: Bit more on this dong-dang William Chancellor of Scotland
: that everyone seems to want to be descended from:
: William had a very brief tenure as Chancellor - at
: most 3 years (and they happened to be plague times!).
: What I have read is that he died with no male heirs!
: (That fixed 'em!)

Here's where I think it gets a little interesting. Although the heir to the estate was a female, wasn't there also younger son who received "Little" Caldwell? I can't remember this early in the morning which was which; Easter v. Wester Caldwell.

The connection of WofS (I like that ) to William, Lord Chancellor is made by RM Sibert in "History of Ireland" ca. 1858. Now, was he correct in 1858? Maybe yes, maybe no, which is why I always qualify as "said to be".

: His heiress is supposed to have married a Mure who
: inherited the Caldwell property on the
: Ayrshire/Renfrew border. End of the direct Caldwell
: connection.
: Straiton is way down south in Southern Ayrshire and a
: whole different ball-game - there was about 300 years
: and probably 12 generations to filter down to get to
: William of Straiton. Straiton is up a valley and
: probably not a wealthy property area in general so
: William of Straiton was possibly no more than a tenant
: farmer or even a tradesman.

Fair enough. Hell, I come from a family of farmers, with relatives still farming 5,000 acres on the original 1855 Iowa family homestead.

: I think it is a very long bow to try and suggest that
: WofS is descended from The Chancellor.
: We have to know and believe that the Caldwell's were
: pretty thick on the ground pre-1600's. I am starting
: to think it might mean "Smith".

If there's no connection, I wouldn't be suprised or disappointed either way.

I wonder if DNA results in our modern age would help to determine the question of origins, but an interesting thought, neverthelesss.

I think that it's pretty safe to suggest that if I, for example, was "John of the Beach" and in Mexico there was a "Playa del Juan", and each of us were the first in our locale to use this name, wouldn't we both be the "original" "John Beach" respective to our locations? Then it becomes a contest of who is actually documented first.

Now, if Juan was more educated than John and could read and write, Juan may be the first "Playa" of record, although John may have been known as "Beach" for a year or two before Juan was recorded anywhere. Which is the "original"?

Although Juan is a good Catholic, John breeds like a bunny, and before you know it, there are more "Beachs" than there are "Playas", and although some "Beachs" may move to other locations, there is an abundance of "Beachs" living near where John first used the name. On the other hand, there really is no concentration of "Playas" near where Juan first put the name to use.

Let me put this thought forward;

How can Caldwell be an "anglicized" spelling of the Anglo "caeld weille" or even "Colville" when "Caldwelle", "Caldwaellen", "Cauldwell", or "Calwell" would make for a better argument? Maybe there's a good explanation, but I'm just clowning around here.

I think that some weight should also be given to the large amount of information regarding Caldwells in Scotland compared to Caldwells in England, as well as "Caldwell" being tied to Clan Hamilton in English records. (Sorry, for the life of me I just can't remember what the guy is called who tracks this stuff in the UK - some official title, "To the Queen" sorta thing).

Then again, maybe you're right, and "Caldwell" is just an ancient term for "Smith".