The "ancestral homelands", so to speak, for my family surname, would
most certainly stand as the small MidWestern community of Abilene
Kansas. It is where my father grew to maturity, and his father grew to
maturity, and where his father's father emigrated with the family in the
big westward push at the close of the Civil War. I know this from my
curiosity, which drew me into family genealogy, following a visit to the
cemetery where many of my unknown ancestors' remains reside.
This penchant for knowing where I came from led me to a possible
connection to the Scottish aristocracy of the 18th century. I stumbled
across one ancestral link, which opened the doorway to a flood of
noblemen. One particular individual who stood out, amongst this flurry
of Lords and Ladies, was Lady Jean Douglas. She had a story worthy of a
book, which Percy Hetherington Fitzgerald took pen to hand to write at
the turn of the 20th century.
Naturally, if an ancestor of mine had a book written about them, I want
to read it. The connection I presumed here now seems a bit dubious;
nevertheless, the story of Lady Jean Douglas remains a fascinating
account to retell.
In attempting to do so, I will not presume the role of historian.
History is an avid interest of mine; but comprehending the various
practices of different generations, and even different of countries, as
is the case here, stands as a fruitless pursuit to one not so schooled.
Thus, I will attempt to structure my comments within the context of the
story itself.
For example, the premise of the tale revolves around the inheritance of
the Duke of Douglas, Lady Jean's brother. In this day and age, we do
not revolve about the transfer of titles, or moneys, or lands as they
clearly did amongst the aristocracy several centuries back. There
exists our own stealth aristocracy, and people benefit from inheritances
frequently, but the problem which propels this story forward would
never occur within our society today. People leave their sustenance to
whomever they deem fit. There is no rite of succession; no one searches
for the mandatory male heir, which stands as the dilemma for the Duke.
The Duke never married, therefore he had no offspring. Lady Jean, the
sister whom he doted over and provided for, while acquiring many suitors
for her hand, from her affable charm and great beauty, neither was she
married nor engaged in any promising relationships.
Why neither opted to follow the pattern of the times and enter into a
marriage compact is a bit of the mystery that makes this story so
compelling. What makes it take off is when Lady Jean finally does marry
- after the bounty of youthful zeal begins to fade - she joins herself
to a cousin, John Stewart, known "Colonel" Stewart - though any claim to
that title is tenuous at best.
Fitzgerald infers a rather dubious character upon Colonel Stewart, which
may indeed have been the case, without labeling him a vile person. He,
apparently, rose not to the levels of the aristocracy of that day,
which made this union with Lady Jean so curious. Someone of Lady Jean's
calibre marrying a person less noble and more vulgar was something of a
puzzle.
It was at some point following their marriage that Lady Jean and Colonel
Stewart traveled to France. During this time spent in France, word is
sent back to Scotland she has given birth to twin boys. Normally, such
would be a cause for great celebration. The Duke finally has his heirs.
His Dukedom can be passed onto his nephews. However, the entire
episode of the births is greeted with overt suspicion. The Duke, along
with multitudes of others who hear of the story, believe it is all
nothing more than a ruse. Lady Jean and Colonel Stewart journeyed to
France for the stealth purpose of acquiring a child, if not roe, for
them claim as their own, and thus produce the heir.
So goes the tale of this book. It is a most compelling read, despite
the manner in which Percy Fitzgerald writes: his style can be a but
esoteric, using the vernacular from his turn-of-the-century era; and his
one-sided approach condemning Lady Jean as producing false heirs can
make one question this conclusion, simply on the basis of little to no
evidence to the contrary. He does relay the declarations, of both Lady
Jean and Colonel Stewart, adamantly stating both boys were their
legitimate children; though the brunt of the story is laded with one
piece of circumstantial evidence after the next proclaiming it all a
ruse. I am personally inclined to accept this judgment as truth, being
that the preponderance of this evidence is overwhelming, and history has
apparently accepted the same, if not for the absence of defense for
Lady Jean and Colonel Stewart. What was their side of the story? How
would they have answered every accusation? As a reader, that much I
would have like to have known.
0 comments:
Post a Comment