[166] _Chron. Sax._ 1077. _An. Ult._ 1085. Mr. Skene (_Highlanders_, vol. i., p. 123) supposes, on the strength of a very ambiguous entry in the Ulster Annals, that a certain Donald MacMalcolm, a son or descendant of Malcolm MacMalbride, the Mormaor of Moray who died in 1029, reigned over the north of Scotland from the death of Thorfin in 1064 to his own death in 1085. It is impossible, however, that this Donald could have been the representative of Malcolm of Moray, or he must have been Mormaor of that province in place of Macbeth, Lulach, and Malsnechtan, of whom the latter died in the same year as Donald, in the peaceful possession of Moray. Neither would Donald have had any claim upon the crown, as he was not the heir of Gruoch, and it is impossible that he could have reigned over the north of Scotland for upwards of twenty years, whilst his kinsman Malsnechtan, _the real heir_, was content with the province of Moray. If the entry is correct it is just as possible that the words “Donald, son of Malcolm king of Scotland” may apply to a son of Malcolm the Third; but the word _Righ_ in the Irish Annals is very ambiguous, and ought to be translated _prince_ rather than _king_, a title which answers more to the _Ardrigh_. [167] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1079–80. _Chron. Sax._ 1079. _Fordun_, l. 5, c. 21. _Vide Appendix Q._ [168] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1087. [169] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_ 1091. _Chron. Sax._ 1091. [170] _Sim. Dun. de Gestis_, _Chron. Sax._, and _Flor. Wig., ad an._ 1091. Orderic also gives an account of this expedition--as usual a gossiping mixture of truth and absurdity. Malmsbury (l. 4, sec. 311) says that “William performed nothing worthy of his greatness, whilst he lost many of his men and baggage-horses.” Wendover, from his frequent literal transcriptions of Malmsbury, must have had this passage before him when he wrote “venientes igitur rex et frater ejus Robertus in Angliam, acies duxerunt in Scotiam, unde Malcolmus _nimio terrore percussus_ homagium regi fecit Anglorum, et fidelitatem juravit,” (vol. ii., p. 37). In a similar manner “that most authentic and valuable volume, the Book of Abingdon,” (?) expands the short sentence in which Simeon describes the abortive invasion of Scotland by Robert in 1080--“Cum pervenisset ad Egglesbreth nullo confecto negotio reversus, etc.”--into the following inflated narrative:--“Verum rex illi Lodoniis occurrens cum suis, pacisci potius quam præliari delegit. Perinde ut _regno Angliæ principatus Scotiæ_ subactus foret, obsides tribuit. Quo pacto inito Regis filius cum exercitu ad patrem hilaris repedavit” (_Vide_ _Appendix Q_). When the comparative failures of Robert and William in 1080 and 1091 are thus misrepresented--failures which were notorious, and admitted to be so by the contemporary English chroniclers--what degree of confidence can be attached to the inflated descriptions of the successes of the earlier English kings, which are