#earldom of Menteith | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

scotianostra · 2 years

Text

On March 16th 1309 King Robert the Bruce convened his first parliament, at St Andrews.

After the Declaration of the Clergy in February the King was starting to establish himself as the recognised Monarch of Scotland, this was a significant point in his reign.

I’ve said it before, most recently with the post in February on the Declaration of the Clergy, these were tools used to send a message to England that the Scots were functioning normally, propaganda tools. The same tools are still being used nowadays, only in a modern way, you just have to look Ukraine and President Zelenskyy, with his daily updates and speaking at other countries parliaments via video links, he is sending out a message to the Russians that Ukraine is still functioning, much in the same way Scotland let other countries know that we continued to repel the English Usurpers, Edward I’s death two years before must have been encouraging for Bruce, Longshanks son was certainly not a warrior like his father. The most famous piece of propaganda we sent out was The Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, although the first of note from Scotland was The Lübeck letter in 1297.

The Bruce was still trying to unite the Scots against their common enemy, the meeting of parliament, therefore, was a useful means of engineering declarations of support for the king, or of manipulating collective decision-making. At this time, the Scottish magnates sent a letter to King Philip IV of France in response to his request for assistance in a crusade. The Scots replied expressing their support for Bruce as king, reminding Philip of Scotland’s devastation by war, and promised help when peace was achieved.

The letter reads:

“Letters: by the magnates of Scotland to Philip IV, king of France.

To the most Christian and triumphant prince and reverend lord the lord Philip [IV] by the grace of God illustrious king of the French, William, earl of Ross, Malcolm, earl of Lennox, William, [earl of Suther]land, and the communities of the earldoms of Fife, Menteith, Mar, Buchan and Caithness, the heirs of which are in ward, likewise the communities of all the other earldoms of the kingdom of Scotland [except]† [D]unbar; Edward de Bruce, lord of Galloway, James the steward of Scotland, Alexander de Argyll, Donald de Islay, John de Menteith, Hugh, the son and heir of the earl [of Ross]†, Gilbert de Hay, constable of Scotland, Robert de Keith, marischal of Scotland, Thomas Randolph, lord of Nithsdale, James, lord of Douglas, Alexander de Lindsay, Alexander de [Fraser], [William] Wiseman, David de Barclay, Robert Boyd, barons; and also all of Argyll and the Hebrides and the inhabitants of all the kingdom of Scotland recognising the fealty of the lord Robert by the grace of God king of Scotland, all [… … ….] Your credence having been revealed to us in writing, and having been fully understood [by us], in the full parliament of our lord the king solemnly held not long ago at the city of St Andrews, impressed upon our minds the joyfulness of [your] devot[ion] [… … ….] For we conclude that your majesty’s mind is devoutly disposed to take on the business of the Holy Land, to prosecute which all followers of the Christian faith justly ought to strive and with humble devotion incline their hearts [… … …,] we saw that it was contained [in your letter] that your royal grace considers and calls to mind the treaties between the kingdoms of France and Scotland, made long ago and confirmed; also the losses, harms and injuries which the inhabitants of the kingdom [… … …] have suffered in many ways hitherto. The particular and special affection which, in that credence, you say you have towards the person of our lord Robert by the grace of God king [of Scots … …] [whom] justice and truth and the grace of the King of Kings has raised up as our prince and leader, cheers our hearts above all else. We therefore noting, with heartfelt feelings, the aforesaid, as we are bound in duty to do [… … …] [?commend] your right royal devotion towards the business of the Holy Land, and for the affection which you have towards our lord the king, and we return thanks as best we can to your majesty for restoring the liberties and rights of the kingdom of Scotland, praying to God that ‘by the bowels of mercy of Jesus Christ’ that you may bring to fulfilment the devout purpose which you have conceived in your mind, trough our Lord’s inspiration in relation to the aforesaid, with holy desire, and efficacious eagerness and a safe outcome. May your royal majesty deign to take note, with pious mind, that in the exaltation of Christian princes the name of Christ is extolled and the Catholic faith strengthened. If, therefore, the standing of our lord [the king whom] we say unanimously is [… … …], is exalted and the kingdom of Scotland returns to its former free condition, the tempests of war having been quelled and secure peace having been granted, then your royal highness will be able to have as supporters to achieve the end of your desire, the service of God, and to come to your help, not only our lord the king aforesaid, but also the inhabitants of his kingdom as best they are able. And as [evidence of] the aforesaid things [… …] clearly these letters sealed by our seals were commanded to be sent patent to your highness. Written and given at the city of St Andrews in Scotland 16 March 1308 [1309] and in the third year of our lord King Robert’s [reign].

I know it’s not an easy read, but I have taken this straight from the web page of The Records of the Parliament of Scotland here https://www.rps.ac.uk/trans/1309/2 . Check the side bar for more records from 1308, when an assembly was held and William, earl of Ross, recorded his act of homage to Robert I before an assembly of prelates and nobles.

The second photo is a Letter by the magnates of Scotland regarding the right of King Robert I to the Crown of Scotland, 16 March 1309, an extract reads:

… we see it contained that royal gratitude reflects on and brings back to mind the alliances formerly existing and maintained between the kingdoms of France and Scotland and the losses, sufferings and trials which the inhabitants of the kingdom have hitherto so much endured. Our minds are cheered, above all, by the extraordinary and peculiar affection which… you say you have for the person of lord Robert, by the grace of God our lord king, who has been raised up as our leader and prince by right and truth and by the justice and grace of the King of Kings. We therefore… [?commend] your royal devotion for the affairs of the holy land… and for the regard you have towards our lord king, and we return all the thanks we can to your royal majesty for the restoration of the liberties and rights of the kingdom of Scotland.

… If therefore… the kingdom of Scotland [be] restored to its original liberty, the storms of war extinguished, the security of peace granted… your highness may have at power not only our lord the king aforesaid but also the inhabitants of his realm.

#scotland #scottish #st andrews #Parliament #Robert I King of Scots #Robert the Bruce #medieval history

25 notes · View notes

valkyries-things · 3 months

Text

MARY II // COUNTESS OF MANTEITH

“She was a Scottish noblewoman. Her father was Alan II, Earl of Menteith, who died c. 1330. She is believed to have agreed with her kinsman Muireadhach III, in 1330, that he should hold the Earldom, but when he was killed in August 1332, Mary assumed the title. She married Sir John Graham, who in her right became Earl of Monteith and assumed the title in May 1346. She died sometime prior to 29 April 1360. She was the mother of Margaret Graham, Countess of Menteith.”

#female history #scottish history

0 notes

weavingthetapestry · 4 years

Text

2nd January 1264: Marriage and Murder in Mediaeval Menteith

(Priory of Inchmahome, founded on one of the islands of Lake of Menteith in the thirteenth century)

On 2nd January 1264, Pope Urban IV despatched a letter to the bishops of St Andrews and Aberdeen, and the Abbot of Dunfermline, commanding them to enquire into a succession dispute in the earldom of Menteith. Situated in the heart of Scotland, this earldom stretched from the graceful mountains and glens of the Trossachs, to the boggy carseland west of Stirling and the low-lying Vale of Menteith between Callander and Dunblane. The earls and countesses of Menteith were members of the highest rank of the nobility, ruling the area from strongholds such as Doune Castle, Inch Talla, and Kilbryde. Perhaps the best-known relic of the mediaeval earldom is the beautiful, ruined Priory of Inchmahome, which was established on an island in Lake of Menteith by Earl Walter Comyn in 1238. Walter Comyn was a powerful, if controversial, figure during the reigns of Kings Alexander II and Alexander III. He controlled the earldom for several decades after his marriage to its Countess, Isabella of Menteith, but following Walter’s death in 1258 his widow was beset on all sides by powerful enemies. These enemies even went so far as to capture Isabella and accuse her of poisoning her husband. The story of this unfortunate countess offers a rare glimpse into the position of great heiresses in High Mediaeval Scotland, revealing the darker side of thirteenth century politics.

Alexander II and Alexander III are generally remembered as powerful monarchs who oversaw the expansion and consolidation of the Scottish realm. During their reigns, dynastic rivals like the MacWilliams were crushed, regions such as Galloway and the Western Isles formally acknowledged Scottish overlordship, and the Scottish Crown held its own in diplomacy and disputes with neighbouring rulers in Norway and England. Both kings furthered their aims by promoting powerful nobles in strategic areas, but it was also vital to harness the ambition and aggression of these men productively. In the absence of an adult monarch, unchecked magnate rivalry risked destabilising the realm, as in the years between 1249 and 1262, when Alexander III was underage.

(A fifteenth century depiction of the coronation of Alexander III. Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Walter Comyn offers a typical picture of the ambitious Scottish magnate. Ultimately loyal to the Crown, his family loyalties and personal aims nonetheless made him a divisive figure. A member of the powerful Comyn kindred, he had received the lordship of Badenoch in the Central Highlands by 1229, probably because of his family’s opposition to the MacWilliams. In early 1231, he was granted the hand of a rich heiress, Isabella of Menteith. In the end, there would be no Comyn dynasty in Menteith: Walter and Isabella had a son named Henry, mentioned in a charter c.1250, but he likely predeceased his father. Nevertheless, Walter Comyn carved out a career at the centre of Scottish politics and besides witnessing many royal charters, he acted as the king’s lieutenant in Galloway in 1235 and became embroiled in the scandalous Bisset affair of 1242.

When Alexander II died in 1249, Walter and the other Comyns sought power during the minority of the boy king Alexander III. They were opposed by the similarly ambitious Alan Durward and in time Henry III of England, the attentive father of Alexander III’s wife Margaret, was also dragged into the squabble as both sides solicited his support in order to undermine their opponents. Possession of the young king’s person offered a swift route to power, and, although nobody challenged Alexander III’s right to the throne, some took drastic measures to seize control of government. Walter Comyn and his allies managed this twice, the second time by kidnapping the young king at Kinross in 1257. They were later forced to make concessions to enemies like Durward but, with Henry III increasingly distracted by the deteriorating political situation in England, the Comyns held onto power for the rest of the minority. However Walter only enjoyed his victory for a short while: by the end of 1258, the Earl of Menteith was dead.

Walter Comyn had dominated Scottish politics for a decade, and even if, as Michael Brown suggests, his death gave the political community some breathing space, this also left Menteith without a lord. As a widow, Countess Isabella theoretically gained more personal freedom, but mediaeval realpolitik was not always consistent with legal ideals. In thirteenth century Scotland, the increased wealth of widows made them vulnerable in new ways (not least to abduction) and, although primogeniture and the indivisibility of earldoms were promoted, in reality these ideals were often subordinated to the Crown’s need to reward its supporters. Isabella of Menteith was soon to find that her position had become very precarious.

At first, things went well. Although one source claims that many noblemen sought her hand, Isabella made her own choice, marrying an English knight named John Russell. Sir John’s background is obscure but, despite assertions that he was low born, he had connections at the English court. Isabella and John obtained royal consent for their marriage c.1260, and the happy couple also took crusading vows soon afterwards.

But whatever his wife thought, in the eyes of the Scottish nobility John Russell cut a much less impressive figure than Walter Comyn. The couple had not been married long before a powerful coterie of nobles descended on Menteith like hoodie-crows. Pope Urban’s list of persecutors includes the earls of Buchan, Fife, Mar, and Strathearn, Alan Durward, Hugh of Abernethy, Reginald le Cheyne, Hugh de Berkeley, David de Graham, and many others. But the ringleader was John ‘the Red’ Comyn, the nephew of Isabella of Menteith’s deceased husband Walter, who had already succeeded to the lordship of Badenoch. Even though Menteith belonged to Isabella in her own right, Comyn coveted his late uncle’s title there. Supported by the other lords, he captured and imprisoned the countess and John Russell, and justified this bold assault by claiming that the newlyweds had conspired together to poison Earl Walter. It is unclear what proof, if any, John Comyn supplied to back up his claim, but the couple were unable to disprove it. They were forced to surrender all claims to Isabella’s dowry, as well as many of her own lands and rents. A surviving charter shows that Hugh de Abernethy was granted property around Aberfoyle about 1260, but it seems that the lion’s share of the spoils went to the Red Comyn, who secured for himself and his heirs the promise of the earldom of Menteith itself.

Isabella and her husband were only released when they promised to pass into exile until they could clear their names before seven peers of the realm. John Russell’s brother Robert was delivered to Comyn as security for their full resignation of the earldom. Having ‘incurred heavy losses and expenses’, which certainly stymied their crusading plans, they fled.

In a letter of 1264, Pope Urban IV described the couple as ‘undefended by the authority of the king, while as yet a minor’. However, though Alexander III was technically underage in 1260, he was now nineteen and could not be ignored entirely. Michael Brown suggests that Isabella and her husband may have been seized when the king was visiting England, and that John Comyn’s unsanctioned bid for the earldom of Menteith may explain why Alexander cut short his stay in November 1260 and hastily returned north, leaving his pregnant queen with her parents at Windsor. Certainly, Comyn was forced to relinquish the earldom before 17th April 1261. But instead of restoring Menteith to its exiled countess, Alexander settled the earldom on another rising star: Walter ‘Bailloch’ Stewart, whose wife Mary had a claim to Menteith.

Mary of Menteith is often described as Isabella’s younger sister, although contemporary sources never say so and some historians argue that they were cousins. Either way, Alexander’s decision to uphold her claim was probably as much influenced by her husband’s identity as her alleged birth right. Like Walter Comyn, Walter Bailloch (‘freckled’), belonged to an influential family as the brother of Alexander, Steward of Scotland. From their origins in the royal household, the Stewarts became major regional magnates, assisting royal expansion in the west. The promising son of a powerful family, Walter Bailloch was sheriff of Ayr by 1264 and likely fought in the Battle of Largs in 1263. In 1260 Alexander III had the opportunity to secure Walter’s loyalty as the royal minority drew to a close. Conversely John Comyn of Badenoch found himself out of favour and was removed as justiciar of Galloway following the Menteith incident. The king would not alienate the Comyns permanently, but for now, the stars of Walter Bailloch and Mary of Menteith were in the ascendant.

(Loch Lubnaig, in the Trossachs, another former possession of the earls of Menteith)

Isabella of Menteith and John Russell had not been idle in the meantime. Travelling to John’s home country of England, they probably appealed to Henry III. In September 1261, the English king inspected documents relating to a previous dispute over the earldom of Menteith. On that occasion, two brothers, both named Maurice, had their differences settled before the future Alexander II at Edinburgh in 1213. The elder Maurice, who held the title Earl of Menteith and was presumed illegitimate by later writers (though this is never stated), resigned the earldom, which was regranted to Maurice junior. In return the elder Maurice received some towns and lands to be held for his lifetime only, and the younger Maurice promised to provide for the marriage of his older brother’s daughters.

It is probable that Isabella was the daughter of the younger Maurice, and that she produced these charters as proof of her right to the earldom. Perhaps Mary was her younger sister, but it seems likelier that Isabella would have wanted to prove the younger Maurice’s right if Mary was a descendant of the elder brother, and therefore her cousin. However despite Henry III’s formal recognition of the settlement, he did not provide Isabella with any real assistance: for whatever reason, the English king was either unable or unwilling to press his son-in-law the King of Scots on this matter. Isabella then turned instead to the spiritual leader of western Europe- Pope Urban IV.

(A depiction of the coronation of Henry III of England, though in fact the English king was only a child when he was crowned. Source: Wikimedia Commons)

A long epistle which the pope sent to several Scottish prelates in January 1264 has survived, revealing much about the case. Thus we learn that Urban was initially moved by Isabella and her husband’s predicament, perhaps especially so since they had taken the cross. Accordingly, he had appointed his chaplain Pontius Nicholas to enquire further and discreetly arrange the couple’s restoration. Pontius was to journey to Menteith, ‘if he could safely do so, otherwise to pass personally to parts adjacent to the said kingdom, and to summon those who should be summoned’. But Pontius’ mission only hindered Isabella’s suit. According to Gesta Annalia I, the papal chaplain got no closer to Scotland than York. From there he summoned many Scottish churchmen and nobles to appear before him, and even the King of Scots himself. This merely antagonised Alexander III and his subjects. Although Alexander maintained good relations with England and the papacy throughout his reign, he had a strong sense of his own prerogative and did not appreciate being summoned to answer for his actions, especially not outwith his realm and least of all in York. Special daughter of the papacy or not, Scotland’s clergy and nobility supported their king and refused to compear. Faced with this intransigence, Pontius Nicholas placed the entire kingdom under interdict, at which point Alexander retaliated by writing directly to the chaplain’s boss, demanding Pontius’ dismissal from the case.

Urban IV swiftly backpedalled. In a conciliatory tone he claimed that Pontius was guilty of ‘exceeding the terms of our mandate’ and causing ‘grievous scandal’. To remedy the situation, and avoid endangering souls, the pope discharged his responsibility over the case to the bishops of St Andrews and Aberdeen, and the Abbot of Dunfermline. Thus the pope washed his hands of a troublesome case, the Scottish king’s nose could be put back in joint, and Isabella’s suit was transferred to men with great experience of Scottish affairs, who should have been capable of satisfactorily resolving the matter. However, there is no indication that Isabella was ever compensated for the loss of her inheritance, and when the dispute over Menteith was raised again ten years later, the countess was not even mentioned (probably she had since died). Possibly her suit was discreetly buried after it was transferred to the Scottish clerics, a solution which, however frustrating for the exiled countess, would have been convenient for the great men whose responsibility it was to ensure justice was done.

(Doune Castle- the earliest parts of this famous stronghold probably date to the days of the thirteenth century earls of Menteith, although much of the work visible today dates from the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries)

The Comyns could not be dismissed so easily. Never resigned to losing Menteith, John Comyn of Badenoch claimed the earldom again c.1273, on behalf of his son William Comyn of Kirkintilloch. William had since married Isabella Russell, daughter of Isabella of Menteith by her second husband.* The 1273 suit was unsuccessful but William Comyn and Isabella Russell did not lose hope, and in 1282, William asked Edward I of England to intercede for them with the king of Scots. In 1285, with William’s father John Comyn long dead, Alexander III finally offered a compromise. Walter Bailloch, whose wife Mary may have died, was to keep half the earldom and he and his heirs would bear the title earl of Menteith. William Comyn and Isabella Russell received the other half in free barony, and this eventually passed to the offspring of Isabella’s second marriage to Sir Edward Hastings. Perhaps this could be seen as a posthumous victory for Isabella Russell’s late parents, but their descendants would never regain the whole earldom (except, controversially, when the younger Isabella’s two sons were each granted half after Edward I forfeited the current earl for supporting Robert Bruce).

Conversely, Walter Bailloch’s descendants remained at the forefront of Scottish politics. He and his wife Mary accompanied Alexander III’s daughter to Norway in 1281, and Walter was later a signatory to both the Turnberry Band and the Maid of Norway’s marriage negotiations. He also acted as a commissioner for Robert Bruce (grandfather to the future king) during the Great Cause. He had at least three children by Mary of Menteith and their sons took the surname Menteith rather than Stewart. The descendants of the eldest son, Alexander, held the earldom of Menteith until at least 1425. The younger son, John, became infamous as the much-maligned ‘Fause Menteith’ who betrayed William Wallace, although he later rose high in the service of King Robert I. Walter Bailloch himself died c.1294-5, and was buried next to his wife at the Priory of Inchmahome on Lake of Menteith, which Walter Comyn had founded over fifty years previously. The effigies of Walter Bailloch and Mary of Menteith can still be seen in the chapter house of the ruined priory: the worn faces are turned towards each other and each figure stretches out an arm to embrace their spouse in a lasting symbol of marital affection.

(The effigies of Walter Bailloch and Mary of Menteith at Inchmahome Priory, which was founded by Walter Comyn in 1238 and was perhaps intended as a burial site for himself and his wife Isabella of Menteith. Source: Wikimedia Commons).

The dispute over Menteith saw a prominent noblewoman publicly accused of murder and exiled, and even sparked an international incident when Scotland was placed under interdict. For all this, neither Isabella of Menteith nor John Comyn of Badenoch triumphed in the long term. Even Walter Bailloch eventually had to accept the loss of half the earldom after holding it for over twenty years. In the end the only real winner seems to have been the king. Although at first sight the persecution of Isabella and her husband looks like a classic example of overmighty magnates taking advantage of a breakdown in law and order during a royal minority, Alexander III was not a child and his rebuke of John Comyn did not result in any backlash against the Crown. Most of the Scottish nobility fell back in line once the king came of age, but the king in turn had to ensure that he was able to reward key supporters if he wanted to expand the realm he had inherited. Although it was important to both Alexander III and his father that primogeniture and were accepted by their subjects as the norm, in practice both kings found that they had to bend their own rules to ensure that the system worked to their own advantage. The thirteenth century is often seen an age of legal development and state-building, but these things sometimes came into conflict with each other, and even the most successful kings had to work within a messy system and consider the competing loyalties and customs of their subjects.

Selected Bibliography:

- “Vetera Monumenta Hibernorum et Scotorum”, Augustinus Theiner (a printed version of Urban IV’s original Latin epistle may be found here)

- “John of Fordun’s Chronicle of the Scottish Nation”, vol. 2, ed. W.F. Skene (this is an English translation of the chronicle of John of Fordun, made when Gesta Annalia I was still believed to be his work. It provides an independent thirteenth or fourteenth century Scottish account of the Menteith case

- “The Red Book of Menteith”, volumes 1+2, ed. Sir William Fraser

- “Calendar of Documents Relating to Scotland, Preserved Among the Public Records of England”, volumes 1, 2, 3 & 5, ed. Joseph Bain

- “The Political Role of Walter Comyn, earl of Menteith, during the Minority of Alexander III of Scotland”, A. Young, in the Scottish Historical Review, vol.57 no.164 part 2 (1978).

- “Scotland, England and France After the Loss of Normandy, 1204-1296″, M.A. Pollock

- “The Wars of Scotland, 1214-1371″, Michael Brown

As ever if anyone has a question about a specific detail or source, please let me know! I have a lot of notes for this post, so hopefully I should be able to help!

#Scottish history #Scotland #British history #thirteenth century #women in history #Menteith #earldom of Menteith #Isabella Countess of Menteith #John Russell #John Comyn I of Badenoch #Alexander III #Henry III #Pope Urban IV #Walter Bailloch #the Stewarts #House of Dunkeld #House of Canmore #Mary of Menteith #inchmahome priory

13 notes · View notes

walaw717 · 3 years

Photo

To the Most Saintly Father in Christ the Lord, the Lord John, by divine Providence, Supreme Pontiff of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, from his humble and devoted sons,

Duncan - Earl of Fife,

Thomas Ranulph - Earl of Moray,

Lord of Man and Annandale,

Patrick Dunbar - Earl of March,

Malise - Earl of Strathearn,

Malcolm - Earl of Leven,

William - Earl of Ross,

Magnus - Earl of Caithness and Orkney, and

William - Earl of Sutherland;

Walter - Seneschal of Scotland,

William Soules - Butler of Scotland,

James - Lord of Douglas,

Roger Mowbray,

David - Lord of Brechin,

David Graham,

Ingram Umfraville,

John Menteith - Guardian of the Earldom of Menteith,

Alexander Fraser,

Gibert Hay - Constable of Scotland,

Robert Keith - Marischal of Scotland,

Henry Sinclair, John Graham,

David Lindsay,

William Olifaunt,

Patrick Graham,

John Fentoun,

William Abernethy,

David Wemys,

William Montefix,

Fergus Ardrossan,

Eustace Maxwell,

William Ramsay,

William Montealt,

Alan Moray,

Donald Campbell,

John Cameron,

Reginald leChien,

Alexander Setoun,

Andrew Leslie, and

Alexander Stratoun,

along with the other Barons, Freeholders and all the common people of the kingdom of Scotland,

we send every filial reverence with devoted kisses of your blessed feet.

Most Holy Father and Lord, we know from the deeds of the ancients and we read from books -- because among the other great nations of course, our nation of Scots has been described in many publications -- that crossing from Greater Scythia, via the Tyrhennian Sea and the Pillars of Hercules, and living in Spain among the fiercest tribes for many years, it could be conquered by no one anywhere, no matter how barbarous the tribes. Afterwards, coming from there, one thousand two hundred years from the Israelite people's crossing of the Red Sea, to its home in the west, which it now holds, having first thrown out the Britons and completely destroyed the Picts, and even though it was often attacked by the Norse, the Danes and the English, it fought back with many victories and countless labours and it has held itself ever since, free from all slavery, as the historians of old testify. In their own kingdom, one hundred and thirteen kings have reigned of their own Blood Royal, without interruption by foreigners.

The merits and nobility of these people, even if they were not obvious from the other signs, shine out openly enough from this, that even though they lived at the furthermost ends of the Earth, the King of kings and the Lord of lords, Jesus Christ after His Passion and His Resurrection, called them nearly the first to his most Holy Faith. Nor did He want to confirm them in the said Faith by anyone but the first to be an Apostle, despite being second or third in rank, the brother of the Blessed Peter, gentle Saint Andrew, whom ever since, He has asked to protect them as their Patron.

However, the Holy Fathers, your predecessors, considering these thoughts with a careful mind, bestowed on this very kingdom and people many favours and countless privileges since it was the special charge of Blessed Peter's brother. Thus, obviously, the result was that until now our people lived free and untroubled under their protection until that mighty prince, Edward, King of the English, the father of he who now reigns, came with the appearance of a friend and ally to harass like an enemy, our leaderless kingdom and our people who were accustomed neither to evil or treachery nor to battles or ambushes. He committed injustices, killings, attacks, robberies, arson, the imprisonment of priests, the burning of monasteries, the looting of churches, and countless other enormous outrages, on the said people sparing no one on account of age or sex, saintliness or rank, to an extent that no one could describe nor fully believe unless they had experienced it.

From these countless evils, with His help who afterwards soothes and heals wounds, we are freed by our tireless leader, king, and master, Lord Robert, who like another Maccabaeus or Joshua, underwent toil and tiredness, hunger and danger with a light spirit in order to free the people and his inheritance from the hands of his enemies. And now, the divine Will, our just laws and customs, which we will defend to the death, the right of succession and the due consent and assent of all of us have made him our leader and our king. To this man, inasmuch as he saved our people, and for upholding our freedom, we are bound by right as much as by his merits, and choose to follow him in all that he does.

But if he should cease from these beginnings, wishing to give us or our kingdom to the English or the king of the English, we would immediately take steps to drive him out as the enemy and the subverter of his own rights and ours, and install another King who would make good our defence. Because, while a hundred of us remain alive, we will not submit in the slightest measure, to the domination of the English. We do not fight for honour, riches, or glory, but solely for freedom which no true man gives up but with his life.

It is for these reasons, Reverend Father and Lord, that we beg your holiness with humble hearts and every urgent prayer, knowing that you will review everything with a true heart and a saintly mind since before Him in Whose name you reign on Earth there is neither bias nor difference between Jew or Greek, Scot or Angle, and considering the trouble and anguish brought on us by the English, that you will warn the king of the English, that he ought to be satisfied with what he owns because once it used to be enough for seven kings, and that you will think it right to encourage him to leave us Scots in peace, living in poor Scotland beyond which there is nothing habitable and nothing we desire. For this, we will effectively do whatever we can to gain peace, bearing in mind our situation.

For this concerns you, Holy Father, since you see the raging ferocity of the pagans against Christians, which the sins of the Christians deserve, and the borders of Christendom being pushed back every day and you must see how much it will hurt your saintly reputation, if (which let it not) any part of the church is overcome or induced to sin during your time. Therefore let Him rouse those Christian leaders who say that they cannot go in support of the Holy Land for no reason although they pretend that the reason is wars with their neighbours. The reason for their difficulties is actually because they expect better rewards and weaker resistance in warring with their smaller neighbours. But the omniscient One knows well enough with how light a heart we and our aforesaid lord and king would go there, if the king of the English would leave us in peace.

If your Holiness, trusting too much in the English version of these events, does not truly believe us, or does not stop supporting them to our disadvantage, then, we believe that the slaughter of bodies, the loss of souls, and all the other things that will follow, the injuries that they will do to us and we to them, will be blamed by the Most High on you.

Thus, as if your sons, we are and always will be ready to do for you, His vicar, whatever you require insofar as it is our duty; and so, we commit the upholding of our cause to the Supreme King and Judge, entrusting our worries to Him and completely confident that He will fill us with courage and reduce our enemies to nothing

May God grant you holiness and health in His holy church for a long time.

Sent from the Monastery of Arbroath in Scotland, on the 6th day of the month April, in the year of Grace 1320, the fifteenth year of our abovementioned king's reign.

1 note · View note

clancarruthers · 2 years

Text

THE SCOTTISH PEERAGE - CLAN CARRUTHERS CCIS

THE SCOTTISH PEERAGE – CLAN CARRUTHERS CCIS

THE SCOTTISH PEERAGE The first Scottish peers existed in the late 11th century, these being the earls of the provinces in the old core of the kingdom of Scotland (roughly the east half of the country from the Forth to the Moray Firth) before it expanded to its present borders. These earldoms were, clockwise from the north: Moray, Buchan, Mar, Angus, Fife, Menteith, Strathearn and Atholl. It’s…

View On WordPress

#Ancient and Honorable Carruthers Clan Society International #carrothers #carruthers #Carruthers Clan #carruthers family history #Carruthers history #Clan Carruthers #scotland #scottish clans #SCOTTISH PEERAGE

0 notes

sunsetstudiesx · 6 years

Text

John de Comyn & Robert the Bruce

So I found out something that I found extremely interesting a while ago and thought I’d share.

I was recently catching up on the show Who Do You Think You Are?, where celebrities travel all over trying to find out more about their family tree (it’s a great show, check it out). I was watching the episode with Hillary Duff, who found out that one of her ancestors was Robert the Bruce (King of Scotland).

My dad happened to be downstairs while I was watching it, and casually mentioned that Robert the Bruce killed one of our ancestors. So, I did a lot of research and found out who that ancestor was.

His name was John “the Red” de Comyn, and Robert the Bruce killed him because he was a challenger for the throne of Scotland.

Apparently, through marriage and through his decent from King Duncan, John de Comyn had a strong claim to the Scottish throne.

But then, Robert the Bruce called a meeting with John in the Church of Greyfriars in Dumphries. There was an arguement, and Robert the Bruce stabbed him to death.

Also, Robert de Comyn accompanied William the Conqueror to England in 1066, and was created Lord of Northumberland.

By the reign of Alexander III, the de Comyns held four earldoms— Angus, Atholl, Menteith and Bucham.

Maybe I’m just a huge history nerd, but I thought this was just so cool and I kinda want to keep talking about this?? Because none of my two friends care?? And I’m super hyped???

Anyway, here are some really incredibly messy notes I took to remember some of the info for this post, just to make this more relevant.

#studyblr #history #robert the bruce #john comyn #scotland #studyspo #mine #who do you think you are #hillary duff #my notes #notes #history notes

2 notes · View notes

blprompt · 4 years

Text

British Library digitised image from page 393 of "The Lake of Menteith: its islands and vicinity. With historical accounts of the Priory of Inchmahome and the Earldom of Menteith. ... Illustrated with pen and ink drawings by W. Bain"

Image taken from: Title: "The Lake of Menteith: its islands and vicinity. With historical accounts of the Priory of Inchmahome and the Earldom of Menteith. ... Illustrated with pen and ink drawings by W. Bain" Author(s): Hutchison, Andrew Fleming [person] ; Bain, Walter [person] British Library shelfmark: "Digital Store 10369.i.20" Page: 393 (scanned page number - not necessarily the actual page number in the publication) Place of publication: Stirling (Scotland) Date of publication: 1899 Publisher: E. Mackay Type of resource: Monograph Language(s): English Physical description: xxxiv, 368 pages (8°) Explore this item in the British Library’s catalogue: 001778009 (physical copy) and 014814096 (digitised copy) (numbers are British Library identifiers) Other links related to this image: - View this image as a scanned publication on the British Library’s online viewer (you can download the image, selected pages or the whole book) - Order a higher quality scanned version of this image from the British Library Other links related to this publication: - View all the illustrations found in this publication - View all the illustrations in publications from the same year (1899) - Download the Optical Character Recognised (OCR) derived text for this publication as JavaScript Object Notation (JSON) - Explore and experiment with the British Library’s digital collections The British Library community is able to flourish online thanks to freely available resources such as this. You can help support our mission to continue making our collection accessible to everyone, for research, inspiration and enjoyment, by donating on the British Library supporter webpage here. Thank you for supporting the British Library. from BLPromptBot https://ift.tt/3hR66z0

#BritishLibrary #Prompt

0 notes

mechanicalcurator · 6 years

Photo

Image from 'The Lake of Menteith: its islands and vicinity. With historical accounts of the Priory of Inchmahome and the Earldom of Menteith. ... Illustrated with pen and ink drawings by W. Bain', 001778009

Author: HUTCHISON, Andrew Fleming.

Page: 165

Year: 1899

Place: Stirling

Publisher: E. Mackay

View this image on Flickr

View all the images from this book

Following the link above will take you to the British Library's integrated catalogue. You will be able to download a PDF of the book this image is taken from, as well as view the pages up close with the 'itemViewer'. Click on the 'related items' to search for the electronic version of this work.

Open the page in the British Library's itemViewer (page: 000165)

Download the PDF for this book

#bldigital #bl_labs #britishlibrary #1899 #similar_to_172956380137_published_date #new_train_of_thought

0 notes

scotianostra · 1 year

Text

On March 26th 1402, heir to the Scottish throne, David Stewart, 1st Duke of Rothesay, died in mysterious circumstances at Falkland Palace.

This event in Scottish history ties in with James I being sent to France and falling into English hands, I covered that part in a post a few days ago.

David Stewart was the oldest son of Robert III of Scotland and Anabella Drummond and was born on 24 October 1378. At the time of his birth, his grandfather, Robert II still occupied the Scottish throne. His father became King of Scotland in November 1384, when his earldom of Carrick passed to David.

In 1398, David was created Duke of Rothesay by his father. In the following year, at the age of 21, due to the infirmity of his father the king, he was appointed “Lieutenant” of Scotland by Parliament, to rule in his father’s place. The arrangement had been urged by his mother, Queen Annabella, to ensure her son succeeded his ailing father. His uncle, Robert Stewart, a ruthless politician with designs on the throne himself, had previously been protector of the kingdom.

In 1395, David married Elizabeth Dunbar, the daughter of George Dunbar, Earl of March, but the Papal dispensation required because they were close relatives was never obtained, and in 1397 the couple separated.

David later married Mary Douglas, daughter of Archibald Douglas, 3rd Earl of Douglas, to form an alliance with the Douglases, which gravely offended George Dunbar. Dunbar accordingly switched his allegiance to Henry IV of England, who then invaded Scotland, briefly capturing Edinburgh before returning to England.

Following the death of his mother in 1401, David failed to consult his council, as he was required to do, before making a series of decisions that were seen to threaten the positions of his nobles, especially his uncle, Robert Stewart, 1st Duke of Albany.

In February 1402, while travelling to St Andrews, David was arrested just outside the city by Sir John Ramornie and Sir William Lindsay of Rossie, agents of his uncle Albany, who at that time was in alliance with Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas. David’s father-in-law, the third Earl, had died two years previously, in 1400.

He was initially held prisoner in St Andrews Castle, but soon afterwards was taken to Falkland Palace, Albany’s residence in Fife. David spent the journey hooded and mounted backwards on a mule.

David remained a prisoner and shortly after died in the dungeons of Falkland Palace, reputedly of starvation.

A few weeks later, in May 1402, a public enquiry into the circumstances of David’s death, largely controlled by Albany, exonerated him of all blame concluding that David had died “by divine providence and not otherwise” and commanded that no one should ‘murmur against’ Albany and Douglas.

The following is taken from the records of the Scottish Parliament 16 May 1402

Letters: narrating the inquest into the death of David Stewart, duke of Rothesay and the role of Robert Stewart, duke of Albany, and Archibald Douglas, earl of Douglas.

Robert, by the grace of God king of Scots, to all to whose notice the present letters shall come, greeting. Whereas recently, our most beloved Robert [Stewart, 1st] duke of Albany, earl of Fife and Menteith, our brother german, and Archibald [Douglas, 4th] earl of Douglas and lord of Galloway, our son according to law by reason of our daughter who he took as wife, caused our very beloved firstborn son the late David [Stewart, 1st] duke of Rothesay and earl of Fife and Atholl, to be captured and personally arrested, and first to be guarded in St Andrews castle and then to be detained in keeping at Falkland, where, by divine providence and not otherwise, it is discerned that he departed from this life; they, compearing in our presence in our general council begun at Edinburgh on 16 May 1402 and continued for several days, and interrogated or accused upon this by our royal office of the capture, arrest, death as is expressed above etc., in this manner, confessing everything that followed thereafter, they set out in our presence the very causes that moved them to this action, which, as they asserted, constrained them [to act] for the public good, which we considered should not be imputed as a crime to the present persons and [are] outside the case; [then] when diligent enquiry had been made into this, when all and singular matters which should be considered in a case of this kind and which touch on this case had been considered and discussed by prior and mature consideration of our council, we consider as excused the aforementioned Robert, our brother german, and Archibald, our son according to the laws, and anyone who took part in this affair with them, that is any who arrested, detained, guarded, gave them advice, and all others who gave them counsel, help or support, or executed their order or command in any way whatsoever, and in our said council we openly and publicly declared, pronounced and determined definitively and by the tenor of this our present document declare, pronounce, and by this definitive sentence judge them and each of them to be innocent, harmless, blameless, quit, free and immune completely in all respects from the charge of lese majesty against us, or any other crime, misdemeanour, wrongdoing, rancour and offence which could be charged against them on the occasion of the aforesaid. And if we have conceived any indignation, anger, rancour or offence against them or any of then, or any person or people participating with or adhering to them in any way, we now annul, remove and wish those things to be considered as nothing in perpetuity, by our own volition, from a certain knowledge, and from the deliberation of our said council. Wherefore we strictly order and command all and singular our subjects, of whatever standing or condition they be, that they do not slander the said Robert and Archibald and their participants, accomplices or adherents in this deed, as aforesaid, by word or action, nor murmur against them in any way whereby their good reputation is hurt or any prejudice is generated, under all penalty which may be applicable hereafter in any way by law. Given under testimony of our great seal in our monastery of Holyrood at Edinburgh on 20 May 1402 in the thirteenth year of our reign.

Pics are Falkland Palace and Lindores Abbey

I’ve only skimmed the surface of this story, if you want to read more about it, there is an excellent piece by Dr Callum Watson on his excellent blog here

#scotland #scottish #the stewarts #nobility #royalty #history

23 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 3 years

Photo

On March 16th 1309 King Robert the Bruce convened his first parliament, at St Andrews.

The sources for parliament’s early history are not good, many records probably being an unfortunate casualty of Edward I’s attempted conquest. For this reason reconstructing how and when Scotland’s parliament came into being will probably remain a matter of debate.

The letter reads:

“Letters: by the magnates of Scotland to Philip IV, king of France.

The second photo is a Letter by the magnates of Scotland regarding the right of King Robert I to the Crown of Scotland, 16 March 1309, an extract reads:

#scotland #scottish #Ukraine #England #medieval history #modern history #current events #war #medieval warfare #history #robert the bruce #president zelensky

35 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 2 years

Photo

On 24th May 1425 Murdoch Stewart, Duke of Albany was sentenced to death for treason.

This is a long post, but it ties in with others regarding the Stewart family.

Murdoch’s dad was Robert Stewart the second son of King Robert II, the first monarch of the Stewart line. I’ve touched upon the Albany Stewarts in previous posts regarding King James I, to understand the reason for him standing trial I’ll delve into the background a wee bit.

Robert’s older brother, Robert III, aye he was a Robert too, but born a John, he thought John was an unlucky name so called himself Robert on ascending to the throne.

Anyway Robert III was a bit hopeless as King, before he was even crowned he had been disabled in 1388 by a horse's kick, so that he had been regarded as unfit to govern for his father. He was dominated by his younger brother, the Duke of Albany, and when he tried to rule for himself, 'he who was strong oppressed the weak and the whole kingdom was one den of thieves', according to one of the chroniclers. In 1399, the Scottish Parliament condemned his misrule and appointed his elder son David, Duke of Rothesay to govern for him. Albany, however, imprisoned his nephew and David died in mysterious circumstances in 1402 at Falkland. The King then sent his son, the future King James I to France for his own safety, his luck didn’t change as en route James was taken prisoner by pirates and handed over to the English.

James held prisoner by the English and Albany continued as Regent and de facto ruler of Scotland, he was not interested in bringing James home, enjoying the wealth and all the trappings his position gave him. He refused to pay the ransom the English asked for, while he bossed Scotland until his death in 1420. Having said that, part of the price was the English wanted overlordship of Scotland, something that few Scots were prepared to accept.

To get back to the subject, Murdoch I have to rewind a bit, there had been sporadic war continued during between the two countries, and our subject served in the Scottish Army against the English and was captured at the Battle of Homildon Hill, in 1402, he was held at the Tower of London until 1415. He would have spent some of this captivity with his cousin, the uncrowned James I, when Murdoch’s father agreed a prisoner exchange it wasn’t obviously the King he traded, but his son Murdoch, this must really have stuck in James throat, but of course he was to extract revenge ten years later.

Albany’s death in 1420 passed his title to his son, our man Murdoch Stewart — who was already at the ripe old age of 58.† But the Albany run as permanent Regent was nearing the end of the line and political pressure soon forced Murdoch to sign off on the ransom of the occluded King James. His return in effect put two rival sovereigns in the realm, where both could not long abide together.

In 1420, on his father's death, Murdoch, now aged 58, finally inherited the Dukedom of Albany. He also inherited the Earldom of Fife and the Earldom of Menteith, and at last became Governor of Scotland in his own right. He would hold this position from 1420 to 1424, while King James I was still held captive in England. Few serious attempts appear to have been made by Duke Albany to return James to Scotland, but eventually political pressure compelled Murdoch to agree to a general council.

In August 1423 it was agreed that an embassy should be sent to England to negotiate James's release. A ransom treaty of 60,000 marks (an enormous sum) was agreed at Durham on 28th March 1424, to which James attached his own seal—he and his queen, accompanied by an escort of English and Scottish nobles, proceeded to Melrose Abbey, arriving on 5 April where he met Albany to receive the governor's seal of office. Upon the return of James I to Scotland, Albany lost his position as Regent.

As usual with posts like this some of the dates are different from source to sources and some sources place Murdoch Stewart’s execution on the 24th, we’ll follow the narrative of Patrick Fraser Tytler’s History of Scotland, Volume 3, I love some of the descriptions used by this 19th century historian, and hope you do too, also you might notice the names of two chroniclers of the time, that I too have used at times to draw contemporary sources;

Murdoch, the late governor, with Lord Alexander Stewart, his youngest son, were suddenly arrested, and immediately afterwards twenty-six of the principal nobles and barons shared the same fate. Amongst these were Archibald Earl of Douglas, William Douglas Earl of Angus, George Dunbar Earl of March, William Hay of Errol, constable of Scotland, Scrimgeour, constable of Dundee, Alexander Lindesay, Adam Hepburn of Hailes, Thomas Hay of Yester Herbert Maxwell of Caerlaverock, Alexander Ramsay of Dalhousie, Alan Otterburn, secretary of the Duke of Albany, Sir John Montgomery, Sir John Stewart of Dundonald, commonly called the Red Stewart, and thirteen others. During the course of the same year, and a short time previous to this energetic measure, the king had imprisoned Walter, the eldest son of Albany, along with the Earl of Lennox, and Sir Robert Graham, a man of a dark, fierce, and vindictive disposition, who from that moment vowed the most determined revenge, which he lived to execute in the murder of his sovereign. The heir of Albany was shut up in the strong castle of the Bass, belonging to Sir Robert Lauder, a firm friend of the king, whilst Graham and Lennox were committed to Dunbar, and the Duke of Albany himself, confined in the first instance in the castle of St Andrews, and afterwards transferred to that of Caerlaverock. At the same moment the king took possession of the castles of Falkland, and of the fortified palace of Doune, the favourite residence of Albany. Here he found Isabella, the wife of Albany, a daughter of the Earl of Lennox, whom he immediately committed to the castle of Tantallan; and with a success and a rapidity which can only be accounted for by the supposition of the utmost vigour in the execution of his plans, and a strong military power to overawe all opposition, he possessed himself of the strongest fortresses in the country; and after adjourning the parliament, to meet within the space of two months at Stirling, upon the 18th of May, he proceeded to adopt measures for inflicting a speedy and dreadful revenge upon the most powerful of his opponents.

In the palace of Stirling, on the 24th of May, a court was held with great pomp and solemnity for the trial of Walter Stewart, the eldest son of the Duke of Albany. The king, sitting on his throne, clothed with the robes and insignia of majesty, with the sceptre in his hand, and wearing the royal crown, presided as supreme judge of his people. The loss of all record of this trial is peculiarly to be regretted, as the proceeding would have thrown important light upon a most interesting, but unfortunately, most obscure portion of our history. We know only from an ancient chronicle that the heir of Albany was tried for robbery, “de roboria.” The jury was composed of twenty-one of the principal nobles and barons, and it is a remarkable circumstance, that amongst their names which have been preserved, are to be found seven of the twenty-six barons whom the king had seized and imprisoned two months before at Perth, when he arrested Albany and his sons. Amongst these seven, were the three most powerful lords in the body of the Scottish aristocracy — the Earls of Douglas, March, and Angus; the rest were Sir John de Montgomery, Gilbert Hay of Errol the constable, Sir Herbert Herries of Terregles, and Sir Robert Cuningham of Kilmaurs. Others who sat upon this jury we know to have been the assured friends of the king, and members of his privy council. These were, Alexander Stewart, Earl of Mar, Sir John Forrester of Corstorfin, Sir Thomas Somerville of Carnwath, and Sir Alexander Levingston of Callendar. It is probably that the seven jurymen above mentioned were persons attached to the party of Albany, and that the intention of the king, in their imprisonment, was to compel them to renounce all idea of supporting him, and to abandon him to his fate. In this result, whatever were the means adopted for its accomplishment, the king succeeded. The trial of Walter Stewart occupied a single day. He was found guilty, and condemned to death. His fate excited a deep feeling of sympathy and compassion in the breasts of the people; for the noble figure and dignified manners of the eldest son of Albany were peculiarly calculated to make him friends amongst the lower classes of the community.

On the following day, Albany himself, with his second son, Alexander, and his father-in-law, the Earl of Lennox, were tried before the same jury. What were the crimes alleged against the Earl of Lennox and Alexander Stewart, it is now impossible to determine; but it may be conjectured, on strong grounds, that the usurpation of the government and the assumption of supreme authority, during the captivity of the king, offences amounting to high treason, constituted the principal charge against Duke Murdoch. His father undoubtedly succeeded to the regency by the determination of the three Estates assembled in parliament, but there is no evidence that any such solemn decision was passed which sanctioned the high station assumed by the son, and if so, every single act of his government was an act of treason, upon which the jury could have no difficulty in pronouncing their verdict. Albany was accordingly found guilty; the same sentence was pronounced upon his son, Alexander Stewart; the Earl of Lennox was next condemned; and these three noble persons were publicly executed on that fatal eminence, before the castle of Stirling, known by the name of the Heading Hill. As the condemnation of Walter Stewart had excited unwonted commiseration amongst the people, the spectacle now afforded was calculated to raise that feeling to a still higher pitch of distress and pity. Albany and his two sons were men of almost gigantic stature, and of so noble a presence, that it was impossible to look upon them without an involuntary feeling of admiration; whilst the venerable appearance and white hairs of Lennox, who had reached his eightieth year, inspired a sentiment of tenderness and pity, which, even if they admitted the justice of the sentence, was apt to raise in the bosom of the spectators a disposition to condemn the rapid and unrelenting severity with which it was carried into execution. Even in their days of pride and usurpation, the family of Albany had been the favourites of the people. Its founder, the regent, courted popularity, and although a usurper, and stained with murders, seems in a great measure to have gained his end. It is impossible, indeed, to reconcile the high eulogium of Fordun and Winton with the dark actions of his life; but it is evident, from the tone of these historians, that the severity of James did not carry along with it the feelings of the people. Yet, looking at the state of things in Scotland, it is easy to understand the object of the king. It was his intention to exhibit to a nation, long accustomed to regard the laws with contempt, and the royal authority as a name of empty menace, a memorable example of stern and inflexible justice, and to convince them that a great change had already taken place in the executive part of the government.

With this view, another dreadful exhibition followed the execution of the family of Albany. James Stewart, the youngest son of this unfortunate person, was the only member of the family who had avoided the arrest of the king, and escaped to the Highlands. Driven to despair, by the ruin which threatened his house, he collected a band of armed freebooters, and, assisted by Finlay, Bishop of Lismore, and Argyle, his father’s chaplain, attacked the burgh of Dumbarton, with a fury which nothing could resist. The king’s uncle, Sir John of Dundonald, called the Red Stewart, was slain, the town sacked and given to the flames, and thirty men murdered, after which the son of Albany returned to his fastnesses in the north. But so hot was the pursuit which was instituted by the royal vengeance, that he, and the ecclesiastical bandit who accompanied him, were dislodged from their retreats, and compelled to fly to Ireland. Five of his accomplices, however, were seized, and their execution, which immediately succeeded that of Albany, was unpardonably cruel and disgusting. They were torn to pieces by wild horses, after which their warm and quivering limbs were suspended upon gibbets; a terrible warning to the people of the punishment which awaited those, who imagined that the fidelity which impelled them to execute the commands of their feudal lord, was superior to the ties which bound them to obey the laws of the country.

In my opinion the brutality the King showed to the Albany Stewarts did little to endear him the the general populace of Scotland, and indeed some of the nobility would probably harbour ill feeling too, this no doubt fueled by others who disliked the King contributed to the conspiracy that would end with the assassination of James I on 20th February 1437.

Pics are the seal of Murdoch Stewart, Stirling castle where the executions took place, and the mans coat of arms.

#Scotland #scottish #the stewarts #political intrigue #royalty #power #history

6 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 4 years

Photo

On March 16th 1309 King Robert the Bruce convened his first parliament, at St Andrews.

I’ve said it before, most recently with the post in February on the Declaration of the Clergy, these were tools used to send a message to England that the Scots were functioning normally, propaganda tools. It also let other countries know that Scotland continued to repel the English Usurpers, Edward I's death two years before must have been encouraging for Bruce, Longshanks son was certainly not a warrior like his father.

The letter reads:

“Letters: by the magnates of Scotland to Philip IV, king of France.

I know it's not an easy read, but I have taken this straight from the web page of The Records of the Parliament of Scotland here https://www.rps.ac.uk/trans/1309/2 . Check the side bar for more records from 1308, when an assembly was held and William, earl of Ross, recorded his act of homage to Robert I before an assembly of prelates and nobles.

The photo is a Letter by the magnates of Scotland regarding the right of King Robert I to the Crown of Scotland, 16 March 1309, an extract reads:

… we see it contained that royal gratitude reflects on and brings back to mind the alliances formerly existing and maintained between the kingdoms of France and Scotland and the losses, sufferings and trials which the inhabitants of the kingdom have hitherto so much endured. Our minds are cheered, above all, by the extraordinary and peculiar affection which... you say you have for the person of lord Robert, by the grace of God our lord king, who has been raised up as our leader and prince by right and truth and by the justice and grace of the King of Kings. We therefore… [?commend] your royal devotion for the affairs of the holy land… and for the regard you have towards our lord king, and we return all the thanks we can to your royal majesty for the restoration of the liberties and rights of the kingdom of Scotland.

... If therefore… the kingdom of Scotland [be] restored to its original liberty, the storms of war extinguished, the security of peace granted... your highness may have at power not only our lord the king aforesaid but also the inhabitants of his realm.

#Scotland #scottish #first wars of Scottish Independence #robert the bruce #medieval history #history

21 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 6 years

Photo

On March 16 1309 King Robert the Bruce convened his first parliament, at St Andrews.

By 1306, when Robert I seized the throne, there might have been some expectation that the prominent role for the community of the realm in the government of the kingdom that had arisen since 1286 would continue. Yet no king voluntarily accepts limits upon his powers, and Robert I restored royal authority, removing the ability of the community to play a significant role in the formulation of parliamentary acts. The king used the rhetoric of community and parliamentary authority that had evolved since 1286 to give his actions a façade of broad support that they often did not have. Parliament became a tool for creating documents designed to validate and augment the king’s authority by the public display of support for his kingship. I've said it before, most recently with the post in February on the Declaration of the Clergy, these were tools used to send a message to England that the Scots were functioning normally, propaganda tools. The Bruce was still trying to unite the Scots against their common enemy, the meeting of parliament, therefore, was a useful means of engineering declarations of support for the king, or of manipulating collective decision-making. At this time, the Scottish magnates sent a letter to King Philip IV of France in response to his request for assistance in a crusade. The Scots replied expressing their support for Bruce as king, reminding Philip of Scotland’s devastation by war, and promised help when peace was achieved.

"Letters: by the magnates of Scotland to Philip IV, king of France.

To the most Christian and triumphant prince and reverend lord the lord Philip [IV] by the grace of God illustrious king of the French, William, earl of Ross, Malcolm, earl of Lennox, William, [earl of Suther]land, and the communities of the earldoms of Fife, Menteith, Mar, Buchan and Caithness, the heirs of which are in ward, likewise the communities of all the other earldoms of the kingdom of Scotland [except]† [D]unbar; Edward de Bruce, lord of Galloway, James the steward of Scotland, Alexander de Argyll, Donald de Islay, John de Menteith, Hugh, the son and heir of the earl [of Ross]†, Gilbert de Hay, constable of Scotland, Robert de Keith, marischal of Scotland, Thomas Randolph, lord of Nithsdale, James, lord of Douglas, Alexander de Lindsay, Alexander de [Fraser], [William] Wiseman, David de Barclay, Robert Boyd, barons; and also all of Argyll and the Hebrides and the inhabitants of all the kingdom of Scotland recognising the fealty of the lord Robert by the grace of God king of Scotland, all [... ... ....] Your credence having been revealed to us in writing, and having been fully understood [by us], in the full parliament of our lord the king solemnly held not long ago at the city of St Andrews, impressed upon our minds the joyfulness of [your] devot[ion] [... ... ....] For we conclude that your majesty’s mind is devoutly disposed to take on the business of the Holy Land, to prosecute which all followers of the Christian faith justly ought to strive and with humble devotion incline their hearts [... ... ...,] we saw that it was contained [in your letter] that your royal grace considers and calls to mind the treaties between the kingdoms of France and Scotland, made long ago and confirmed; also the losses, harms and injuries which the inhabitants of the kingdom [... ... ...] have suffered in many ways hitherto. The particular and special affection which, in that credence, you say you have towards the person of our lord Robert by the grace of God king [of Scots ... ...] [whom] justice and truth and the grace of the King of Kings has raised up as our prince and leader, cheers our hearts above all else. We therefore noting, with heartfelt feelings, the aforesaid, as we are bound in duty to do [... ... ...] [?commend] your right royal devotion towards the business of the Holy Land, and for the affection which you have towards our lord the king, and we return thanks as best we can to your majesty for restoring the liberties and rights of the kingdom of Scotland, praying to God that ‘by the bowels of mercy of Jesus Christ’ that you may bring to fulfilment the devout purpose which you have conceived in your mind, trough our Lord’s inspiration in relation to the aforesaid, with holy desire, and efficacious eagerness and a safe outcome. May your royal majesty deign to take note, with pious mind, that in the exaltation of Christian princes the name of Christ is extolled and the Catholic faith strengthened. If, therefore, the standing of our lord [the king whom] we say unanimously is [... ... ...], is exalted and the kingdom of Scotland returns to its former free condition, the tempests of war having been quelled and secure peace having been granted, then your royal highness will be able to have as supporters to achieve the end of your desire, the service of God, and to come to your help, not only our lord the king aforesaid, but also the inhabitants of his kingdom as best they are able. And as [evidence of] the aforesaid things [... ...] clearly these letters sealed by our seals were commanded to be sent patent to your highness. Written and given at the city of St Andrews in Scotland 16 March 1308 [1309] and in the third year of our lord King Robert’s [reign].

[Named Tags and Seals]† [Tag 1] The seal of William, earl of Ross William Wiseman; David de Barclay. [Tag 2] The seal of Malcolm, earl of Lennox. [Tag 3 blank] [Tag 4] The seal of James the steward of Scotland. [Tag 5] The seals of John de Menteith; Donald and Nigel Campbell, brothers. [Tag 6] The seal of Gilbert de Hay. [Tag 7] The seals of Robert de Keith; Edward de Keith. [Tag 8] The seal of Hugh de Ross. [Tag 9 missing] [Tag 10] The seal of Sir Thomas Randolph. The seal of Gillespie MacLauchlan. [Tag 11] The seal of William de. [Tag 12] The seal of Alexander Fraser. [Tag 13] The seal of Thomas Campbell.

#scotland #history #Robert the Bruce

17 notes · View notes

scotianostra · 6 years

Link

On March 26th 1402, heir to the Scottish throne, David Stewart, 1st Duke of Rothesay, died in mysterious circumstances at Falkland Palace.

This event in Scottish history ties in with James I being sent to France and falling into English hands, I covered that part in a post a few days ago.

In 1398, David was created Duke of Rothesay by his father. In the following year, at the age of 21, due to the infirmity of his father the king, he was appointed "Lieutenant" of Scotland by Parliament, to rule in his father's place. The arrangement had been urged by his mother, Queen Annabella, to ensure her son succeeded his ailing father. His uncle, Robert Stewart, a ruthless politician with designs on the throne himself, had previously been protector of the kingdom.

In February 1402, while travelling to St Andrews, David was arrested just outside the city by Sir John Ramornie and Sir William Lindsay of Rossie, agents of his uncle Albany, who at that time was in alliance with Archibald, fourth Earl of Douglas. David's father-in-law, the third Earl, had died two years previously, in 1400.

He was initially held prisoner in St Andrews Castle, but soon afterwards was taken to Falkland Palace, Albany's residence in Fife. David spent the journey hooded and mounted backwards on a mule.

David remained a prisoner and shortly after died in the dungeons of Falkland Palace, reputedly of starvation.

A few weeks later, in May 1402, a public enquiry into the circumstances of David's death, largely controlled by Albany, exonerated him of all blame concluding that David had died "by divine providence and not otherwise" and commanded that no one should 'murmur against' Albany and Douglas.

The following is taken from the records of the Scottish Parliament 16 May 1402

Letters: narrating the inquest into the death of David Stewart, duke of Rothesay and the role of Robert Stewart, duke of Albany, and Archibald Douglas, earl of Douglas.

I've only skimmed the surface of this story, if you want to read more about it, there is an excellent piece by Dr Callum Watson on his blog here

https://drcallumwatson.blogspot.com/2018/05/by-divine-providence-and-not-otherwise.html

#Scotland #Scottish #History #Royalty

11 notes · View notes

weavingthetapestry · 7 years

Text

The Battle of Largs and the Treaty of Perth, Part 3

(Reading time- roughly 16 minutes, here are parts 1 and 2)

A fair wind saw the Norwegian fleet reach Shetland within days, where it put into Bressay for a couple of weeks before continuing on to Orkney. There Hakon IV remained for the rest of July, negotiating with the inhabitants of Caithness across the Pentland Firth (who paid the king’s tax to avoid trouble), while sending some of his fleet further south to plunder in the Moray Firth. After around a month spent in the Northern Isles, demonstrating his lordship, the king then set sail again on the 10th of August, rounding Cape Wrath and joining up with the galleys of Magnus Olafsson, King of Mann, on the way south. The whole fleet now sailed unchecked through the Inner Hebrides, passing the recently devastated island of Skye and stopping briefly in Lochalsh, before moving on to the island of Kerrera, where Alexander II of Scotland had died of an illness just over fourteen years before, during his own Hebridean expedition. There, Hakon split his force in half again, and himself sailed a way further south to the island of Gigha, opposite the Kintyre peninsula (on the Scottish mainland).

On Gigha, the Norwegian king once again set about demonstrating his lordship. A friar who came to ask that his monastery be spared was granted royal protection. Angus Mor MacDonald of Islay and a certain Murchad (possibly Murchadh MacSween) also journeyed to meet the king there and swore fealty, however their allegiance was obviously suspect and they were obliged to give hostages for the safety of their territory. The other major Island magnate to appear at Gigha was less ready to side with the Norwegian king; Ewen MacDougall of Argyll had learnt from his earlier troubles and, though for some reason he still met with King Hakon in Gigha, he steadfastly refused to break his new oath to the king of Scots, and was temporarily arrested.

Though the loyalty of the Hebridean lords who came to Gigha was hardly inspiring, Hakon was not without allies in the west. The other half of his fleet were plundering Kintyre at this time, and these galleys were partly commanded by Irish sea magnates, namely Magnus Olafsson, the Crovan king of Mann, and Dubhgall mac Ruadhrí, now sole king of the Isles (as far as Norway was concerned). Lesser men also joined the campaign as the Norwegian fleet passed through the Isles, though in some cases this may have been in order to settle personal scores or win plunder. Dunaverty Castle in Kintyre was also surrendered to the king of Norway around this time. A smaller ship sent ahead by the king even managed to take the Stewart stronghold of Rothesay on Bute, and several villages there were burnt. Meanwhile King Hakon received more visitors at Gigha, messengers from Irish lords who had heard of his coming and begged assistance against the English. The king sent men across to Ireland to find out more, but for now continued on his original mission; recalling his entire fleet, he rounded the Mull of Kintyre soon after and finally sailed into the Firth of Clyde.

(This is a very crowded diagram but should hopefully help)

While his ships lay in Lamlash Bay, sheltered between Arran and the Holy Isle, Hakon was approached by Dominican friars: messengers from Alexander III of Scotland, then at Ayr. For some time thereafter envoys went between the two monarchs, attempting to negotiate a peace. Ewen of Argyll was also released with surprising goodwill, and even given gifts; it is possible that Hakon hoped Ewen would persuade the king of Scots towards peace, but still odd that he does not seem to have been seriously punished for his earlier disloyalty. Eventually though, the talks floundered- Hakon would not relinquish the Western Isles and Alexander particularly refused to part with Arran, Bute, and the Cumbraes. The Scots may also have been playing for time, knowing that the season was growing late and the weather worsening. Eventually King Hakon moved across to the Cumbraes, implicitly threatening the adjacent Ayrshire coast, and gave the Scots a last chance to negotiate seriously, with both kings present, or meet in battle. The Scots did not falter at this threat however, and the Norwegians swiftly retaliated by sending forty galleys up Loch Long to harry Scotland, under the command of Magnus, king of Mann, and Dubhgall, king of the Isles, along with the latter’s brother Alan mac Ruadhrí and other islesmen. Having burnt Loch Lomond and the Lennox, Alan Mac Ruadhrí’s contingent may have penetrated even further into the country: the earldom of Menteith bordered the Lennox and was possibly an appealing target since it was held de jure uxoris by Walter Stewart. Even Stirling Castle seems to have been placed on a war footing, and was perhaps a base of operations for those defending against Alan’s incursion.

However, while this assault was possibly too close to the heart of the kingdom for comfort, the Scots were ultimately to weather the storm- quite literally, as the predicted bad weather now set in, and a violent storm just after Michaelmas wrecked ten of the galleys in Loch Long. It also played havoc with the fleet in the Firth, scattering many ships and causing even Kristsuden, King Hakon’s dragon-prowed longship, to drift despite being weighed down with eight anchors. Several longships, as well as a supply ship, drifted ashore, where they were harassed by Scottish arrows, though the Scots withdrew when King Hakon sent boats to reinforce the stranded men. The next day, the 2nd of October, the king himself went ashore with several hundred men to supervise the salvaging of the goods on the supply ship. He also sent one of his more active captains, Ogmund Crowdance, with two hundred men to a small mound above the beach. The work proceeded without much incident until the supply ship was almost empty, when suddenly a Scottish army was spotted, approaching swiftly from the south. Even taking into account the possibility of Norwegian exaggeration, the Scottish host seems to have been reasonably large for an army which was presumably only one of several such forces put on alert along the coast. Norwegian estimates of perhaps as many as five hundred well-mounted knights may not have been far off the mark, and these were reinforced by a much larger number of foot soldiers, carrying mostly bows and Irish axes. The Scots made such an impressive spectacle that some assumed their king was among them. In fact the army was most likely led by the major local magnate Alexander Stewart, the High Steward of Scotland, and perhaps also his brother Walter, Earl of Menteith, who may have been Sheriff of Ayr at this time and whose role would have been to lead the common army.

(Not my picture)

Moving quickly, the Scots made a feint on Ogmund Crowdance’s position atop the mound, possibly attempting to cut his force off from the beach. To avoid being surrounded, the men on the mound descended to the beach, though some of the Norwegians thought they were retreating and fled in turn. Now, King Hakon’s followers pleaded with him to return to the ships, and though he initially refused, he was eventually compelled to board one of the boats and be rowed away. Meanwhile, the Scots advanced, flinging arrows and stones, while the Norwegians abandoned the supply-ship and fell back, some of them drowning when the boats they tried to escape in sank. Others met their attackers in battle, and a violent skirmish ensued where the Norwegians were outnumbered and several of King Hakon’s guardsmen fell, though Sturla Thordarson's saga claims the Scots lost more men. When the Norwegians regrouped, it was the Scots’ turn to withdraw and, after a long period of fighting, retreat, while the Norwegians, with no wish to fight further, returned to the sea, rowing back to their ships with great difficulty in the stormy conditions. The next morning, some Norwegians were sent back to count the dead, and bury them in a nearby church, (the Scots had had time to remove many of their dead to a wood). Meanwhile, the galleys that had been sent to raid up Loch Long rejoined the main fleet, and, after sending men to burn the ships that had been beached near Largs, King Hakon sailed back to Arran with his fleet. When brought news of Irish affairs by the messenger he had earlier sent, Hakon seems to have been of a mind to sail over to Ireland to help against the English, but was strongly opposed by his army, who seem to have been largely against prosecuting yet another war. Thus frustrated, Hakon sailed out of the Firth of Clyde, deciding to postpone his campaign till spring.

This then was the famous ‘Battle of Largs’, more accurately an inconclusive tussle on the beach in which most of the Norwegian force was not present, and the Scots were not gloriously victorious. The main near-contemporary source for the campaign is Sturla Thordarson’s saga of the life of Hakon Hakonarsson, and Sturla never explicitly attributes a victory to either side, though he does claim at points that the Scots had the worst of the fighting. The Scottish Chronicle of Melrose was as eager to attribute Norwegians' defeat to the hand of God (wrecking their fleet and spreading disease among them) as to Scottish military might. Thus the fight on the beach at Largs, at least of itself, does not seem to have struck any contemporary writers as particularly game-changing. This did not prevent later writers waxing lyrical upon the subject though. John of Fordun gives the number of Hakon’s fighting men as 20,000 which seems somewhat exaggerated (though the tally of ships is given as 160, which is likely near enough) and portrays the event as an unambiguous Scottish triumph where the royal army ‘swept down many [Norwegians], both nobles and serfs’. Fordun’s continuator Walter Bower added yet more to the story, thousands of Norwegians were slain in the 'severe battle' at Largs, and that King Hakon himself barely escaped with his life. Bower even adds a story of the spirit of St Margaret (with her husband and several sons) personally going to Largs to defend Scotland from ‘the usurper who is unjustly trying to subject my kingdom to his rule’. Some later historians were rather more discerning (Lord Hailes thankfully being one of them to an extent) but others, especially nineteenth century popular historians, raised the profile of the battle in the imagination of many Scots, with Taylor’s Pictorial History (for one) naming it as one of the most important ‘national’ events in Scottish history, thus placing it on a par with Stirling Bridge and Bannockburn. This approach is now rightly seen by most modern historians as something of a misrepresentation, at the very least.

(The mural designed by William Brassey Hole that depicts the Battle of Largs may be seen at the National Gallery of Scotland. Not my picture)

Nonetheless Largs does assume greater importance if considered in a wider context, both of the 1263 campaign and Hakon IV’s reputation. Though at first glance the Norwegian campaign seems impressive, with several castles taken, Hakon’s fleet accompanied by key Hebridean magnates, and his followers raiding the interior of the Scottish kingdom, there are in fact signs that it was a rather hollow effort. On several occasions, Hakon had been opposed or even overruled by his own men, while he had allowed Ewen MacDougall's defection to go largely unpunished. His army had attacked the Scottish mainland, but, crucially, Scotland weathered this assault, and nor were the Scots cowed, as others had been, by the sight of Hakon’s fleet in the Firth of Clyde nor by his threats of war. Hakon did not make another attempt on the mainland after Largs, preferring to postpone his campaign for the winter- a wise move in view of the weather, and the Scots' readiness to withstand assault, but it meant relinquishing his advantage. There were wider problems too. As Hakon sailed north again he rewarded his men, but it soon became clear that the Scots would simply exact revenge upon his adherents as soon as the Norwegians were out of the way. The Scottish Crown, stronger now than in 1098 and ruthlessly intent on expansion, was able to put pressure on the Hebrides in a way that Norway, due to both distance and resources, simply could not match in the long term. King Alexander III could also rely on stronger (if often self-serving) support from local magnates- when King Hakon stopped at Kerrera on his way north, he received news that Ewen of Argyll had attacked Mull, while later some of his men who went ashore in Sutherland were killed by Scots. Even as Hakon’s fleet sailed to Orkney, intending to winter there and then resume the campaign, it must have been clear that this would be an increasingly difficult undertaking. Certainly, Sturla Thordarson’s claim that, ‘In this expedition, king Hakon had won back again all the dominions that king Magnus Bareleg had acquired’, was not entirely truthful.

For now, Hakon dismissed some of his army upon returning to Orkney (though others went without leave), but soon the king’s campaign was brought to a more permanent end. Ever since summer, he had suffered intermittently from sickness, and now he became seriously ill, taking to his bed in the Bishop’s Palace at Kirkwall just after Martinmas. Though his health improved briefly, it soon deteriorated again and, as it became clear to the king that he was dying, he put his affairs in order, paying off retainers and writing advisory letters to his son, the lately crowned King Magnus, having affirmed that he had no other offspring living. Meanwhile, books were read to him day and night- first the Bible and then, as he grew weaker, works in Norse, the saints’ lives and, after, the sagas of kings. Sturla Thordarson writes that this continued until the saga of Hakon’s grandfather, Sverre, was finished near midnight on the 15th of December. Just after midnight, King Hakon finally passed. He was not yet sixty, but had ruled Norway for forty-six years. In the course of his long reign he achieved an end to the bitter civil wars that had divided Norway for over a century, and was also highly educated and a formidable military leader, who, for better or for worse, left Norway a much reformed kingdom. It was his misfortune to die in the middle of an ultimately disappointing campaign, which, if not before, was now definitely a failure. His body was returned to Bergen in the new year, where it was met by his son Magnus and interred in Christ Church. Meanwhile, the news of Hakon's death was allegedly brought to Alexander III of Scotland on the same day that his queen Margaret of England, gave birth to a son and heir Prince Alexander**.

While the Norwegians buried their king, the Scots wasted no time in pressing their advantage. Before Hakon’s body was even cold in the ground, the Earl of Ross was menacing Caithness on behalf of the Crown, while in the summer of 1264 Alan Durward and the earls of Buchan and Mar invaded the Isles, receiving Angus Mor of Islay’s submission. An invasion of the Isle of Man was only prevented by King Magnus Olafsson personally journeying to Dumfries to do homage to the King of Scots for the island; the submission of the man who had been such an active supporter of King Hakon only the previous year is a particularly strong example of the way the wind was blowing in 1264. Later, Alan Mac Ruadhrí would also come into King Alexander’s peace, though his brother King Dubhgall remained at large and in defiance of the Scottish Crown until his death in 1268, possibly in exile in Norway.

In light of all this- both the constant Scottish pressure on Norwegian possessions in the Hebrides and the recent loss of his father- it is little wonder that King Magnus of Norway was sick of the war in the west, as were many of his subjects. The Orcadians were the first to sue for peace, and the bishop and chancellor of Orkney sent messengers to the king of Scots as early as spring of 1264. These messengers were not at all successful however, as the Scots imprisoned some of the envoys and angrily accused the Norwegians of burning and plundering their land- which may seem somewhat rich coming from Scotland but it seems to me like the Scots were utilising a sense of righteous indignation while flexing their negotiating muscles and holding out for better terms than a mere suspension of hostilities. In any case, later on when the King of Norway himself sent envoys they were more readily welcomed, and the Scots seemed amenable to peace, recommending that the Norwegian king send more messengers in the future. Now negotiations proceeded more smoothly, with the two countries frequently exchanging emissaries over the next couple of years. Eventually King Magnus seems to have come to the opinion that only the permanent surrender of the Hebrides would ensure peace, but the Norwegians would not walk away empty-handed from this deal as it was decided that the Scots would pay a yearly fee for the islands- what is often known as the ‘annual’. Thus the Treaty of Perth was ratified in 1266, with the Scots agreeing to pay an annual fee of a hundred marks for the Hebrides and the Isle of Man, and King Alexander paying four thousand marks up front ‘for greater security’. Conflict between Norway and Scotland was finally brought to an end, and Scottish sovereignty over the Western Isles and Mann formally established.

Though some Scottish histories, having reached this point, like to shuffle the Western Isles offstage again until the Battle of Harlaw in 1411, the Treaty of Perth was only the start of a very new relationship between the Hebrides and the Scottish Crown, while the Isle of Man also went through considerable change in the century that followed. In fact, as Scotland entered an extended period of civil strife in the fourteenth century, the isles once again saw the rebirth of a strong, semi-independent political entity in the form of the Lordship of the Isles, and continued to take a distinctively Hebridean stance in Irish sea politics in the centuries that followed. But in 1266 the balance of power in the Atlantic certainly shifted, and Norway’s ability to insert itself into the political affairs of the British Isles was massively reduced, even despite their possession of Orkney and Shetland. By the early fourteenth century Norwegian politics had definitively shifted away from a focus on the west, while Scotland was now an increasingly centralised and coherent kingdom, at least officially, and this would become increasingly apparent over the course of the late thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. With the exception of the Northern Isles (and later the loss of Berwick-upon-Tweed and Man), the borders of the Scottish kingdom by the end of the reign of Alexander III were much more similar to the way they look today, and the annexation of the Western Isles had an immeasurable effect on the way in which that country was viewed both by its inhabitants and the outside world.

*It is worth noting briefly England’s position in all this. Fractured by civil war at this point, the English were essentially unable to capitalise on Norwegian defeat, and it may well have turned out to be a good time for Norwegian intervention in Ireland if Hakon had gone through with it. Also, in 1262 Henry III wrote a very interesting letter to the king of Norway begging him not to invade the British Isles, which has been the source of much speculation since.

**Prince Alexander of course died in 1284, following the deaths of his sister, brother and mother. Alexander III died in 1286, and his granddaughter- Hakon IV’s great-granddaughter- Margaret of Norway died, like her great-grandfather, in Kirkwall in 1290- this crisis of the succession indirectly led to the Wars of Independence.

Selected References for all three parts:

“Early Sources of Scottish History,’ Volume II, A.O. Anderson (sources such as the Icelandic Annals, Sturla Thordarson’s saga of Hakon Hakonarsson, the Chronicle of Melrose, the Chronicle of Mann, and several Irish Annals)

‘Chronica Gentis Scotorum’, by John of Fordun (trans. W.F. Skene)

‘Scotichronicon’, by Walter Bower (trans. D.E.R. Watt)

‘The Kingdom of the Isles’, R. Andrew McDonald

‘Kingship and Unity’, G.W.S. Barrow

‘Domination and Lordship, Scotland 1070-1230′, Richard Oram

‘The Wars of Scotland, 1214-1371′, Michael Brown

‘The Army of Alexander III’s Scotland’, G.W.S. Barrow in ‘Scotland in the Reign of Alexander III’, ed. Norman H. Reid

‘Norwegian Sunset- Scottish Dawn: Hakon IV and Alexander III’, by Edward J. Cowan (also in the above)

‘Alexander II’, Richard Oram

‘The Norwegian Invasion of Scotland in 1263: A Translation from Det Norske Folks Historie’ P.A. Munch

And others

#Battle of Largs #Scottish history #Scotland #Norway #Norwegian history #Western Isles #Isle of Man #thirteenth century #Alexander III #Hakon IV #warfare #battles #House of Dunkeld #House of Sverre #Ayr #Orkney #Kirkwall #Treaty of Perth

6 notes · View notes