Helen Hay (-)

Same as
Additional names
Parents
Father:1Andrew Hay (-8 October 1585), 8. Earl of Erroll
Mother:2Jean Hay (1540-August 1570)
Spouses and relationship events
Married:31584Alexander Livingston (-24 December 1621), 1. Earl of Linlithgow
Contract dated 26 and 31 January 1583-84.
Children
Children with Alexander Livingston:
Alexander Livingston (-1645), 2. Earl of Linlithgow4
Anna Livingston (-12 November 1632)5
John Livingston (-before 14 February 1614), Master of Livingston6
James Livingston (-), 1. Earl of Callendar7
Margaret Livingston (-)8
Attributes
Events
Personal Info
Groups
Issues

Sources

1 Sir James Balfour Paul, Lord Lyon King of Arms, The Scots Peerage Founded on Wood's Edition of Sir Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland Containing an Historical and Genealogical Account of the Nobility of that Kingdom, volume III: (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1906), Erroll, p. 571-74, VIII Andrew Hay.
2 Ibid
3 Ibid
4 Sir James Balfour Paul, Lord Lyon King of Arms, The Scots Peerage Founded on Wood's Edition of Sir Robert Douglas's Peerage of Scotland Containing an Historical and Genealogical Account of the Nobility of that Kingdom, volume V: (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1908), Linlithgow, p. 443-46, VII Alexander Livingston.
5 Ibid
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
certainlyThe information is supported by primary sources.
probablyThe information is supported by secondary sources which is most likely based on primary sources.
possiblyIt is unclear if the secondary source cited is based on primary sources, or the information is an assumption well supported by other evidence.
likelyThe information is only found in secondary sources with questioned quality, or there is a reason to suspect the information is wrong. Or the information is a likely assumption based on other evidence.
apparentlyThe information is doubtful and poorly documented, but still most likely correct.
perhapsThe information might be correct or it might be wrong. It is not supported by any trustworthy sources. It might me an assumption.
disprovedThe information is proven to be wrong.