George (of Foulis) Munro^[1]

- 1314

• Name	George (of Foulis) Munro
  Gender	Male
  Death	1314	Battle Of Bannockburn. Dvp
  Person ID	I148287	First tree
  Last Modified	19 Aug 2013

  
  

  Family ID

  F24299

  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) 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).

  
  

• Sources

  [S2822] .