The Jamesone ~ King James Legend - An Analysis

There has long been a legend amongst all Jam?sons, that there once were two illegitimate sons of King James I of Scotland, with the surname Jamesone, who were ship owners and mariners at Aberdeen. King James gave them the task to arm their ships for an expedition against Norwegians, Pirates and others of the King's enemies, which at that time had infested the north coast of Scotland. They were both successful in their expedition and did good service for the country. In his appreciation and gratitude of this, King James I granted them Armorial Bearings : A Shield with three Anchors divided by a Fese wavy - For a crest a Roman Galley armed, with sails spread and flags displayed proper - The Motto: Sine metu ad Littora tendid (Without Fear he Defends the Coast) - This the brothers divided, one adopting the first part, the other the second part.[1] Sometimes, this legend included that their mother was a Janet (Jonat) Gunn, a concubine of the King.

Suffice to say, we do not know who these Jamresone brothers of Aberdeen actually were, nor if any other part of the above legend is true and accurate. Typical of most legends, very little validation of this tale can be found or even otherwise verified. It is our intention to more thoroughly research this legend in an effort to document what is factual and plausible, or what might be false or just not verifiable.

Our understanding of this legend comes primarily from mid nineteenth century documents[2] held by descendants of the Jameson Whiskey Family in Ireland and other references, including several genealogies, which also may be based, at least in part, on these same Jameson family papers. The Jameson Whiskey family documents seem to been correspondence between various members of that family attempting to determine what, if any, arms might be appropriate for their own use. It was after this time that a coat of arms, although without explanation and which are quite different from what was discussed in the documents, began to appear in various forms, including at least two very exquisite stained glass panels, with several members of the family.[3] These 1852 and 1905 documents include an earlier drawing of a Jameson arms and an explanation of where they came from, which is (so far) the earliest manifestation (prb-1820-1832) of what we know of as the "King James legend." This earlier explanation is referenced as correspondence with Reverend Dr. John Jamieson, of Edinburgh, "a cultivated Antiquary of his time"[4] and appears to have actually been with John Jameson (1740-1823) himself.[5] Unfortunately, nothing in these 'Whiskey Jameson' documents references where the Rev. Dr. John Jamieson got his information to begin with. One might speculate it came from within the Lord Lyon Court records, where the rights to those arms would have been granted and maybe explained?

It is important to acknowledge and strongly emphasize that this "earliest" known rendition of the "legend" does NOT say that these mariner Jamesone brothers of Aberdeen (who eventually were bestowed Arms) were children (illegitimate or otherwise) of King James I, or anyone else for that matter. Nor is there any mention of any Janet Gunn or of any maternal, let alone paternal, connections. Just as importantly, it does NOT actually say that King James himself directed them to "Fit Out" or "Arm" their ships, it only says that this should be done. Furthermore, King James 1st, is only mentioned in general and then only as the time frame as: "In the time of King James 1st, King of Scotland, etc., etc."[2]

King James I (1394-1437), was known to have a serious interest in all things nautical and apparently he was also interested in shipbuilding.[6] However, Aberdeen is said, not to have had a shipyard of merit, until the beginning of the seventeenth century.[7] So any ship, that was part of the legend, would likely have been built in Leith. The "legend" only says that King James directed the Jamesone brothers "arm their ships," suggesting their ships already existed for other purposes.

it should probably be also noted here that we can not find any record that King James I (1394-1437) actually ever visited Aberdeen. This is not something stated or implied in the "legend" (any version), nor is it anything that should necessarily have any implications on any interpretation or assumptions of, or within the legend. It was, in apparently this the oldest known version, much simpler than found in more recent accounts.

It is highly unlikely that the brothers Jamesone were children of any King James and even more unlikely that their mother was a concubine named Janet Gunn (and all that that implies). First and foremost, is that there has been a significant amount of research and documentation regarding the marriages and children, legal and illegitimate, with all of the various King James' of Scotland, none of which include even a whisper of a Janet/Jonat Gunn, nor for that matter any illegitimate children unaccounted for. Secondly, historians with the Clan Gunn, claim they have no knowledge whatsoever of any Janet Gunn, or any other Gunn involvement, with any Kings of Scotland, concubine or otherwise. This part of these more recent "legends" just do not seem plausible or reasonable and are very probably, not likely true. Unfortunately, it is the addition of these more recent embellishments that make this "legend" so much more attractive and interesting. Yet they alone are also, if not true, what gives the telling of an otherwise generally great accomplishment, diminished credibility.

The existence of these two Jamesone brothers is essential to this legend as they are at it's very foundation. Even though we don't actually know who they are, this part has to be assumed true, or must at least taken as given and can not be disputed. Another thing we do know about the details of this legend, is that this coat of arms as described in the legend, still exists today, for which there are multiple examples of it's use, both officially and unofficially, verifiably going way back at least all the way to the early 1600s.[8] There can be no doubt this would have come from some earlier Jamesone existence, without which there could not have been a Jamesone involved. The earliest recorded mention of any Jam?sons in Aberdeen we have found, was a Johannes Jamison in 1400, in the Aberdeen Burgh Records,[9] about as early as any records available. In fact, between 1400 and 1511 there were numerous mentions of Jam?sons of various names and spellings. Some of these Jam?sons appear to have been well-known citizens, active in Aberdeen life, others are mentioned only briefly.[10] So, it is an easy call to believe there could have even been Jamesone mariners, in this port city of Aberdeen, that could very well have been those of this legend. It is just that we do not know who exactly they might have been, although it would be safe to assume they were somehow related to the Jamesones we can find there later, in the sixteenth century.

According to the legend, this all took place during the time of King James 1st, which should then date stamp the legend's time frame as within his life time (1394-1437), that however, might just be a red herring as King James IV of Scotland (1473-1513), was also King James I of England and these two guys are often confused and sometimes substituted for each other. So, if this all took place under King James I (where both kings were involved), the Jamesone brothers involvement could have actually been anywhere from the original, born 1394, to the latter King James, who died in 1513, and just not all of the activities were with the actual 'original' King James I (1394-1437), who had died long before the problem with the Norwegians and Pirates was actually solved.

Can the legend be trusted as to the stated, actually implied, time period? Perhaps the most important part with verifying this part, might then be with an examination and understanding of the coordinated time-line of events. Could this have actually occurred within the parameters of what is actually stated in the legend, or does it need some interpertation of the legend to make things work?

There are several known instances of problems and conflicts with Norwegians and pirates off the northern coast of Scotland from the 8th century to the mid-15th century. The islands (Orkney and Shetlands, etc.), were originally settled by Vikings and under the control of Norwegians and other Scandinavian countries thereafter. This area was referred to as Scandinavian Scotland during those times. Norse control at one point extended to much of the Scottish west coast and the Hebride. However, within three years of the battle at Largs in 1263, Norse control was confined mostly to the Orkney and Shetland Islands. In 1231, an unbroken line of Norse earls of Orkney ended and the title was since held by Scottish nobles. Scottish influence continued to increase from the 13th century on.[11]

The Norse held sway in Shetland for another 200 years. An ill-fated expedition by the Norwegian King Haakon Haakonarson later in that century, led to the relinquishing of the islands of the west to the Scottish Crown and in the mid-15th century Orkney and Shetland were also transferred to Scottish rule, this primarily as the result of a marriage treaty in 1468 between James III of Scotland and Margaret, a Danish princess. The Danish struggled to raise the funds for Margaret’s dowry, so that first Orkney and then Shetland were mortgaged to Scotland. Shetland was annexed to Scotland in 1471 and, although the Danish repeatedly tried to have the islands returned to them, the Privy Council in Edinburgh did not agree to their requests.[12]

King James I (1394-1437) had died in 1437, too early to be considered any solution with the Norwegians and Pirates as complete and therefore for him to have been the one to have bestowed any arms to them for these accomplishments. This however, is not necessarily a deal breaker, there are other possible explanations. It all comes down to when exactly the mariner Jamesone brothers and which Scottish Kings were involved with any of this and when. It could have been that none of this had anything to do with King James I, or maybe it started with him and then it was finished up with King James II (1430-1460), or even more likely so with King James III (1451-1488), the one who bestowed any laurels (Armorial Bearings). It also could have been that the Jamesone brothers involvement was indeed with just King James 1st, as specifically stated in the earliest version and that their part began and ended within the time he was still alive and not as late as the final solution in 1468.

So, do we then interpret this legend to have taken place during the period beginning with King James 1st, somewhere in the fairly early 1400s, say after 1406, when he became King and concluding maybe as late as about 1470, or so, time period when the Viking, Norwegian and Scandinavian influence and troubles in northern Scotland, finally ended? Or, does the legend refer to a more abbreviated time frame that only included the (unknown) Jamesone brothers involvement and not any actual conclusion or the problem with the Norwegians and Pirates. As the legend seems to say when it begins with: "In the time of King James the 1st?"

Possible ambiguity within this part of the legend may not really be all that important. Most of the legend is plausible and the part about the King being involved (which and when) is reasonable, even probable, just not necessarily precise or comprehensive. Therefore, the time frame part of the legend has to be considered confusing and perhaps inaccurate. However, this does not completely rule out the legend itself, as "not true" but does realistically make some parts of it questionable and maybe doubtful, at least as it was reported by Dr. John Jamieson in his correspondence with the John Jameson, which remember, was over three centuries after the fact. However, because much of the other core parts of the (original) legend report, are plausible, the confusion and any doubts about the time frame must at least be given some leeway. The legend does, for the most part, fit the general circumstances.

There is also a different possibility, similar perhaps and in a little later time period, although still in the timeframe of a King James. This one well documented in history. According to a passage in the book "The Port of Aberdeen[13]" and elsewhere, in 1475 "Three ships were fitted out in Aberdeen, for service of the King" and in the same year another ship was "furnished with guns, ammunition and the vessel manned by 24 young men of the town." It is not clear the purpose of this, nor of any Jam?son involvement, though it is said that the people of Aberdeen apparently funded this project. This would have been after the issue with the Norwegians and Pirates was solved and during the time of King James III (1451-1488).

This however, seems to have apparently coincided with the King's (King James III) visit to Aberdeen and some have speculated that ship described above with arms and men was probably meant to be part or a squadron intended to convoy the King to England, where he was to meet with his uncle King Henry the VIII.[14]

This could be an entirely new angle and plausible explanation and entirely possible, although of an entirely different scenario that we have been assuming. It is not as romantic, or exciting as the original, but it is almost as interesting, although in a completely different way. Much of this latter incident doesn't seem to rise to the stature of any legend and of course there is the question of arms as reward for what? However, the possibility that it might be the basis for an over embellished legend, should not be summarily or completely ignored.

Interestingly, one of the Jam?sons mentioned in the early Aberdeen Burgh Records was identified in year 1485 passages as "skippar Robert Jamesone" and "schip of Robert Jamesone." Others also mentioned in that same year were Thomas Jamesone, Johannes Jamesone, Ronaldus Jamesone, and Androu Jamesoun. Some, perhaps all of these people may have been involved the the earlier or later events. Clearly they were contemporaries and it would be reasonable to suggest they may have been related, although that can not be proven without further study.[9]

We know that the coat of arms exists, even today, and is exactly as described by Rev. Jamieson, in the "legend" all those years ago.[8] We have independent proof of their existence as long ago as in the early 1600s, before Rev. Jamieson was even around. Specifically, the same arms are associated with George Jamesone (1587-1644), also of Aberdeen, Scotland. The Rev. Jamieson does not explain where his information came from, but it is quite is plausible it could have come from the official Lord Lyon Court, responsible for issuing and registering these arms, for this person. Nothing in Rev. Jamieson's explanation would have contradicted or have been outside the parameters of what the Lord Lyon Court might have provided.

Curiously, this George Jameson had a younger brother, William Jamesone (1591-1632), who also had his own coat of arms, and although entirely different than George's (unusual where brothers would each have arms that are entirely different) are themselves a design equally as old as were George's. Each of these different arms reappear with various other Jam?son families, ever since.[8] It should be noted and acknowledged that these two Jamesone brother's arms were dominated with nautical features (ships and anchors, both in the shields and the crests) but neither of these Jamesones had anything known to do with nautical issues or maritime businesses or occupations, whatsoever. This would strongly suggest that neither of these two Jamesones were themselves the root of the legend (NOT the mariners of Aberdeen the legend describes), but were more likely using, for some unknown reason to us now, arms that had been previously used by someone else. It might however, suggest that two different sets of arms were (if the "legend" is true) awarded and they then mimicked in subsequent generations, including these latter Jamesones, George and William. For the record, the parents and siblings of these two brothers are known, and not likely mariners themselves either. Andro Jameson, the father, was a Mason and Burgess of his Guild. Nor do we know anything about their ancestors connecting them perhaps - as they would be then more in the correct time frame, to those of the "legend."

Although we do not know if it has any connection or relevance to the legend, but a coat of arms design, known to be associated with William Jameson (1691-1632),[15] is widely reported to have been associated with some Jamesons (we don't know who or when, although this was quite likely much later (eighteenth century)) in Leith, Scotland.

Nowadays, there seems to be many other people displaying these arms, as well. Some of these officially,[8] others probably not so much. Unfortunately, we have not been able to connect any of the more modern similar arms with the George or William Jamesone family, or with those original "legend" Jamesone brothers, whoever they were.

It would seem that we may never know the exact original specifics that make up this legend, although the basics we do know, seem to suggest it was quite possible. Unless a yet unknown document exists and can help explain more details we may never know for sure. Perhaps a proper (and what would be extensive and difficult) search of the Lord Lyon's records for the original award (the Armorial Bearings), if one exists, will reveal more details.

We welcome and encourage any additional information, or comments, from anyone interested in this issue. We would also be interested in hearing from anyone descended, or thinks they are descended from either of these two brothers of Aberdeen, as well as anyone using or descended from those who have been awarded or uses these arms. Please contact us.

- please contact us regarding any broken links - or - to recommend additional content -