In Part 1, we demonstrated that:
1) The McAuslands were not based in GlenDuglas, but at Callench in Callenachglen.
2) While we initially concluded that McAuslands were a Sept of Clan Buchanan, having since seen new evidence we have concluded that the Irish McCauslands were correct to describe the McAuslands as a Clan.
3) The Rev. Oliver MacCausland had not been recognised as Chieftain of the McAuslands by the Lord Lyon King at Arms.

In Part 2, we looked at sources which suggested that:
4) The Rev. Oliver MacCausland was the senior male representative of the Irish line of McAuslands, and
5) He also appeared to be descended from one of the McAusland Barons.

In this third instalment, we will attempt to identify this unnamed Baron McAuslane.

While it is very difficult to be certain, our analysis suggests that he may have been Patrick McAusland, 21st Baron of Caldenoch in our reckoning, that Andrew was actually one Patrick’s younger brothers, and that Alexander was the third son of Baron Patrick and was Andrew’s nephew rather than his son.

Who Was The Unnamed Baron McAuslane from whom the Irish McCausland claim descent?

According to the PRONI tree, the ancestor of the Irish McAuslanes was:

“Baron McAuslane of Glendouglas in Dumbartonshire: Chieftain of the Clan and last who assumed the title. vix ^t temp. Jac. I of England.“

The statement is rather confusing for several reasons.

1) As noted in Part 1, the McAusland Barons were based not in Glendouglas but at Callanach in Callanachglen.

2) In this seres, we initially concluded that McAuslands were a Sept of Clan Buchanan, but having since seen new evidence we have since concluded that the Irish McCauslands were correct to describe the McAuslands as a Clan.

3) The Baron McAuslane cited in the PRONI tree was certainly not the last. The last Baron McAusland, the 24th in our reckoning, was Alexander McAusland. He was first named in a document dated 20th May 1664, in the reign of King Charles II, when he inherited the Barony from his father, John. ⁽¹⁾ Alexander was the last Baron because he had no surviving son, only a daughter as heiress. The McAusland lands (and with them the title of Baron) were mortgaged to their feudal superior, the Baron of Colquhoun & Luss, and the mortgage was never redeemed. This resulted in the McAusland Barony becoming an integral part of the Barony of Luss.
_{(1) This document was a Sasine of the £8 land of Caldenoch, Prestellach, Innerquhonlanes and Craigfad, in Dunbartonshire, to Alexander McCauslane as eldest lawful son and heir of the late John McC of Caldenoch, on a precept of clare constat by Sir John Colquhoun of Luss, signed at Rosdhu, 16 May 1664.)}

4) According to the tree, the unnamed Baron seemingly assumed his title in “vix ^t temp Jac. I of England“. This is very specific, and perhaps significant, but once again confusing.
It appears to refer to a specific year in the reign of King James VI of Scotland. He reigned as King of Scots from 24th July 1567 until 27th March 1625. However, he also succeeded Queen Elizabeth I on 24th March 1603 to rule as King of England and Ireland, in addition to Scotland, in a personal union.
“vix ^t temp” presumably refers to a year in James’ reign as as King of England and Ireland. However, the format used is not standard.

If vi = 6 and x=10 it could be 16, but the proper form would be XVI.

If v=5 and ix = 9 it could be 14, but the proper form would be XIV.

Therefore, the format might refer to a Baron McAusland who assumed his title in the 14th or 16th year of James Stuart’s reign as King of England & Ireland, i.e. March 1616 to March 1617 or March 1618 to 1619.

Did A Baron McAusland Succeed Between 1616 and 1619?

The answer, rather surprisingly, is yes.

Patrick McAusland, 21st Baron of Caldenoch in our reckoning, died in August 1616, in the 14th year of James Stuart’s reign as King of England & Ireland.

The text above reads:
“THE Testament testa[menta]r and Jnuentar of the guid[is] geir debt[is] and sowmes of mo[n]ey q[uhi]lk[is] p[er]tenit to vmq[uhi]le Patrik mccauslane in Caldonoche w[i]t[h]in the p[ar]ochin of Luss the tyme of his deceis. Quha deceist in the moneth of August the [y]eir of god jajvj c/ & saxtein [y]eiris. Faythfullie Maid & gevin vp be his awin mouth as his La[tte]rwill & testament of the date vnderw[ritt]in mair fullelie proport[is].“
Transcript Copyright Abbotshall Palaeography. Used with permission.

The text can be summarised as:
“The testament testamentar and inventory of the movable estate of the late Patrik Mccauslane in Caldonoche, in the parish of Luss at the time of his death, who died in August 1616. Faithfully made and given up by himself verbally.“
Summary Copyright Abbotshall Palaeography. Used with permission.

However, Patrick’s eldest son and heir, John McAusland, Younger Caldenoch, had seemingly either pre-deceased him (i.e. before August 1616), or had died by the time that the testament was proved (the Scottish legal equivalent of probate) on 11th November 1617.

Therefore, it appears that Baron Patrick was succeeded by his grandson Patrick, the eldest son and heir of John McAusland, Younger of Caldenoch, who became the 22nd Baron in our reckoning.

However, as his parents appear to have married on 2nd August 1611, this Patrick must have been under five years old when he succeeded his grandfather in 1616.

So, it seems impossible that Patrick, 22nd Baron (born after 2nd August 1611), could be the grandfather of the Alexander McAusland (perhaps born sometime between 1600 and 1610) who served with Oliver Cromwell in Ireland in the campaign of 1649.

Can We Make Sense Of Any Of This?

Perhaps?

If firstly we make the assumption that the mention of a Baron who assumed the title sometime between 1616 and 1619 is correct.

And secondly if we make the assumption that the ancestor of the Irish McAuslands was the Baron who died (rather than succeeded) sometime between 1616 and 1619.

We might then come to the conclusion that the ancestor of the Irish McAuslands could have been Patrick McAuslane, 21st Baron of Caldenoch in our reckoning, who died in August 1616.

Was Patrick McAuslane, 22nd Baron of Caldenoch, the Ancestor of the Irish McAuslands?

While the evidence is not conclusive or entirely convincing, it does seem possible that Patrick McAusland, 21st Baron of Caldenoch in our reckoning, was the progenitor of the Irish Branch of McAuslands.

If the PRONI tree is correct, then Patrick McAusland, 21st Baron of Caldenoch in our reckoning, may have had a son, named Andrew, who emigrated to Ireland.

However, at this point it is also worth returning to the theory advanced by Brian Anton that the Alexander McCausland who served with Cromwell was Baron Patrick’s son, rather than is generally believed, his brother.

For full details of this theory, read the full article via the link below.

The Colhouns of Crosh, Part 2: The McCausland Connection

We also proposed that Andrew McAusland was the brother of Baron Patrick, but as he and his nephew Alexander appear to have both emigrated to Ireland, as with other cases such as the Philps, Andrew and Alexander were later assumed to be father and son, rather than uncle and nephew.

It has also been proposed that Alexander named his second son Andrew after his uncle and Saint Andrew of Scotland rather than his father Patrick in order to avoid the assumption that he had been named for Saint Patrick of Ireland – something that might not appear to a Scots Plantion Settler in a largely Catholic Ireland.

Conclusion

We now believe that it is likely that:

1. The unnamed Baron at the top of the PRONI tree was Patrick McAusland, 21st Baron of Caldenoch in our reckoning, who died in August 1617.
2. That Andrew, who appears as Baron Patrick’s son in the PRONI tree, was actually one of Baron Patrick’s younger brothers.
3. That Alexander, who appears as Andrew’s son in the PRONI tree was actually Baron Patrick’s third son and Andrew’s nephew, but as Andrew and Alexander both emigrated to Ireland, later generations assumed they were father and son.
4. As the Irish McAuslands were descended from the third son of Baron Patrick, they were a junior branch of the family, with no obvious claim to be Chieftains.

In Part 4, we will review what we know regarding the first McAusland settlers in Ireland.

Thanks to Brian Anton, Matthew Gilbert, Michael Barr, Dave McCausland and others for helpful discussions and sharing their research.