Tools of war
Some more intricate doings in Scotland. In the winter of 1290 Robert de Bruce the Competitor (whom I find even more interesting that his famous grandson) sent a letter to Edward I. In this he attacked the Guardians for favouring John Balliol’s claim to the Scottish throne. Bruce’s own claim, he argued, was superior.
Attached to this letter was a memorandum, in which Bruce claimed that he had been recognised as heir to throne by Alexander II. He repeated a shorter version of this account in a second petition, dated 3 August 1291, and in a third submitted to Edward and his court in June 1292.
The three accounts are very different. In the first, Alexander is said to have reached very old age when he despaired of producing a male heir. In the second, he was still despairing, and about to make war on the Western Isles.
Now, Alexander went to the Isles in 1221-22 and again in 1249, where he died. The latter date is clearly meant in Bruce’s petition, but that is a problem. Alexander’s son was born in 1241, so he cannot have been despairing for lack of an heir in 1249.
Bruce also claimed, in his first petition, that Alexander had taken Bruce by the hand in 1249, and presented him to the Scottish nobles as his rightful heir. The nobles then swore fealty to Bruce on the king’s command, which was inscribed in the rolls of the king’s treasury.
This raises more problems. In the second and third petitions, no such oath is mentioned. The second account mentions no documentary record, but claims that some men who participated were still alive and could confirm the story. The third suggests that a search should be made in the treasury. If the document was not found, some old barons might bear witness to the truth.
To (very loosely) paraphrase Professor Duncan, this was complete bollocks from start to finish. There is no reliable evidence that Alexander II made Bruce his heir, and Bruce clearly tailored his story to fit changing circumstances: fiddled the paperwork, in other words. The disappearance of the oath of fealty, alleged in the first account, is damning. If true, and Bruce could prove it, the oath would have been a telling point in his favour. He could not prove it, or find any documented evidence, because there was none and no such oath was ever sworn.
Thus, the recognition by Alexander II of Bruce as heir or heir presumptive to the Scottish throne was pure fiction. That was just as devious and mendacious as anything Edward I ever did, and for my money the two gentlemen were much alike. But the Bruces won out, eventually, so they got to control the narrative. Didn’t they just.
None of which is a criticism, incidentally: propaganda is just another tool of war, every bit as legitimate as killing people. But we don’t have to buy into it, especially six hundred years down the line.
