And the Great Cause
The succession problem
and the Great Cause
Sources
From In search of Scotland, Fiona Watson, 2001.
The sudden demise of Alexander III on 19 March 1286 at the respectable enough age of forty-four was a tragedy only because his two sons had predeceased him. Alexander’s only potential direct heir, his three-year-old granddaughter Margaret, the Maid of Norway, was the first female to have the prospect of succeeding to the Scottish throne. The fact that she was in Norway and a mere child did not endear her to the conservative Scottish nobility, even though they had reluctantly promised to uphold her rights only two years earlier in 1284. The Maid’s great-uncle, Edward I of England, promised to help the Scottish leaders in their hour of need, a valuable potential strong arm in view of the sword-rattling already threatening the country from Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale and a claimant to the throne.
How far does the source describe how the Scots resolved the succession problems caused by the death of Alexander III? (10)
From In search of Scotland, Fiona Watson, 2001.
Despite the reputation usually given to them, the Scottish nobility, while by no means entirely united (and what group of politicians are!), managed to maintain control of the situation. Government was entrusted to six Guardians, representing the main political groupings of the time. In the meantime, plans were being made to marry the young heiress to Edward’s son and heir, though the Scots were canny enough to ensure that a proper legal framework for the continuing independence of the northern kingdom was laid down. Sadly for everyone, the death of the Maid en route to Scotland, scuppered all these carefully laid plans for a peaceful settlement of Scotland’s dynastic problems. The prospect of all-out civil war was now very real indeed. A king would have to be chosen; the question was how and by whom.
How far does the source describe how the Scots resolved the succession problems caused by the death of Alexander III? (10)
From Medieval Scotland, A D M Barrell, 2000.
The Guardians needed to secure the support of Edward I of England, whose good will towards Scotland was essential for stability and security. In 1286 Edward was preoccupied with the affairs of his territories in Gascony, and spent the period from May 1286 until June 1289 overseas, but he must have realised the potential advantages of a marriage between his own son and the young Scottish queen. The Guardians too saw the merit in such an alliance, as it would persuade the English king to support those who ruled in his daughter-in-law’s name and would thereby ensure strong government. The later rapacity of Edward I may make the Scots’ overtures appear misguided, but there was a long history of royal marriages between the two countries and there had been a lengthy period of generally peaceful relations between their respective monarchs. The Guardians were aware of the dangers of a marriage alliance, but equally they could not afford to ignore Edward, still less antagonise him.
Letter from the leading men of Scotland to Edward I on hearing the news of the papal dispensation, March, 1290.
We are overjoyed at the news not yet made public of which many speak, that the Pope has authorised and granted a dispensation that the marriage may take place between the lord Edward your son and Lady Margaret, our very dear lady, notwithstanding their close blood relationship, and we ask your Highness please, to confirm this.
For if the dispensation is pleasing to you, we from this moment authorise that the marriage take place between them and we give our agreement and consent to it.
How useful is the source in describing how the political community of Scotland viewed the proposed marriage between the Maid of Norway and Edward I’s son? (5)
Extract from the Treaty of Birgham-Northampton, July-August 1290.
We promise that the kingdom of Scotland shall remain separate and divided from the kingdom of England by its rightful boundaries and borders as has been observed up to now and that it shall be free in itself and independent, reserving always the right of our lord (Edward I) which belonged to him in the borders or elsewhere.
No parliament shall be held outwith the kingdom of Scotland on matters concerning that kingdom or the position of those who live in the kingdom. Neither shall any taxes be exacted from that kingdom or be placed upon the people of that kingdom except to meet the common affairs of the kingdom.
How useful is the source in explaining the political community’s concerns for the future of the kingdom of Scotland? (5)
From Robert Bruce: our most valiant prince, king and lord, Colm McNamee, 2006.
Edward was still being drawn into the Scottish arena as opposed to forcing intervention, for the Scottish factions were making approaches to him. Bishop Fraser wrote in October, warning Edward that the Bruce faction had already taken up arms, that Robert the Noble had come to Perth, near Scone, with a powerful retinue; Fraser asked Edward to come to the border to prevent bloodshed, and to place the rightful heir on the throne. He implied strongly that Balliol was the rightful heir. The document received from the Bruce faction is known as the Appeal of the seven earls. The Appeal is a blend of invention and antiquarian myth. It sought Edward’s help against Bishop Fraser and John Comyn, and it reveals that the Guardians were now dominated by the Balliol interest. The kernel of the document however is the hitherto unheard of constitutional theory that the seven earls of Scotland had the right to choose the king.
How far does the source explain why Edward became involved in the succession dispute in Scotland? (10)
From The wars of Scotland 1214-1371, Michael Brown, 2004.
The bishops and magnates of Scotland had gone to Norham aware of Edward’s character and claims. They may have been ready to fend off a renewal of these claims to be superior lord of Scotland, but they did not expect a naked demand for submission. Recognition of Edward’s rights would have cut through the customs, structures and integrity of their kingdom, the communal and individual status and rights which they had sought at Birgham. Opposition to the demand was probably widespread, but the options of the Scots were limited. In early June they begged Edward to arbitrate between the claimants as a friend, not to judge the case as a lord. Concerning Edward’s demands for overlordship, the Scots replied that only their king could answer on the status of his realm. Edward was ready for this response. The absence of a Scottish king strengthened, not weakened, Edward’s hand, and he exploited the divisions created by the succession dispute.
How far does the source explain why the Scots sought Edward I’s intervention in the succession issue? (10)
Extract from the Appeal of the seven earls to Edward I, some time in late 1290 – early 1291.
Since by the death of lord Alexander of noble memory, late king of Scotland, the royal throne of the kingdom has been vacant until the present time, and since by the laws and customs of the kingdom of Scotland, it is one of the rights and privileges of the seven earls of the kingdom of Scotland, and of the community of the realm, to make a king of that kingdom, and to set him upon the royal throne, we appeal by this document to the Lord Edward, by God’s grace the illustrious king of England: we seek urgently the help of the king of England in placing the persons of the seven earls and their adherents among the community of the realm of Scotland under the special peace and protection of the king of England.
How useful is the source in explaining why Edward I became involved in helping decide the succession to the kingship of Scotland? (5)
OR
How far does the source explain the reasons for the Scots’ appeal to Edward I in 1290? (10)
The ‘Award of Norham’, issued in the name of nine claimants, June 1291.
To all who shall see or hear this letter, Florence, count of Holland, Robert de Brus, lord of Annandale, John Balliol, lord of Galloway, John de Hastings, lord of Abergavenny, John Comyn, lord of Badenoch, Patrick de Dunbar, earl of March, John de Vesci on behalf of his father, Nicholas de Soules and William de Ros, greetings in God. Since we consider that we have a right within this kingdom of Scotland, and are entitled to present that right before the person who has most power, jurisdiction and reason to investigate our right, and since the noble lord Edward has shown us by good and sufficient reasons that the sovereign lordship of the kingdom of Scotland belongs to him, we, of our own free will, grant that we should receive justice before him as sovereign lord of the land. We promise that we shall accept his decision without dispute.
How useful is the source in explaining how Edward I secured overlordship over the kingdom of Scotland in 1291? (5)
From Robert Bruce’s rivals: the Comyns 1212-1314, Alan Young, 1997.
There is evidence even before the Maid of Norway’s death that Edward was developing an interventionist policy towards Scotland. His central role in the negotiations for a marriage between his son and the young heiress of Scotland gave him some authority to oversee and ensure some stability in Scottish affairs. The death of Margaret ended the paternal role which Edward could have legitimately played. The urgent appeals of the two rival political forces in Scotland gave Edward every reason to believe that his intervention was welcome and that he could take the opportunity to insist on his recognition as lord superior of Scotland. Edward’s actions in the early months of 1291 show that he was prepared to intervene decisively. That English claims for overlordship were central to his policy is shown by his search through the chronicles of English religious houses for evidence of his claims.
From Edward I, Michael Prestwich, 1997.
With Alexander III’s death, Edward had the opportunity of extending his influence in Scotland by means of the proposed marriage of his son to Margaret of Norway. In order to ensure the success of that plan, Edward was quite prepared to make extensive promises of independence to the Scots in the Treaty of Birgham, which he confirmed at Northampton. Margaret’s death changed the situation completely. It became necessary for Edward to press his claims to overlordship, so that he could hear the succession dispute, and then so that he could exercise some control over the new king. On 8 March 1291, the abbot of Evesham, and probably some thirty other heads of monasteries, were asked to provide information from chronicles ‘touching in any way our realm and the rule of Scotland’.
To what extent do the sources agree on Edward I’s involvement in the issue
of the Scottish succession?(5)
1
Edward asks the Scots to recognise his overlordship at Norham, May 1291. (Speech made on Edward’s behalf by his chief justice, Roger Brabazon.)
Our king, seeing that the peace of Scotland has been disturbed[1] by the deaths of king Alexander and of his offspring[2] who were relatives of our king, and by whose deaths he is greatly distressed, and wishing to do justice to all who can lay any claim to the inheritance of the kingdom of Scotland and to keep the peace among the people, has asked you, the good people of the realm, to come here because of something he wishes to explain to you. He himself has come here from a distant country[3] so that by virtue of the overlordship which he has, he may do justice to everyone and after all disturbances have been put down he may restore firm peace to the kingdom of Scotland. So that this matter may be concluded satisfactorily our lord king asks for your kind agreement and for recognition of his overlordship; and he wishes to act with your advice in doing justice.
The Scots’ response to Edward’s demands for recognition of his overlordship, from an account of Anglo-Scottish relations submitted by the Scots to the pope in 1321.
Having heard this, the stupefied Scots answered that they had never heard of such a thing, and begged that he would attempt nothing against a headless people, for the spreading of his overlordship might be the beginning of many evils.
The king swore firmly that the Scots ought not to escape one of three things: that either they should concede overlordship of the kingdom to him, or they should convince him that it was not due, or they should defend themselves from him by arms.
To these proposals the bishop of Glasgow answered that although a headless people might grant his first request while the kingdom was vacant, the kingdom could not be assigned to him perpetually, nor would anything accrue of right to him by that fact; to the second he said that they ought not to have to prove a negative, but he ought to prove the subjection to be due to him which he claims is due to him. As for the point that they should be ready to defend themselves: the bishop answered that it would not be honourable for such a king to invade a country destitute from all protection of a defender, by which also the journey to the Holy Land which he had undertaken might be prevented and many other misfortunes would follow.
The king granted a term to discuss: not a year, or half of another period within which they might consult friends or gather together their power to resist his threat of violence, but only three weeks within which he wished to be answered on all matters.
From Robert Bruce: our most valiant prince, king and lord, Colm McNamee, 2006.
Most authoritiesagree that Balliol’s case was stronger, and that Balliol enjoyed wider support among the nobility and the clergy than Bruce. Balliol’s case was based on primogeniture: the kingdom could not be divided, and therefore had to be awarded to the descendant of David of Huntingdon’s eldest daughter, Margaret, namely himself, her grandson. Seniority of line, not nearness by degree, was what mattered in the Balliol view.
How far does the source explain why Balliol rather than Bruce was awarded the kingship in November 1292? (10)
From Scotland: the story of a nation, (by Magnus Magnusson), Fiona Watson, 2000.
The decision of Edward I to choose Balliol as king has gone down in Scottish history as being a travesty of justice – the justice of the Bruce claim to the throne. But historians are no longer prepared to accept that. In terms of the claims of the two men, Balliol had the most obviously straightforward claim because of the ways in which primogeniture had evolved by the thirteenth century. Bruce’s big claim was that he was a generation nearer to the previous king, but that was irrelevant; so it would not have come as a surprise to anyone that Balliol was chosen as king.
The argument has been advanced that Balliol was chosen because he was the weaker man, the man who would bend the more easily to Edward’s will. In fact it was Robert Bruce the Competitor, not John Balliol, who was the first to accept Edward’s claim to overlordship of Scotland, and who did so at every opportunity thereafter.
How far does the source explain how Edward resolved the succession issue in the Great Cause? (10)
And finally ……… an issues question:
From For the lion: a history of the Scottish Wars of Independence 1296-1357, Raymond Campbell Paterson, 1996.
Edward arrived at the bishop of Durham’s castle at Norham on 10 May 1291. He was met there by the leading magnates and bishops of Scotland who expected him as an arbiter. But Edward came determined to be an overlord and judge. The Scots were promptly presented with the demand that they recognize the king as their feudal superior. Although the Scots made a spirited attempt to resist, arguing that they could not make a decision of such gravity in the absence of a lawfully appointed king, Edward would not be deflected from his purpose. He was able to exploit the ambitions and desires of the various competitors, of whom there would eventually be thirteen in all.
How fully does the source describe the succession problem in Scotland 1286-1292?
(10)
1
[1]A favourite ploy of Edward: to suggest Scotland was unsettled, on the verge of civil disorder, but then it suited him to suggest that. Compare the state of Scotland 1286-1292 with the violence in England in his son’s reign. Now that was ‘disturbed’
[2]This source appeared in the SQA specimen paper: the Latin, here translated as ‘offspring’, was given there as ‘grandchildren’, that would have misled candidates: Alexander III only had one grandchild, the Maid
[3]Always translated as ‘from a distant country’. England – distant? It would be better translated as ‘from distant parts’