HISTORICAL DEBATE
Historical debate
Was there a ‘Golden Age’ of Scotland?
For many historians the idea that Scotland enjoyed a ‘Golden Age’ of peace
and prosperity during the reign of Alexander III is based on a strong
argument:
 Scotland’s trade and communications with t he continent flourished.
 The Inverness shipyards built fine ships for the Count of St Po,
transporting troops on crusade.
 The wool trade through Berwick flourished with both Flemish and German
cloth factories being established in Berwick.
 There was an extension of the kingdom thanks to the Battle of Largs in
1263, a personal victory for Alexander III who had now driven Norway out
of the British Isles (with the exception of Orkney and Shetland).
 There existed a close relationship with Edward I, but Alexa nder III was
also able to defend his sovereignty at Westminster in 1278, stating: ‘No
one has a right to homage for my kingdom of Scotland save God alone,
and I hold it only of God.’
 Simon Schama describes Scotland in Alexander’s reign as ‘ a flourishing
kingdom, with its ceremonial centre divided between Scone, the palace of
royal inauguration, and Dunfermline Abbey, the necropolis of the house of
Canmore. The prosperous maritime port cities of Scotland, from Aberdeen
in the north to Berwick in the south, shipped hides and wool and housed
the same mix of local artisans and foreign merchants and had established
a place in the dynamic trading economy of the North Sea ’[1].
[1] A History of Britain Volume 1 (Schama, 2000, p 198).
How important is the idea of the Community of the Realm?
One aspect of the period which has been the subject of a great deal of
historical debate is the notion of the Community of the Realm. That the
leading nobility and clergy were able to rally arou nd during this period of
crisis is well documented. The political Community of the Realm, therefore,
refers to the barons, earls and bishops who associated with the king and
participated in the running of the country. The six guardians appointed for
Margaret represented this community. Indeed, some historians believe that
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
1
HISTORICAL DEBATE
the six guardians were deliberately chosen to represent the different
geographical regions of Scotland, with two earls, two lords/barons and two
bishops to represent the different spheres of power. Robert Bruce and John
Balliol were not chosen to be guardians, and that could say something about
the tension at the time. Barrow suggests that the membership of the guardians
was deliberately designed to represent these two factions. On the other hand,
other historians argue that the Bruce faction felt excluded during this period.
That the guardians managed to work together so effectively suggests that in
1286, with the threat of civil war hanging over them, they were able to come
together for what was deemed the good of the kingdom. That Bishops Fraser
and Wishart had a strong influence in this cannot be denied. The two
statesmanlike clerics probably steered the magnates of the kingdom around to
their way of thinking. Nevertheless, the guardians were remarkably practical
in their dealings with their own countrymen, as well as Edward I. Again, with
the backing of the bishops, the guardians were able to agree at the Parliament
of Scone to accept Margaret as queen. Even Robert Bruce accepted ( although
apparently with poor grace). It is a notable achievement for them to have held
the kingdom together in the name of a three -year-old, to enforce the laws and
negotiate with a foreign power.
Professor Barrow strongly believes in the existence of this Community of the
Realm of Scotland. He states: ‘Of course there was such a community, even
when a king was on the throne, but in normal times, with an adult and
vigorous rulers, the community would fade into the background .’[2] Fiona
Watson agrees, stating that ‘Despite the reputation usually given to them, the
Scottish nobility, while by no means entirely united (an d what group of
politicians are!), managed to maintain control of the situation ’.[3]
It should, however, be noted that this concept of the Community of the Realm
does not seem to have emerged before 1286 and meant different things at
different times to different people. It is a different concept from modern -day
ones of nationhood and nationalism, but is representativ e of perhaps the birth
of these ideas.
[2] Robert Bruce (Barrow, 1988, p 16).
[3] In Search of Scotland (ed. Gordon Menzies, 2001, p 68).
2
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
HISTORICAL DEBATE
Why was the Treaty of Birgham so important to the Scots?
In essence, the Guardians of Scotland may have been happy enough with the
marriage proposal between young Edward and Margaret, but they were at
least a little anxious about Edward I. The marriage would have removed the
threat of civil war. However, the guardians felt they needed to be involved in
drafting the treaty, rather than be sidelined by the negotiations between
Margaret’s father, the King of Norway, and Edward I. Thus they were keen to
see some safeguards installed in the treaty that would ensure the long -term
survival of their ancient customs and rights. Parliament would not be held
outside Scotland, nor would they be called to pay feudal dues to Edward I. It
was therefore was important to maintain the independence of Scotland.
Some historians have argued that Edward’s guarantee of Scottish
independence and the lack of mention of overlordship within the Treaty of
Birgham demonstrate his good intentions towards Scotland in 1290. However,
it is important to note that althought the issue of overlordship is not explicitly
mentioned, Edward was careful to reserve his rights despite the various
guarantees offered to the Scots. He may not, at this stage have been interested
in overlordship, but he did not give up his right to return to this issue at a
later date. Some others point out that Edward wanted, and indeed did, appoint
his own representative in Scotland. Bishop Bek of Durham was sent north to
be Edward’s lieutenant and the caretaker of the kingdom on behalf of the
betrothed couple, while at the same time Edward absorbed t he Isle of Man
into his territory. However, it is a matter of debate as to whether there was
anything sinister in Edward’s actions at this stage.
What were Edward’s intentions towards Scotland?
Edward’s intentions towards the Scots have led to much historical debate.
Historians are somewhat contradictory about what Edward’s aspirations were
at any specific time. It has been said that Edward was initially ambivalent
about the fate of Scotland; he was after all in France when Alexander III died.
His treatment of the Scots at Birgham would lend some credence to this
argument. The situation with France was clearly a concern to Edward at this
point. From this, some historians have put the case that Edward pursued the
issue of overlordship perhaps in order to pr event the Scots from taking
France’s side against the English. However, others, such as Fiona Watson,
point out that England did not actually go to war with France until 1295.
We do know that Edward had written to all English monasteries asking them
to search their records and libraries for any written reference or justification
for England’s overlordship to Scotland, prior to the meeting at Norham. He
also had his fleet on standby ready to blockade Scottish ports and was
summoning levies from the northern counties to form an army. It was
probably clear to the guardians that his attitudes towards Scotland had
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
3
HISTORICAL DEBATE
changed with the death of the Maid of Norway, and many historians agree
that this tragic incident altered Edward’s intentions to his northern border .
Perhaps the success of absorbing Wales into England’s sphere of influence
created the belief that the same could be done with Scotland and here was the
perfect opportunity.
Most historians agree that Edward, who was on friendly terms with Alexander
III, saw this as his opportunity to take advantage of Scotland during its period
of weakness. He was also the great-uncle of the Maid of Norway and so could
expect to wield influence over her and, thereby, over Scotland. On her death,
his method of achieving influence was also forced to change. Certainly, no
King of Scots had previously been treated in such a way as Edward would
treat King John.
Who had the rightful claim to Scotland?
The process of deciding on the next king following the death of the Maid of
Norway was long and drawn-out, lasting over 15 months. Edward, now that
overlordship was assured, wanted to see justice served and took the advice of
experts to ensure that the correct precedent was set (perhaps with an eye to
his own inheritance). The first question which had to be addressed was
whether Scotland should remain as one kingdom, or whether it should be split
between the leading claimants, with one taking the title as well as his share of
land. John of Hastings argued for this, but the court d ecided that Scotland
would remain intact.
Then there was the question of who had the best claim. With Alexander III’s
line dead the court was forced to look at the earlier generation of the royal
family, the offspring of William the Lion and his younger brother David, Earl
of Huntingdon. Both Bruce and Balliol were genuine descendants of David,
but crucially Bruce was the son of the middle daughter of Earl David, while
Balliol, though a grandson, was descendant from the eldest daughter of Earl
David. The law of primogeniture – the legal process where inheritance would
pass down the eldest line – was becoming more accepted in Scotland but was
by no means the guaranteed way in which the court would rule. Robert Bruce
unsuccessfully argued that primogeniture had no meaning in this case because
a kingdom was special and therefore ordinary customs did not apply. The
court decided this was not true and his application was rejected. In
desperation he then joined Hastings in his attempt to get the kingdom split
into three and shared equally, but again he was unsuccessful.
Medieval chroniclers writing after the Wars of Independence took the view
that Balliol was chosen because he was a weak man who could be pushed
around by Edward, in contrast to the stonger charact er of Robert Bruce.
However, their writings are almost certainly influenced by the context within
4
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
HISTORICAL DEBATE
which they were working, given that the kings during this period were
descendants of Robert the Bruce. The views offered in these chronicles can
be taken as propaganda for the Bruce family. Revisionist historians,
therefore, tend to disagree with the opinion of the chroniclers. There is no
evidence that Balliol was particularly weak; any king would have found it
difficult to work in the conditions he struggle d under. Added to this is the
fact that he had the better claim as primogeniture was becoming established
as a custom in Scotland. The choice was nothing to do with character; it had
everything to do with legitimacy. Moreover, Robert Bruce the competitor and
his son the Earl of Carrick were the first to swear an oath of fealty to Edward,
and often acted subserviently to the English king in the hope of securing his
favour and forwarding their cause.
WARS OF INDEPENDENCE (H, HISTORY)
© Learning and Teaching Scotland 2009
5