The Clan Fraser in Canada: Souvenir of the First Annual Gathering

by Alexander Fraser

"The author of the Ardintoul MSS. gives a slightly different version, and says: 'To which end they sent Mr. Andrew Fraser, priest of Kintail, a learned and eloquent man, who took in his company Dugald Mackenzie, natural son of Alexander Inrig, who was a scholar. The Pope entertained them kindly, and very readily granted them what they desired, and were both made knights to the boot by Pope Clement VIII., but when my knights came home they neglected the decree of Pope Innocent III. against the marriage and consentricate of the clergy, or, otherwise, they got a dispensation from the then Pope Clement VIII., for both of them married. Sir Dugal was made priest of Kintail and married Nien (daughter) Dunchy Chaim in Glenmoriston. Sir Andrew likewise married, whose son was Donall Dubh MacIntagard (Black Donald, son of the Priest) and was priest of Kirkhill and chapter of Ross. His tacks of the Vicarage of Kilmorack to John Chisholm, of Comar, stands to this day. His son was Mr. William MacAhoulding, alias Fraser, who died minister of Kiltarlady. His son was Mr. Donald Fraser, who died minister of Kilmorack; so that he is the fifth minister or ecclesiastical person in a lineal and uninterrupted succession, which falls out but seldom, and than which, in my judgment, nothing can more entitle a man to be really a gentleman; for that blood which runs in the veins of four or five generations of men of piety and learning and breeding cannot but have influence, and it confirms my opinion that the present Mr. Wm. Fraser (who is the fifth) has the virtues and commendable properties of his predecessors all united in him.'"

We see here the ease with which a MacCreggie could become a Fraser, and, bearing in mind the principle noticed by Hill Burton, there is no difficulty in accounting for the origin and growth of our Clan in the Highlands. Whether we can tell the day of the month and the year on which Andrew or Simon Fraser first gazed on the winding Beauly or not—and the date can be approximately fixed—we, at all events, have no deep, unfathomable problem to solve as to the formation of the Fraser Clan. We know that the founder of the name in Inverness-shire arrived there as the head of a powerful Lowland house, that he settled among the native Caledonians of the country, assumed possession of the lands then forming his estate; that the people, who were as Celtic as those in any portion of the Highlands, bearing such names as Gille-Criosd, Mac-Killweralicke, Gill' Aindrea, etc., rallied around him, accepted his authority, became his followers, and gradually adopted the name. As has been remarked, some of those who were thus absorbed were the Bissets and the Fentons of the Aird; there were also the Haliburtons, the Corbets, and the Graemes of Lovat, whose estates fell into the possession of the Fraser family. From this beginning it is an easy matter to follow the fortunes of the Clan down the centuries from 1296, or thereabout, until the present day. But it is not as easy, nor is it as important, although interesting, to deal with the origin of the name and the ancient seat of those who bore it long, long ago. Yet the theories respecting the origin of the name must be taken notice of as traditions of interest, at least to the Clan.

We meet the name of "Fraser" in various spellings in Ragman Roll, which dates A.D. 1292-97. Seventeen gentlemen of the family are on the roll, and the spellings given are: Fraser, Fresar, Frisel, Frisele, Freshele, de Fraser, and de Frisle. Whence derived? A Norman-French and a Celtic origin have been ascribed to it.

The Norman-French Origin.—Skene settles this theory in a summary fashion. He accepts it as indubitable, and had he refrained from giving the grounds upon which he bases his opinion, his deservedly high reputation as a Celtic historian might have satisfied the general reader as to the truth of his ipse dixit. But the two reasons he advances are absurd. From his own words you will learn how he disposes of the origin of the Clan: "Of the Norman origin of the family of the Frasers it is impossible for a moment to entertain a doubt. They appear during the first few generations uniformly in that quarter of Scotland which is south of the Firths of Forth and Clyde, and they possessed at a very early period extensive estates in the counties of East Lothian and of Tweeddale; besides the name of Frisale, which is its ancient form, appears in the roll of Battle Abbey, thus placing the Norman character of their origin beyond a doubt." Mr. Skene's first reason is that, "they appear during the first few generations uniformly in that quarter of Scotland which is south of the Forth and Clyde." Had this part of Scotland been at that time inhabited by Normans, Mr. Skene's position would not seem so surprising as it does; but, as a matter of fact, at the time when the Frasers, according to Skene himself, flourished in the south of Scotland, the population there was Celtic, and his plain reasoning is: "The Frasers first appear in Scottish records as part of a Celtic population; therefore they must be of Norman origin!" Mr. Skene's second reason, while not so manifestly absurd, is equally weak. It is: "The name of Frisale, which is the ancient form of "Fraser," appears in the roll of Battle Abbey, thus placing the Norman character of their origin beyond a doubt." And it is on such grounds as these that Mr. Skene proceeds. Why, the ingenious Senachies, skilled in genealogy, if not in the unravelling of charter deeds, could give an infinitely more plausible statement of a continental descent. In the first place, it is now impossible to authenticate the genuineness of the Roll of Battle Abbey; and in the second place, if the roll were beyond question, there is nothing to show that the Frisale whose name appears on it was the progenitor of the Scottish Frasers. Mr. Skene does not pretend to prove that he passed from England to Scotland and founded the family there. But although he does not give us details, Mr. Skene's theory can be nothing else than that Frisale, the follower of William the Conqueror, was the same who received the lands held by the family in 1109 in the south of Scotland from the Scottish monarch. Let us see how this theory will bear examination. One sentence disposes of it completely and forever. There were Frasers in possession of estates in the south of Scotland before the Battle of Hastings, and from them Gilbert Fraser, who figures in the Cospatrick Charter of 1109, was descended. Long before 1109 the family had possessions in the Lothians and Tweeddale and farther to the north. It requires no more than this statement of fact to dispose of the Roll of Battle Abbey and the Frisale whose name furnished the late Historiographer Royal of Scotland with an easy outlet from an apparently difficult position. But supposing we allow for a moment the prior occupation of the Frasers to disappear from view, and with Skene begin at 1109 with Gilbert Fraser. Even then the case for Frisale would be hopelessly weak. The Battle of Hastings was fought in 1066. From 1058 to 1093 Malcolm Ceanmor sat on the Scottish throne; he it would be, according to Skene, who gave Frisale the grant of the extensive estates of the Tweeddale Frasers. But he was the bitter foe of William the Conqueror, who supplanted Edgar Atheling, whose sister Margaret was Malcolm's Queen, and whose nephew, also named Edgar, reigned in Scotland until 1107. Is it credible that Malcolm or Donald Bane, or Duncan, or Edgar, would strip their own nobles, in times of very uncertain warfare, of their lands, in order to bestow them upon aliens, and these aliens the feudal vassals of their turbulent, warlike enemy? No careful reader of that period of Scottish history can believe that to have been possible. If it be said that Alexander I. and David I. favored Norman courtezans with grants of land on feudal titles, the answer is that Alexander mounted the throne not earlier than 1107, when the Frasers had already achieved historic prominence. While these remarks may suffice to indicate how valueless are the reasons put forward by Mr. Skene, they do not touch other theories pointing to a French origin prior to the reign of Malcolm Ceanmor. But these other theories having been rejected by Mr. Skene and his school, we may conclude that they rest their case on the statements just alluded to and disposed of.

Annalists and Clan historians have, however, gone into particulars of the Norman-French theory. According to some the name was derived from the fraise or 'strawberry' leaves in their arms, and it was related that they sprang from the Frezels of France. Others give different origins; but, before laying before you the serious objections to the Norman-French theory, it is right that I should repeat what has been in many quarters regarded as strong circumstantial evidence in its favor. I refer to the bond entered into, as late as the first part of the eighteenth century, between Simon Lord Lovat (who was beheaded) and the Marquis de la Frezelière. Lord Lovat was a fugitive in France at the time, and he was befriended by the Marquis. He wrote his life in French, afterwards translated into English and published in 1796. In it he makes the following statement:—

"The house of Frezel, or Frezeau de la Frezelière, is one of the most ancient houses in France. It ascends by uninterrupted filiation, and without any unequal alliance, to the year 1030. It is able to establish by a regular proof sixty-four quarterings in its armorial bearings, and all noble. It has titles of seven hundred years standing in the abbey of Notre Dame de Noyers in Touraine. And it is certain, that, beside these circumstances of inherent dignity, the house de la Frezelière is one of the best allied in the kingdom. It numbers among its ancestors on the female side daughters of the families de Montmorenci, de Rieux, de Rohan, de Bretagne, de la Savonniere, de la Tremouille, de la Grandiere, and de St. Germains. Through the houses de Montmorenci, de Rieux, de Rohan, and de la Tremouille, to which the Marquis de la Frezelière is nearly allied, he can trace his filiation through all the French monarchs, up to Charlemagne, King of France and Emperor of the West. Down again through the various branches of the illustrious house of France, M. de la Frezelière may, without impropriety, assert his alliance to all the royal houses and almost all the principal nobility of Europe.

"It is demonstrated by various historians, by the tradition of the two families, and from letters written from time to time from one to the other, that the house of Frezel or Frezeau de la Frezelière in France, and the house of Frezel or Fraser in Scotland, were of the same origin, and derived from the same blood. The Marquis de la Frezelière, the head and representative of the Frezels or Frezeaus in France, and Lord Lovat, the representative of the Frezels or Frasers in the north and the Highlands of Scotland, having happily encountered each other at Paris in the second journey that Lord Lovat made to France for the service of his king (1702), were therefore both of them highly gratified with the opportunity that offered itself of renewing their alliance and declaring their affinity in a common and authentic act of recognition drawn up for that purpose.

"This record was executed on the one part by the Marquis de la Frezelière himself, by the Duke de Luxembourg, the Duke de Chatillon and the Prince de Tingrie, the three worthy and illustrious children of the late Marshal de Luxembourg Montmorenci, whose heroic exploits are not less glorious and celebrated than his descent is ancient and august. Several other lords of the house of Montmorenci, the Marquis de Rieux, and many noblemen related by blood and marriage to M. de la Frezelière, joined with the Marquis in affixing their signatures to this act of recognition. On the other part it was executed by Simon Lord Lovat, Mr. John Fraser, his brother, and Mr. George Henry Fraser, Major of the Irish regiment of Bourke in the French service, for themselves, in the name of their whole family in Scotland.

"By this deed the kindred of the two houses of the Frezels or Frasers is placed out of all possible doubt. Accordingly from the moment in which it was executed the Marquis de la Frezelière regarded Lord Lovat rather as his brother and his child than as his remote relation; and had his re-establishment in Scotland nearer his heart than his own elevation in France."