defacing the gravestones of Big Patrick and his wife, Jean M'Nab, which they afterwards caused to be cast into Loch Tay, and the city of the dead to be trenched and ploughed. After the destruction, no doubt, of all the inanimate evidence they could lay their hands upon, the worthy couple were arrested — by the fear of public opinion, which had been aroused by the unhappy fate of the ejected tenants, and the threat of the boldest of the people to bring in the rightful heirs — in their career of forcible expulsion of the masses of living witnesses that surrounded them

so, some pretty interesting and dramatic context there.

This document may also have relevant information:
Evidence Before Lords Committees for Privileges and Before the House &c
on "Evidence Before Lords Committees For Privileges, and BeforeThe House" including "Evidence taken before the Lords Committee for Privileges on the Breadalbane Claim of Peerage"

 

[gabe879]

This is another interesting document, but I don't have any way to verify the veracity of its claims:

https://www.seekingmyroots.com/members/files/G001412.pdf

It seems to be a kind of informal family publication of American Campbells related perhaps to a later, maybe 3rd Earl, who did not leave a direct male heir but was succeeded by his cousin?

(Mary (Wilson) Kellum was born near Bridgeport, .Ind. in 1838, daughter of James and Elizabeth (Spray) Wilson. Elizabeth Spray was the daughter of Samuel and Hester (Campbell) Spray. Hester Campbell was the daughter of James and Elizabeth Campbell, b. 1796, d.1851. James Campbell was the son of John and Hester Campbell. That would imply that John Campbell was the son of the heir to the Earl of Breadalbane. Mary Wilson Kellum lived from her birth in 1838 a distance of two miles from her grandmother, Hester Campbell Spray, until the latter's death in 1851. They both lived on farms and had no access to public records or sources of information on which to build the belief save only tradition.)

I'm not sure why the document claims "That would imply that John Campbell was the son of the heir to the Earl of Breadalbane," and it gives only tradition as the source of the claim, but an interesting note nonetheless. It goes on:

At the time this was written its significance and value were not understood and it lay among old family papers unnoticed until 1925, when some of the descendants found it. The statements it contains have led to much searching in Scotch records and they coincide to this extent that the 3rd Earl of Breadalbane (D. 1782) should have been succeeded by his son but was not because both sons died when they were children. (1) He was succeeded by bis third cousin, John (next male heir), who was the first son and heir of Colin of Carwhin. (Hester Campbell Spray declared that she was the great-granddaughter of the heir to the Earl of Breadalbane) • This 3rd Earl, in 1775, executed an entail of his "vast estates" and the male heirs of the first Earl became extinct when he died. In the distribution of the "vast estates" there must have been many heirs. This act on the part of the Earl may have been the basis tor the family tradition of the estate in Scotland, which should have come to the descendants of the Earls of Breadalbane.

and it goes on to mention Breadalbane more at some length. This earlier passage was somewhat interesting:

I, Mary Wilson Kellum of Bridgeport, Indiana, am the granddaughter of Hester Campbell Spray, also of Bridgeport, she being the great-granddaughter of the heir to the estate of the Earl of Breadalbane, who should have been succeeded by his son but was not" and that he made some unusual distribution of his property.

So there was some kind of preserved folk memory among some American Campbells, perhaps descendants of the first Earl through a later female line, of the unusual passing of the title from the first Earl to his second son. The book also has a dedicated section on the Breadalbane lineage, page 183 stating mentioning Sir JOHN (5th Bart.) who was made 1st Earl of Breadalbane and Holland...he passed over his eldest son Duncan and was succeeded by his 2nd son...Sir John, 3rd Earl, who died without issue; succeeded by his cousin..." and the document speculates:

The line of succession came back into this family of Sir Robert, 1n1782, upon the death of the 3d Earl, making them all heirs, in a sense, and so the explanation of our tradition could lie somewhere in this group and their descendants. (data combined from Johnston and from Burke.)

There is then a section titled DUNCAN, LORD ORMELIE, eldest son of John, the 1st Earl of Breadalbane that reads:

Because, 1n the 21 generations given in the preceding pages, there is no instance of an older son being passed over in the line of succession in favor of a younger son and because, in this break of the natural line which occurred in the case of the sons of John, the 1st Earl, a situation so unique was created as to cause a multitude of articles to be written in regard to it (as per references given by Balfour Paul) and because of the unusually strong tradition in our family in America of being heirs or the Earl of Breadalbane, this DUNCAN, Lord Ormelie, appears to be worthy of further search, as a possible ancestor of' our John Campbell. No such investigation has been made.

It then covers many of the events already discussed in this thread:

Duncan was born about 1660...He was, it is said on account of his incapacity, passed over in his father's nomination of a successor (see Lord Haile's manuscript 'Notes on Douglas Peerage quoted in the Breadalbane Successor Case' by James Paterson.,1863, p. 9). On the narrative that 'knowing how easie I may (through the facility of my own nature, and want of knowledge) be circumvained and deceived in the management or my affairs by subtle and craftie persons who may have designs on me' he interdicted himself from disposing of his lands on Oct. g. 1694...In 1704 he concurred with his father in the conveyance of the family estate to his younger brother...He is generally stated to have died, unmarried without issue (Nisbet's Heraldry, 1742) in or about 1727, aged 67 (Complete Peerage-Voce Breadalbane). Elsewhere he is stated to have married Margaret. daughter of Campbell of Lowers and left two sons ("Gaelic Bards" b7 A. MacLean Sinclair; "The language, poetry and music or the Highland Clans" by Lt. Donald Campbell, 204; "Breadalbane Succession Case" by James Patterson, 1863; "Statement of the Breadalbane Case" by Alexander Sinclair, Esq. 1864).

and goes on further to mention the same account quoted above ie "There is no reason to suppose that his eldest son, Duncan,..." and then gives the summary:

A chronological resume of the above facts is as follows: Duncan was granted a fee in the lands of' Catines, Barbeck-Lochow and Auchendryen at the age of ten (1670); when he was twenty-one (1681) his father was made Earl and at that time it was designated that he should be allowed to name a younger son his successor; Duncan interdicted himself from disposing of his lands when he was 34 (1694); when he was forty-four he concurred with his father in the conveyance of the family estate to his younger brother; when he was fifty-five he led his father's forces in the Rebellion; when he was sixty one {1721) an effort was made to re-establish him in the Earldom to which his brother had succeeded in 1717, upon the death of the first Earl.

and then for probably the most relevant section:

As to the descendants of Duncan, Lord Ormelie, there is little yet found. A Capt. Duncan Campbell reported, after the Battle of Colloden 1745 (Lang's "History of Scotland", vol 4, p. 523-25) to Lord Glenurchy( 2nd Earl of Breadalbane) the outcome of the battle, apparently as leader of Glenorchy's forces. This is such a strong parallel to Duncan., Lord Ormelie, who led his father's forces in 1715 as to merit consideration.There is a possibility that Capt. Duncan, here referred to, was the son of Duncan, Lord Ormelie (d. 1727), and therefore leading his uncle's forces. A little over one hundred and twenty-five years after the death of Duncan, Lord Ormelie, there were three claims filed in Great Britain, by three different men, to the Earldom of Breadalbane, on the assertation they were descendants or Duncan, who was "passed over" which, if proved would have constituted any of them "heir male of the entailer, to which class the succession then opened, on the failure of male issue of the 2nd Earl". (Balfour Paul's "Scots Peerage", vol 2. p. 205.) Thee first of these claims was in 1863 filed by Charles Campbell of Fortwilliam. (Balfour Paul's "Scots Peerage", vol 2, p. 205.) The second was John Campbell, 1867 and, third Gavin Campbell 1872. (Session Papers "C" of 1867; "A" of 1867-8. Session Papers "B" of 1872; "F" of 1877. The Spectator for 1864, pp. 1357-85, 1413, 1442, 1469.)

For purposes of further search it should be said that the first claimant Charles Campbell lived at Fortwilliam. Just before the Battle of Colloden, 1745, when Capt. Duncan was leading the Glenorchy forces, a struggle took place at Fortwilliam. · (Lang's Hist. ot Scotland, vol 4, p. 505.) This fort is located in Argyllshire, on the south side of the western end of the Caledonian Canal, which runs north-easterly to the district of Inverness. The records at Fortwilliam might contain something of value which the peerage books did not investigate, their chief concern being always of the immediate family of each successor in turn.

Since the family tradition of Niel (Douglas or Duncan) carries reference to the "Caledonia", and since a descendant of Duncan, Lord Ormelie lived at Fortwilliam on the Caledonia Canal the possibility arises that the phrase "On the Caledonia" in the tradition could have meant his locality and not his ship.

and then later:

The second factor which may help to explain the sudden interest in a Scottish Campbell estate were three separate court actions in Scotland (or England), each a claim by a different man to establish himself as Earl of Breadalbane. The preparation, and consequent possible publicity, was probably begun several years before and could very well have stirred some Campbells, our own included, to investigate, especially since they had had so strong a tradition of some such claim. On the other the publicity could equally well have supplied the ammunition for those interested in collecting "expense money". In 1863 Charles Campbell of Fortwilliam, in 1867 Jojn Campbell, in 1872 Gavin Canpbell, each sued to establish his claim as heir of Duncan, Lord Ormelie. (See Appendix, Duncan, Lord Orme lie). The transcripts of these three cases, if still in existence, might give the line of descent from Duncan on which they based their claims and might produce something of value to our search. This has not been done.

and there are many more details at the link provided, but I've already quoted at too great a length. But, perhaps the transcripts of the above 19th century cases could be found.

 

[gabe879]

news article from 1866 on an inheritance case:

EARLDOM AND ESTATES OF BREADALBANE. - (From The Times) - The Mercury (Hobart, Tas. : 1860 - 1954) - 19 Sep 1866

The rival claims of Mr. Campbell of Glenfalloch and Mr. Campbell of Borland to the earldom and estates of Breadalbane have been the subject of litigation in the Scotch Courts for ...

trove.nla.gov.au

also relevant case docs perhaps:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c760d03e7f57ecd33d

maybe these are also relevant:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff81760d03e7f57eb9d98

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff8c760d03e7f57ecd36c

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5a8ff82160d03e7f57ebb241

I'm not sure if any of that is currently relevant though, as that's all cases concerning the heritage from John, not Duncan, which, regardless of their resolution, are not all part of the extinguished line? Although the details of the cases may have relevant info.

This document concerning, among other things, descent from Lawers, may be relevant insofar as Marjorie, alleged wife of Duncan, was a Lawer?

https://www.seekingmyroots.com/members/files/G001476.pdf

or maybe that's not at all related.

This is some kind of meta data on Breadalbane records, but not the records themselves?

Catalogue - The National Archives of Scotland

Catalogue of the National Archives of Scotland

catalogue.nrscotland.gov.uk

maybe also irrelevant.

 

[gabe879]

book on the House of Argyll and collateral branches of the clan Campbell:

https://deriv.nls.uk/dcn23/9555/95552044.23.pdf

but it simply mentions "From John's first marriage was Duncan, who died very young, and John" but the line about Duncan dying very young, as per above posts, appears to be false.

 

[gabe879]

another genealogy site with some discussion on the potential issue of Duncan:

Notebook. Duncan Campbell, Lord Ormellie, 1659-1727 - Genealogy

www.werelate.org

...from " Descendents of James Campbell and Grace Hay" - compilers note - I would like to discuss Duncan Campell, Lord Ormelie, son of John Campbell, 11th of Glenurchy and 5th Baronet. He is not the Duncan who married Mary McCoy. In the "Heraldry of the Campbells" on p.57 it states that "he was weak mentally" and "issaid to have married Margaret Campbell of Lawers and to have left 2 sons.". However in Vol.1 of "James Campbell and his Descendants" by Katherine Campbell Harper, beginning on p.228 thru p.235 you will find a discussion of claims of descent from Duncan Campbell, Lord Ormelie. The records are still extant and for 182 years it was believed in the Breadalbane family that Duncan died unmarried. On 23 Apr 1686 Lord Ormelie signs declaration that he renounces his claim to the Breadalbane Peerage and that he does not intend to marry. On the 19th of October 1696 there is a Bond of Interdiction not to sell his lands without his father's consent. On 13 Dec 1704 Lord Ormelie signs over all rights to his father and male relatives. At the close of 1704 Lord Ormelie was neither married nor in a state to marry. A court case in 1872 brought out this data and his supposed grandson was b. in 1710. This makes it rather farfetched especially since documents regarding payment for Lord Ormelie's maintenance and his funeral bill are extant. The judgment of the court was that claims of descent from Lord Ormelie d. 1727, were "Spurious" and ruled out all legitimate or illegitimate descents for Duncan, Lord Ormelie. I have collected numerous Campbell data. For instance there was a Duncan Campbell of the House of Breadalbane who d.1612 and had married a Mary McCoy. Of course dates too early to be Lord Ormelie...
Apparently when Grey John acquired the Buttler Estate in Ireland, his eldest son Duncan travelled there in about 1671[1] , which was when he married Mary McCoy in secret. Thus his children by that marriage were not recognized as heirs, Robert, John, and Dougal. Later when he became mentally incapacitated his family had no knowledge at all of this marriage. "Prior to 8May 1680, Duncan returned to Scotland with his tutor Alan Ramsey. After this Duncan eloped with Marjorie Campbell of Lawers and by her had 2 known sons, James, a Jacobite who was captured at Preston and was banished to America on the Scripto in 1716, and Patrick. On the 23 April 1686, Duncan now with the title Lord Oromele renounces his claim to Breadalbane Peerage, stating he's not now married nor intends to marry. On 19 October 1694 Lord Oromele makes a bond not to sell his lands without his father's consent. On the 13 December 1704 Lord Oromele signs all rights to his father and male relatives. As Lord Oromele's mental condition grew worse, his father 'Grey John' became his guardian and at John's death in 1717 his brother John of Glenorchy became his guardian. Prior to 1726 some sort of agreement was reached with Lord Oromele's 3 sons in Ireland and his brother Alexander. Also 2 sons of his sister Janett's, Arthur and James Hamilton, all living in Ireland. They all came to America in 1726 with their families. Duncan, Lord Oromele died in 1727.

but again I have no way of really evaluating the veracity of these claims. It could be interesting to investigate the alleged existence of James, the captured Jacobite banished to America.

 

[gabe879]

another page summarizing the unusual inheritance of the first earl:

Duncan Ban MacIntyre - Lord Glenorchy

concerning the James placed on the ship:

https://freepages.rootsweb.com/~ruthann/genealogy/ships/jacobiterebels.htm

Among the persons transported to the American colonies in 1716 were 637 Scottish rebels captured at Preston, Lancashire, on 14 Nov 1715. The rebels were supporters of the exiled James II of England and his heirs...Persons shown below, as compiled from ten ship manifests, were taken prisoner and sent to the American Colonies the following spring as indentured servants for a seven-year period...

but it mentions a ship called "Scipio" not "Scripto", with ship code Sc, and a James Campbell is listed as being on that ship:
Campbell, James--Sc,--
although the commander's name and the ship's destination are not given. It says the information was taken from the "National Genealogical Society" Quarterly, March 1976, Vol 64, number 1. By Clifford Neal Smith (594 W. Lincoln Hwy, DeKalb, IL 60115), so perhaps finding that original source might help.

Another listing of that same ship mentions it was sent to Antigua and Virginia:

ISTG - Jacobite Rebellion - Ship Scipio

Passenger List transcribed directly from CO 5 190, page 362
(the National Archives, Kew, London, England). The Official
Transcription of this list, Published by the Government Record
Office is found in "Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series,
America and West Indies, 1574-1739". There the name Gortey is
written Gartey.

On the same CO 5 190, page 362 is written:
"A List of the Ninety five Prisoners that went on board the
Scipio at Leverpool in order for Transportation
30th March 1716 viz."
"Recd. 30 March 1716 ninety five Rebel Prisoners (according to
the above list) on board the Scipio John Scaisbrick Comr. in order
for transportation. Richd. Gildart Hen. Trafford.

On the same CO 5 190, page 369 in the summary information table:
95 rebels, shipped March 30th, Scipio, master Jno. Scasbick, bound
for Virginia.

In TS 20 47 3 page 7 (the National Archives, Kew, London, England)
is stated:
"30th March 1716 shipped on Board the Scipio Frigate Capt.
John Scraisbrick Commander for Antigua 96 Rebels"

broader context from same site:

ISTG - Jacobite Rebellion Ships

and a document about Jacobite rebels banished to America:

https://www.hslc.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/91-3-Wardle.pdf

 

[gabe879]

further to the point concerning Scots banished to America:

Directory of Scots Banished to the American Plantations, 1650-1775

"Between 1650 and 1775 many thousands of Scots were banished to the American colonies for political, religious, or criminal offenses. In the aftermath of the English Civil War, for example, Oliver Cromwell transported thousands of Scots soldiers to Virginia, New England, and the West Indies. The...

books.google.com

CAMPBELL JAMES
Jacobite captured at Preston.
Transported from Liverpool on the Scipio 20 March 1716
(SP/C)

another source (Barbados Heritage: Passenger Lists and Barbados Departures) has it as:

30th March 1716 shipped on Board the Scipio Frigate Capt. John Scraisbrick Commander for Antigua 96 Rebels nil. at 40sh each amount to . . . . . 190

and perhaps the original?

https://sites.rootsweb.com/~tornabene/s/annescipioembark.jpg

this is not necessarily extra information though. I don't see how to connect Duncan Campbell and his possible existing son James to this James Campbell. There were not actually that many Scots captured at Preston? Perhaps an army of 4000, and 1,468 captured:
Battle of Preston 1715 - Visit Preston
so could not have been too many different James Campbells? and they were mostly forgiven in the Indemnity Act of 1717 maybe? I wonder if this act would have listed everyone pardoned?