Notes:

Peter Barns-Graham of Stirnet Genealogy has pointed out ' According toTSP, Adam Forrester (Provost of Edinburgh) did not acquire Corstorphineuntil 1376. Whilst it is possible that he bought it from an earlierForrester family, it would be presumptuous of me to assume that."

I am not sure about this one. The 1734 manuscript says "Robert Munro ofFowlis married Forester daughter of the Laird of Costorfine by whom hehad..." (page 3).

I had assumed Forester was her last name but maybe it was her first, bitof an odd first name, but possible I suppose. Either way given R WMunro's warnings about the accuracy of the earlier generations maybe theunknown compiler of the manuscript made some assumptions.
In R W Munro's he talks about charters mentioning Robert, grants oflands, etc. but no comment on his wife.

Robert + (of Costorfine) Forester. (of and died. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

"The Munro Tree (1734)" "A Genealogy and Chronology of the Munro's ofFoulis and other Families of the Clan." A manuscript compiled in 1734edited with Introduction and Notes by R.W Munro. Printed for subscribers, Edinburgh 1978 (Page 3)
"Geoge Munro of Follis married a daughter of Balnagownes..."

George + (of Balnagowan) Ross. (of and died. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]

Notes:

Her first name not known.

For a while I had her tentatively as Jean (of Balnagowan) Ross daughterof Hugh (1st of Balnagown) Ross who is shown as marrying Robert (8th ofFoulis) Munro, killed 1369, in "The Earls of Ross and Their Descendants"(page 8)
But The Munro Tree (1734)" (Page 3) shows Robert's father "George Munroof Follis married a Daughter of Balnagownes by whom he had Robert..."
Robert would not be the first to marry a sister or niece of hisstep-mother, so it is not impossible, but there might be a generationalproblem as show below:

This would mean that 1st of Balnagown's
great great grandson married his
great great great great granddaughter

George (10th of Foulis) Munro, killed at Belach naborge1452
Married secondly Isobel (of Balnagowan) Ross daughter of
Alexander (6th of Balnagown) Ross, Killed in battle at Allt Charrais(Aldecharwis) 1487
(6 Generations from 1st of Balnagowan)

George (7th of Foulis) Munro, Killed July 22, 1333
Married Jean (of Balnagowan) Ross
daughter of Hugh (1st of Balnagown) Ross, died Bef. June 1371
(4 Generations from 7th of Foulis)

Douglas Hickling points out:
"I think it important to remember R. W.'s advice on page ii that it is
not wise to take seriously the information contained in the pedigree
regarding the first ten generations, which would be through George Munro
J. As you know, the 1734 pedigree says that George J married a "Daughterof Balnagownes" and was later killed defending the king and country in1333.

Hugh Ross of Rarichies and lst of Balnagowan was the son of Hugh 5th
Earl of Ross by the Earl's second wife, Margaret Graham, daughter of Sir
David Graham of Montrose. Earl Hugh's first wife, whom he married in
1308, was Lady Maud (Matilda) Bruce, sister of King Robert I. According
to Alison Weir, who agrees that Maud was Hugh's first wife, Maud died
between 1323 and 1329. The latter date coincides with the date of the
papal dispensation for Earl Hugh's second marriage, which, according to
F. N. Reid's THE EARLS OF ROSS, at 4, was "long after they were married."

If we assume that Earl Hugh remarried in 1323, the earliest year in
which his first wife may have died, their son Hugh Ross, later ofRarichies and Balnagowan, could not have been born until 1324 or laterand, in turn, his daughter Jean would not have been born until 1345 andprobably later. Since George Munro of Foulis J was killed in 1333, atleast a dozen years before Jean was born, he must be ruled out as Jean's
spouse.

Although I sometimes disagree with Some of Alexander Mackenzie's
scholarship, I do think that here he and F. N. Reid are probably right
in making Jean Ross the first wife of Robert Munro.

I would be inclined not to guess at the identification of the spouse of
George Munro J. Mackenzie says that George married a daughter of Hugh,
Earl of Ross, but he gives no support for that statement and neither F.
N. Reid nor the more recent, but less well-documented, HISTORY OF THE
CLAN ROSS by Alexander M. Ross provides any support for a union between
George Munro J and a daughter of Earl Ross. Martine of Clermont in his
Munro pedigree written between 1673 and 1697, a manuscript which is
discussed by R. W. Munro at, i - ii and which was published in 1900 by
Walter Macfarlane in his GENEALOGICAL COLLECTIONS, is silent as to thename of George's wife.

From
Douglas Hickling
Dhhic@comcast.com
516 Blair Avenue
Piedmont CA 94611
(September 2003)

Notes:

"The Munro Tree (1734)" "A Genealogy and Chronology of the Munro's ofFoulis and other Families of the Clan." A manuscript compiled in 1734edited with Introduction and Notes by R.W Munro. Printed for subscribers, Edinburgh 1978 (Page 3)

I show him as "dvp" because in R W Munro's rendering of the manuscript itsays his father Robert "went to Bannockburn quher his son George wasslain." (page 3).

The 1734 manuscript says "GEORGE Munro of Foulis married a Daughter ofKenneth Earle of Sutherland by whom he had a son George who succeeded hewas killed in Defence of his King and Countrie at the battle ofBannockburn 1314." (page 3)

Note: However R W Munro comments "...Munro chiefs said to have fallen atBannockburn and Halidon Hill in 1314 and 1333 (for whom historicalevidence is lacking)..." (page v, R W Munro).

He also says that the first eight generations (Georgius de Munro 1101 toGeorge (of Foulis) Munro 1314) are suspect. They first appear in the1734 manuscript. Older versions, one by a Fife laird, Martine ofClertmont (1635-1712) and "also a short Munro genealogy compiled in1663, covering four generations of Foulis line from Sir William to Robertmor" (pages i-ii), do not cover the gap between George (7th of Foulis)Munro & "Donald lawful son of Chief of O can (Oran) in Ireland." (page"Notes on the Title", before page 1).

"So far as I know, the MS printed in this book is the earliest and indeedthe sole authority of the eight generations - or at least eightindividuals- named between the founder Donald and the chief George saidto have been killed in 1333."..."It must be acknowledged that documentaryproof of these intervening generations is entirely lacking; severalcogent reasons can be advanced for not accepting them as authentic,..."(Page ii, R W Munro)
"These first ten generations, therefore, with all their names and datesand other attendant details, should not be taken too seriously, and cancertainly not be regarded as an established fact..."(Page ii, R W Munro).Munro suggest that that part of the 1734 manuscript is probably based onoral tradition and conjecture.
Munro says "From 1369 onwards the Munro genealogy can be fully supportedby contemporary evidence,..." (Page iii).

George + Daughter (of Sutherland) De Moravia. Daughter (daughter of Kenneth (4th Earl of Sutherland) De Moravia and Marjory\Mary of Mar) and died. [Group Sheet] [Family Chart]