King John
Sources
1
.From The Bruce, John Barbour, 1370s
He (King John) was king for only a short while, and by great cunning and guile, for little
or no reason, he was taken and arrested, and then degraded of his honour and dignity.
Whether that was right or wrong, God knows, for he is omnipotent.
From Scotichronicon, Walter Bower, 1440s
King John, intruded upon by the guile and power of the king of England, was king for
less than four years, in very great servitude to the king of England. Before this, the
kingdom was, so to speak, headless for seven years after the death of the peace-making
King Alexander III, and abnormal in the time of this disastrous King John. When
Edward the mighty king had done what he wanted with John Balliol, who was so speedily
found wanting and deprived, he occupied the whole land of Scotland.
From A history of Scotland, Reverend James MacKenzie, 1894
(During the Great Cause) Edward decided to examine with the greatest care the several
grounds of claims to the vacant throne. It was all a pretence. He had made up his mind
from the first to give it to John Balliol. He wanted a tool to work with, and saw that
Balliol was the man for his purpose. Edward pronounced in favour of Balliol. This done,
John Balliol passed into England and paid homage to Edward in the regular feudal
manner. Having submitted to all this degradation, he returned to Scotland to enjoy his
crown.
(Following the battle of Dunbar in 1296) John Balliol submitted to his haughty
conqueror. In the churchyard at Stracathro, a small village near Montrose, he performed
public penance for his rebellion. The king of Scotland, arrayed in his royal robes and
mounted on a horse, was brought in. He was ordered to dismount. A herald proclaimed
his treason. The crown was snatched from his royal mantle, and the sceptre plucked from
his hand. Standing on the bare ground, clothed only in his shirt and drawers, and holding
a white rod1 in his hand, he confessed his faults. In return for all his humble submission,
he was sent a prisoner to London and confined in the Tower. So ended the miserable and
shameful reign of John Balliol.
1
Possibly as a symbol of peace
2
From Scotland: The story of a nation, (Magnus Magnusson), Fiona
Watson, 2000.
Balliol was not well known in Scotland before he became king, but he did a reasonable
job, considering that he was up against a king who had the best legal mind in Europe – a
man, moreover, who was prepared to use military force to back up his claims. From
south of the border, Edward was constantly telling him what to do. I do not think anyone
could have stood up to Edward; and anyone who tried would have had to fight a war over
it. That was a decision which Balliol took a long time to make – quite rightly, because it
would plunge Scotland into a war with a very formidable adversary.
I think John Balliol’s reputation is due for serious revision – he certainly deserves much
more attention and much more understanding, but that devastating nickname, ‘Toom
Tabard’, is difficult to get round, and it is even more difficult to reach the real John
Balliol through the propaganda and vilification engendered by the man who usurped his
throne – Robert the Bruce.
Below: Fordun on Edward I; telling it like it is.
From The Chronicle of the Scottish Nation, John of Fordun, 1370s.
The same year died Edward I, the king of England, on 5 April, 1307, at Burgh-uponSands. This king stirred up war as soon as he had become a knight, and lashed the
English with awful scourgings. He troubled the whole world by his wickedness, and
roused it by his cruelty. He invaded Wales. He treacherously subdued unto him the
Scots and their kingdom. John Balliol, the king thereof, and his son, he cast into prison.
To some he put an end in filthy dungeons. He slew the people and committed other
misdeeds without end.
3
From Scotland: The story of a nation, (Magnus Magnusson), Fiona
Watson, 2000.
Balliol was not well known in Scotland before he became king, but he did a
reasonable job, considering that he was up against a king who had the best legal
mind in Europe – a man, moreover, who was prepared to use military force to back
up his claims. From south of the border, Edward was constantly telling him what to
do. I do not think anyone could have stood up to Edward; and anyone who tried
would have had to fight a war over it. That was a decision which Balliol took a
long time to make – quite rightly, because it would plunge Scotland into a war with
a very formidable adversary.
How far does the source illustrate King John’s difficulties in ruling Scotland?
(10)
From Scotland: The story of a nation, (Magnus Magnusson), Steve Boardman, 2000.
I think of Balliol as one of those unfortunate figures who simply gets run over by history.
At one stage he tried to assert his own power as Scottish king and to govern effectively,
but he was faced with one of the most powerful kings in Western Europe, a massively
prestigious figure. Edward I had destroyed the power of the Welsh princes in the 1280s,
and in the 1290s he wanted to make his rights in Scotland stick: he wanted to make
something concrete of the vague claim to overlordship which previous English kings had
occasionally asserted. Edward was in the position and was of the mind to make these
vague claims to overlordship a reality in the years after 1292.
In that sense, Balliol was caught in a unique situation: because of the nature of the
competition for the throne, he had already acknowledged Edward specifically as the
overlord of Scotland. He was dealing with a very powerful adversary, and his own
support within Scotland was limited by the disaffection of the Bruces and their
supporters. He was simply unable to cope with that combination of circumstances. But
that does not mean that when he came to the throne he intended to be any less of a king
than any of his predecessors had been; he was quite simply, hopelessly outgunned.
The first paragraph only could be used for the following question:
How far does the source illustrate King John’s difficulties in ruling Scotland?
4
(10)
From Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland, G
W S Barrow, 2005
In November 1293 King John appeared in person before the English parliament
and was treated like a defaulting debtor. At first he showed surprising courage
and dignity. He said he neither dared nor was able to answer in an English court
on a matter affecting the kingdom of Scotland without consulting the responsible
men of his realm. He could not admit any adjournment, for that would imply
recognition of English jurisdiction. It is clear that so far he had been well briefed.
But the Scots leaders had reckoned without Balliol’s personal weakness, the
psychological effect of a brow-beating from Edward I and the humiliating highhandedness of a hostile English parliament. The king of Scots was judged to be in
King Edward’s mercy for contempt of court, and sentenced to lose three chief
castles and towns until he made amends. Under this threat Balliol collapsed. He
renewed his submission and homage in abject terms, and asked for a delay until
the next English parliament.
From The Scottish Civil War: The Bruces and the Balliols and the war for
control of Scotland, Michael Penman, 2002.
When Edward summoned the new Scottish king south as his vassal to answer legal
claims in person it must be remembered that John and his advisors did attempt to resist.
As well as refusing to attend parliaments at York or Westminster, John also insisted he
could not answer any charges without first ‘consulting the trusted men of his realm’. His
bishops and noble councillors also dispatched letters of protest. But ultimately when
threatened with the seizure of Scottish royal castles on the border, Balliol crumbled, came
south, renewed his homage to the English Crown and gave ground in these cases.
To what extent do the sources agree on the difficulties King John met because of the issue
of legal appeals?
(10)
5
From The Chronicle of the Scottish nation, John of Fordun, 1370s
Macduff managed to get John, king of Scots, summoned to the English king’s
parliament held in London. John accordingly appeared in person and in spite of
the English king and his party, he resolved after discussing the matter with his
council that he would answer by proxy. When therefore the king was called and
appeared in court by proxy, the king of England, sitting upon judgement seat,
would not in any way listen to the king’s proxy until the king of Scots who was
then sitting beside the king of England should rise from his place and standing in
court in front of him convey his answers to his proxy with his own lips. John
fulfilled these commands and having experienced innumerable insults and slights
from all, contrary to his kingly rank and dignity, he eventually conveyed his
answers to hos proxy, and after taking leave, returned home greatly crestfallen.
How useful is this source in telling us about how King John was treated by Edward I?(5)
From Robert Bruce and the community of the realm of Scotland, G W S Barrow,
2005.
At every step he took, the new king would have to pause, examine its implications,
and find out whether it could be allowed under the new regime. Yet there was work
in plenty for a king of Scotland to do without having to look over his shoulder all
the time to see what English reactions were. It was John’s misfortune that he had
succeeded to a kingdom which could not have been ruled by anyone forced to walk
such a narrow tightrope. At least he made a worthwhile effort at government. We
must, in fairness, get behind the powerful legend of Balliol the ineffectual puppet,
laughed off the throne by scornful Scots and spurned at last by his own manipulator.
It is true he was not a forceful man and certainly no match for Edward I. But he
was not a complete nonentity nor altogether lacking in dignity.
How far does the source explain King John’s difficulties in ruling Scotland?
6
(10)
From The wars of Scotland 1214-1371, Michael Brown, 2004.
From late 1294 there were signs that, with or without King John’s active
leadership, some Scots were working to undermine Edward’s lordship. The
wider situation favoured such efforts. Edward’s plans to raise and lead an
army to France were forestalled by a major uprising in Wales. It was
sparked by demands for men and money for the French war. While Edward
struggled to contain the Welsh, the Scots sought absolution from the pope
for promises made under duress, a clear reference to the English king’s
demands from 1291 onwards. There was now hope that the tide could be
reversed.
How far does the source describe how the Scots reacted to King Edward’s overlordship?
(10)
From Edward I, Michael Prestwich, 1997.
Edward’s war with France, which began in 1294, injected a new and dangerous
element into Anglo-Scottish relations. Not only did it provoke Edward into
making unprecedented demands on the Scots, but also it gave the Scots a potential
ally against the English. Before this time, it would have been foolhardy to try to
resist Edward. Now they could seek the assistance of Philip IV. A political
revolution took place in Scotland in 1295 when power was taken from Balliol by
a council of twelve, and a treaty of alliance made with the French.
How far does the source describe how the Scots reacted to King Edward’s overlordship?
(10)
Below: the full source, interesting because Prestwich challenges Barrow’s theory that the war of 1296 was
caused by Edward reacting to the Scots’ treaty with France. Prestwich sees Edward’s military action as a
response to King John’s failure to hand over the three castles following his failure to appear when summoned in
Macduff’s further appeal to Edward
From Edward I, Michael Prestwich, 1997.
Edward’s war with France, which began in 1294, injected a new and dangerous element into Anglo-Scottish relations.
Not only did it provoke Edward into making unprecedented demands on the Scots, but also it gave the Scots a potential
ally against the English. Before this time, it would have been foolhardy to try to resist Edward. Now they could seek
the assistance of Philip IV. A political revolution took place in Scotland in 1295 when power was taken from Balliol
by a council of twelve, and a treaty of alliance made with the French. The ratification of this treaty in Scotland in
February 1296 was tantamount to a declaration of war against Edward I, and the Scottish host was accordingly called
out. The English army had already been summoned to muster at Newcastle. This is the version of events ably set out
by G W S Barrow. An alternative view, however, sees the English invasion of Scotland in 1296 as the culmination of
the legal process. Balliol had refused to come to court to conclude the Macduff case, and had refused to hand over the
three castles and towns as security. Edward therefore prepared his army to take them by force, and the war was,
therefore, the final stage of the arguments over appeals from Scottish courts to Edward I.
7
The Bruce faction swear to support Edward, 25 March 1296
We, Patrick earl of Dunbar, Gilbert de Umfraville, earl of Angus, Robert Bruce
the elder, and Robert Bruce the younger, earl of Carrick, give greetings to all
those who shall see or hear this letter. Since we are and always have been faithful
to the most noble prince and well beloved lord, Edward, we promise that we shall
serve him well and loyally against all mortal men whenever we are required or
instructed to do so by our lord the king of England.
Further, all of us have sworn fealty to our lord the king in these words: ‘I will be
faithful and loyal, and never will I bear arms for anyone against him or his heirs’.
How far does the source illustrate the ease with which Edward was able to subjugate the
Scots in 1296?
(10)
Letter from King John presented to Edward I, Berwick, 5 April
1296.
To the eminent prince, Edward, by the grace of God king of England, from
John, by the same grace king of Scotland. Since you and others of your
kingdom have committed repeatedly by violent force intolerable injuries, insults
and oppressions and severe damages against us and the inhabitants of our
kingdom, and now in warlike array you have crossed into our kingdom and
brutally committed acts of slaughter and burning, we cannot any longer endure
these injuries, insults and grievous wrongs, nor can we remain in your homage,
which it may be said, was extorted by extreme coercion on your part, and so by
the present letter we renounce the homage we have done to you.
How useful is this source in understanding the nature of King John’s grievances against
King Edward?
(5)
8
From The chronicle of Walter of Guisborough.
At the same time earl Patrick of Dunbar supported our king strongly and failthfully, but
his wife the countess stayed in his castle of Dunbar. She sent messengers to the Scots
army, summoning them with all haste, promising to hand over the castle when they came.
Her husband who was with our king was ignorant of all this. The Scots sent three earls,
four barons, thirty-one knights with one hundred armed men and when they arrived they
were allowed in. When this was announced to our king he at once sent a strong army
there with the earl of Warenne to besiege the castle.
Then came a large army sent by the king of Scots, coming down the slope of the hill
opposite Dunbar, preparing for attack. The castle garrison were so overjoyed by the sight
that they soon hoisted their banners, shouting at our men and calling them tailed dogs and
things like that, and moreover threatening them with death and cutting off their tails.2
Then the earl of Warenne assigned the sons of the nobles who were with him to continue
the siege of the castle with some soldiers in case the enemy came out and he moved
smartly with the rest of the army against the enemy. And when our army spread out, the
Scots thought that our men were beginning to turn tail and flee and they shouted death on
them with blaring bugles. But at last our men climbed out of the bottom of the valley and
hurried to the encounter. Immediately they met, lances and swords were crossed. Soon,
almost at the first blows, the Scots retreated and our men followed them slaying and
killing for nearly seven or eight leagues almost to the forest of Selkirk. When our king
came the next day they gave up the castle to him.
2
A favourite insult guaranteed to upset the English soldiers
9
The Lanercost Chronicle
The earl of Mar and other Scots came before Dunbar castle, intending to have the fortress
as a base. After they had plundered the neighbourhood and burned the town, they laid
seige to the castle. Now as there was no proper garrison in the place, the countess with
her slender household and the earl’s brother defended it for two days. But the enemy,
pretending that the earl was a traitor through his having joined the cause of the king of
England, persuaded the lady to surrender honourably. And so at dawn, on the fourth day,
25 April, they entered the castle.
At once they were besieged by land and sea. When it was known that they were
besieged, summons were issued to all parts of Scotland for an early muster to relieve the
besieged and a day was fixed at the beginning of May for hostilities in the field.
However when the Scots perceived the flower of their youth and the main part of their
army confined within the walls, they determined to put an end to the siege by a sudden
assault. Therefore on 27 April when the earl of Warenne and barely a fifth of the king’s
army were preparing to go to bed, they showed themselves boldly on the brow of a steep
hill, provoking the enemy to fight. And although their columns were in close order and
strong in numbers, before it was possible to come close they broke up and scattered more
swiftly than smoke, the fiercest of them being first in flight. Yet their foot soldiers would
have stood firm had not the knights shown their heels so readily.
In this way no fewer than 10,000 rebels were killed and several men with tonsured heads
were found among the dead, yet on the English side not one man fell, except one
foolhardy knight.
After this, justice was directed against the besieged. Some of the English went to work
with a will to dig tunnels, others to throw up earthworks from which they could break
through the castle wall by force, the garrison fell into a panic and quickly the next day,
surrendered to the royal will.
10
From Edward I, Michael Prestwich, 1997.
The English chroniclers made much of the battle of Dunbar, and G W S Barrow,
the biographer of Robert Bruce, has described it in terms of the defeat of the main
feudal host of Scotland. It is not clear that the engagement was, in reality, on
quite so grand a scale. Patrick Graham was the only senior noble slain, and only
four knights are said to have been captured. The battle was probably little more
than a skirmish, involving only a portion of the main Scottish army: if the whole
host had been involved, then Balliol himself would surely have taken part. What
was important was that Dunbar was not relieved, and when on the day after the
battle Edward himself arrived, those within the castle surrendered. This was a
prime prize: three earls and many barons were taken prisoner, and sent south to
captivity in England. The heart was taken out of the Scottish resistance. James
the Steward was prompt to surrender Roxburgh Castle, and Edward was able to
enjoy a military promenade through much of Scotland, in which he was virtually
unopposed.
From In the footsteps of William Wallace, Alan Young & Michael
J Stead, 2010.
It was at Dunbar on 27 April 1296 that the first phase of the Scottish wars with
England took a decisive turn when the Scottish army, trying to relieve the siege of
the town by English troops, was routed and those within the castle surrendered.
Dunbar was a conclusive defeat for Scotland, though the scale of Scottish
casualties – estimated at 10,000 dead by the Lanercost chronicler – is probably
exaggerated. Certainly only one major Scottish noble, Patrick Graham, is known
to have been killed and it seems that most nobles soon abandoned the conflict. It
is probable that the full Scottish host were not present and that neither John
Balliol nor James the Steward was involved in the battle.
To what extent are the sources in agreement about the battle of Dunbar?
(5)
OR
How far does the first source explain why Edward I was able to subjugate the Scots so
easily in 1296?
(10)
11
King John surrenders himself and his kingdom to Edward, July 1296.
John, by the grace of God king of Scotland, greets all who shall see or hear this letter.
Through bad and wrong advice and our own foolishness we have gravely displeased and
angered our lord Edward, by the grace of God king of England, in that while we still
owed him fealty and homage we made an alliance with the king of France against him.
We have defied our lord the king of England. We have withdrawn ourselves from his
homage. We have sent our men into his land of England to burn, loot, murder and
commit other wrongs. For all these reasons and these many wrongs, our lord the king of
England has entered the realm of Scotland and taken it and conquered it by force,
something he had a right to do as lord of his fee.3
Therefore, acting under no compulsion and of our own free will, we have surrendered the
land of Scotland and all its people with the homage of them all to him.
Statement by John Balliol, recorded by a notary, London, 21 April 1298.
John Balliol, of his own accord, uttered a statement to this effect: namely, that when he
possessed and ruled the realm of Scotland as king and lord of the realm, he found in the
men of that realm such malice, deceit, treason and treachery, arising from their
wickedness, and from various other detestable actions by those who, he had good
grounds to believe, were plotting to poison him, who was their prince; and that it is not
his intention to enter or go into the realm of Scotland at any time in the future.
3
Land given by a lord to a vassal
12
And finally ……… an issues question:
From The search for a monarch, Archie Duncan, in The story of Scotland.
Poor John Balliol. Having given him the throne of Scotland, Edward could not
leave well alone. The English king heard appeals, mostly concerning land, at
Westminster from John’s court in Scotland, and forced John to accept his
jurisdiction. When John protested that this behaviour infringed the promises
made at Norham in 1291 as well as the Treaty of Birgham in 1290, Edward
replied that the Norham promises were for the duration of the succession case
only and were no longer in force. Furthermore, he announced punitive
regulations for any future failure on John’s part.
How fully does the source illustrate the relationship between King John and Edward I?
(10)
13