John Livingston of Callendar (-14 September 1402)

Same as
Additional names
Parents
Father:1Sir William Livingston of Callendar (-before 30 November 1364), Sheriff of Lanark
Mother:2Christian de Callendar (-)
Spouses and relationship events
Married:3(Unknown) Menteith (-)
Married:41381Agnes Douglas (-not before 1422)
Contract dated 15 August 1381.
Children
Children with (Unknown) Menteith:
Sir Alexander Livingston of Callendar (-1451)5
Robert Livingston (-)6
John Livingston (-)7
James Livingston (-)8
Children with Agnes Douglas:
Sir Henry Livingston (-), Preceptor of Torphichen9
William Livingston of Kilsyth (1459-), 1. Laird of Kilsyth10
Attributes
Events
Died:1114 September 1402Humbleton(Homildon) [city/town], Northumberland [county], England [country], United Kingdom [country]
He was killed at the battle of Homildon Hill.
Personal Info
He is stated by the Peerage writers to have been the son of the previous Laird, but it is more probable that he was a younger brother. He had succeeded to the family estates before his second marriage in 1381, and was knighted between that date and 13 February 1389-90, when he appears with the title as an arbiter in a dispute between the Abbot of Cambuskenneth and William Fentoun. In the Act of Parliament passed in January 1399, appointing the Duke of Rothesay King's Lieutenant for three years, Sir John Livingston is named as one of the Duke's Council. He appears to have been among the feudal Barons whose support to the Crown was secured by the payment of annuities out of the Royal Exchequer. Sir John was one of the auditors of the accounts of custumars and bailies in the beginning of July 1402, and of the account of Robert, Duke of Albany, Chamberlain of Scotland, on the 13 of the same month.12
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 V: (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1908), Linlithgow, p. 423-24, William Livingston.
2 Ibid
3 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. 425-26, John Livingston.
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 VI: (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1909), Morton, p. 344-50, James Douglas.
5 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. 425-26, John Livingston.
6 Ibid
7 Ibid
8 Ibid
9 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 IX Index: (Edinburgh: David Douglas, 1914), p. 128, Linlithgow, "p. 426".
10 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. 425-26, John Livingston.
11 Ibid
12 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.