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.
CHAPTER IX.
_The Succession to the Caithness Earldom._
After the death of Earl John in 1231, we come to a most perplexing
time, and it is almost impossible to discover a way out of the maze
of genealogical difficulties in which we find ourselves involved.
Pages:
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161