Which Bruce who had signed the Ragman Roll?
OverDo
I am trying to write a small article for my website about Braveheart.
After some readings I found something confuses me. It is about Robert
(de?) Bruce and Robert the Bruce (King Robert I, I assume), and the
Ragman Roll.
The two names are not the same person, am I right? which one signed
his name onto the Ragman Roll?
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"OverDo" <ktp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7389f2fe.02032...@posting.google.com...
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
You might find this URL of some use when dealing with Scottish History:-
http://members.aol.com/Skyelander/timeline.html
On the subject of the ragman Roll goto :-
http://www.rampantscotland.com/ragman/blragman_index.htm
The use of the Google search engine, and how to do advanced searches, is a
great asset when doing research on just about any subject.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),
Auld Bob Peffers,
b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
Web Site, *The Eck's Files*
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
nick-durie
news:7389f2fe.02032...@posting.google.com...
> Hi,
> I am trying to write a small article for my website about Braveheart.
> After some readings I found something confuses me. It is about Robert
> (de?) Bruce and Robert the Bruce (King Robert I, I assume), and the
> Ragman Roll.
Robert the Bruce is a Scoticized variant of the Scoto-Norman name (the
King's real name - they are one and the same person) "Robert de Bruce".
Tom Thomson
<nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
>"OverDo" <ktp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:7389f2fe.02032...@posting.google.com...
>
>Robert the Bruce is a Scoticized variant of the Scoto-Norman name (the
>King's real name - they are one and the same person) "Robert de Bruce".
>
Nonsense.
The Robert de Brus who became king could hardly have signed the
ragmans roll - you can't sign things until after your born.
I can't remember whether the de Brus claimant who signed the ragmans
roll was the grandfather of the Brus who eventually became king or his
father, but it certainly wasn't the one who became king.
Allan Connochie
"Tom Thomson" <mich...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3ca12f6b...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:28:33 -0000, "nick-durie"
> <nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
>
> >"OverDo" <ktp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7389f2fe.02032...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >Robert the Bruce is a Scoticized variant of the Scoto-Norman name (the
> >King's real name - they are one and the same person) "Robert de Bruce".
> >
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The Robert de Brus who became king could hardly have signed the
> ragmans roll - you can't sign things until after your born.
The future Robert 1st was very much alive in 1296 when the Ragman Roll was
signed. His killing of Comyn was in 1306 just ten years after Ragman.
Though you are right in saying that it wouldn't have been him who signed and
that it would either have been his father or his grandfather [the
Competitor].
Allan
Judith E. Hanhisalo
Nigel Tranter, in the Brice Trilogy, has the Bruce who became king
signing the ragman's roll--as quite a young man.
Judith
>
>
Alan Hardie
"Allan Connochie" <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote in message
news:a7rrvd$npp$1...@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> The future Robert 1st was very much alive in 1296 when the Ragman Roll was
> signed. His killing of Comyn was in 1306 just ten years after Ragman.
> Though you are right in saying that it wouldn't have been him who signed
and
> that it would either have been his father or his grandfather [the
> Competitor].
I almost hesitate to ask - but what the hell's the ragman's roll?
Allan Connochie
"Judith E. Hanhisalo" <Jud...@hiraethcelticgoods.com> wrote in message
news:5o34aucgaff2efhgr...@4ax.com...
James Mackay in his book on Wallace says that both the Earl of Carrick [the
future king] and the Lord of Annandale [his father] signed the document.
Allan
>
> Judith
> >
> >
>
Allan Connochie
"Alan Hardie" <a*x*har...@clara.co.uk> wrote in message
news:101725409...@eurus.uk.clara.net...
It was the oath of loyalty that Edward 1st had many of the Scottish nobles
and minor landowners sign at the Berwick Parliament in 1296.
Allan
>
>
nick-durie
Hence the derisory description rigmarole, which is believed to have derived
from this.
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
Perhaps a wee word of explanation might clarify that statement. The feudal
system was such that the Monarch granted lands to the nobles. The nobles
thus owed feudal duty or fiefdom to the Monarch. Many noble families had
lands in several countries, (a sort of early form of globalisation). Thus
the Ragman Roll was to be signed by those Scots who had lands in England
granted by Edward . The trick was, though, that Edward then used it to say
the Scots owed him feudal duty for their lands in Scotland that he had not
granted to them.
Nigel Tranter says in his novel that Bruce had said, *For my lands in
England I bend the knee but for my lands in Scotland I bend the knee to no
man*. Which I think, under the circumstances, is a fair assumption as to
what someone in those circumstances would indeed have to say.
Sharon L. Krossa
nick-durie <nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
> "OverDo" <ktp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7389f2fe.02032...@posting.google.com...
> > Hi,
> > I am trying to write a small article for my website about Braveheart.
> > After some readings I found something confuses me. It is about Robert
> > (de?) Bruce and Robert the Bruce (King Robert I, I assume), and the
> > Ragman Roll.
>
> Robert the Bruce is a Scoticized variant of the Scoto-Norman name (the
> King's real name - they are one and the same person) "Robert de Bruce".
Of course, there were quite a few different men named Robert de Bruce
and variations. Just in the index to GWS Barrow _Robert Bruce and the
Community of the Realm of Scotland_ there are 7 different Robert Bruces
listed.
Of interest to this question are three Robert Bruces:
1. Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale (commonly called 'the competitor' by
historians) who was the Robert Bruce who put in a claim to be king in
the famous court case of 1290-1292. He and Balliol were the two main
serious claimants. Balliol won. He died in 1295, so he would not have
been in the 1296 Ragman Rolls, though he may have done homage in 1291 --
in fact, I expect he did in 1291.
2. Robert Bruce, lord of Annandale and Earl of Carrick who was the son
of Robert Bruce (the competitor) and father of Robert Bruce (the king).
He died in 1304, and very likely is in the 1296 Ragman Roll and possibly
also gave homage in 1291.
3. Robert Bruce, King Robert I of Scotland, son #2 and grandson of #3.
He is very likely did not do homage in 1291 (he was only 17 or so then,
and not yet Earl of Carrick, which he became in 1292) but probably is in
the 1296 Ragman Roll.
In fact, in the index to the 1291 homages I find:
Brus dominus Vallis Anandie, Robertus de (Robert de Brus feignor du Val
Danant).
Brus comes de Carryk, Robertus de.
In 1291, this would be #1 above and #2 above, respectively.
Strangely, I do not find any Bruces listed in 1296 in this index, but it
only lists who appears in the documents. Apparently the seal of the Lord
of Annandale shows up among unattached seals associated with the Ragman
Rolls, and this I would expect to be Robert Bruce #2 above in 1296.
Unfortunately, I don't have the resources to figure out easily for sure
whether or not Robert Bruce (future king) gave homage in 1296 --
although Barrow seems to indicate he did, or at least says "Thus fealty
was sworn not only by those Scots notables, such as the Bruces, who were
already in his peace before war broke out, but also ..." (p. 108 of
_Robert Bruce..._)
> > The two names are not the same person, am I right? which one signed
> > his name onto the Ragman Roll?
Nobody signed their name to the Ragman Rolls -- signing documents didn't
start to be done until some centuries later. Rather, peoples names were
recorded in a document by clerks, and their seals were attached to the
document.
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
Sharon L. Krossa
Tom Thomson <mich...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Mar 2002 00:28:33 -0000, "nick-durie"
> <nick-...@aladdinscave.net> wrote:
>
> >"OverDo" <ktp...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:7389f2fe.02032...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >Robert the Bruce is a Scoticized variant of the Scoto-Norman name (the
> >King's real name - they are one and the same person) "Robert de Bruce".
>
> Nonsense.
>
> The Robert de Brus who became king could hardly have signed the
> ragmans roll - you can't sign things until after your born.
Yes, and Robert Bruce who became King was alive in 1296 -- otherwise he
would have been less than 10 years old when he crowned himself king in
1306 and even younger when he was Guardian of Scotland and at least
_negative_ four years old when he became Earl of Carrick in 1292.
Of course, nobody really "signed" the Ragman rolls -- their names were
listed and their seals were appended. Actual signing of signatures to
things develops much later.
> I can't remember whether the de Brus claimant who signed the ragmans
> roll was the grandfather of the Brus who eventually became king or his
> father, but it certainly wasn't the one who became king.
Nonsense, as regards the "certainly" for the claimed reasons.
As indicated in another post, it seems it was grandfather and father who
gave homage in 1291, but I can't really discover if it was father only
or father and future king who gave homage in 1296 -- but since Bruce the
future King was of age and Earl of Carrick in 1296, it is entirely
possible that he could have been included. (In fact, if he truly did not
participate, I would expect a great deal to be made of it by historians,
and this doesn't seem to be the case.)
Sharon L. Krossa
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> Perhaps a wee word of explanation might clarify that statement. The feudal
> system was such that the Monarch granted lands to the nobles. The nobles
> thus owed feudal duty or fiefdom to the Monarch. Many noble families had
> lands in several countries, (a sort of early form of globalisation). Thus
> the Ragman Roll was to be signed by those Scots who had lands in England
> granted by Edward . The trick was, though, that Edward then used it to say
> the Scots owed him feudal duty for their lands in Scotland that he had not
> granted to them.
Although it is true that various Scottish nobles had lands in both
Scotland and England, the Ragman Rolls recorded the large number of
Scots (nobles and lesser folk) who gave homage to Edward I as Lord of
Scotland, not for any English lands. Most recorded did not even have any
English lands.
Edward demanded this after he forced Balliol to abdicate but then
wouldn't select a new King of Scots.
> Nigel Tranter says in his novel that Bruce had said, *For my lands in
> England I bend the knee but for my lands in Scotland I bend the knee to no
> man*. Which I think, under the circumstances, is a fair assumption as to
> what someone in those circumstances would indeed have to say.
But which is quite ridiculous to have had Bruce say in 1296, and lowers
Tranter in my esteem considerably. In 1296 the Bruce strategy was still
to try to get Edward I to make Bruce King of Scotland -- they had been
on Edward's side in the recent rebellion against Edward (the one that
led to Balliol's abdication).
Sharon, noting that novels are not reliable sources of historical
information ;-)
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1f9tut0.nrzkxuux6xjkN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
snip
> Sharon, noting that novels are not reliable sources of historical
> information ;-)
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Which is exactly why I said it, *Was a fair assumption*.
Chic McGregor
Chic McGregor
L. Krossa) wrote:
Sharon, that is complete nonsense. The Bruces were well involved in
the insurrection prior to this as you well know. Due to commissions I
have no time to give detailed replies. Yes the Bruce claim was
obviouisly paramount to the Bruces, However they still participated
significantly in the Balliol era, in spite of their own claim, which
demonstrated an underlying loyalty to the nation of Scotland.
chic
Allan Connochie
"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1f9tut0.nrzkxuux6xjkN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
But Balliol himself had been given the kingship through Edward's choice of
him over the Bruces. Bruce's father swore fealty to Edward in 1296 [along
with dozens of other nobles at Wark] and I suppose he did of course want
Edward to give him the throne instead but we can't take it for granted that
in
private he didn't renounce this relationship. Certainly Edward had chosen
Balliol so perhaps he didn't trust the Bruces or felt they wouldn't be
controllable. In the face of such a massive occupying force it
may have been complete folly to come out openly against the English king but
Lynch states that Bruce [Earl of Carrick and future king] was shortly
involved in Wallace's guerilla campaign. "Contemporary English chroniclers
were firm in their suspicions . The real leaders of the revolt, two of them
declared, were the ex-guardians, Robert Wishart Bishop of Glasgow, and James
the Stewart who was Wallace's lord. They were joined shortly after by
MacDuff the son of the Earl of Fife, and the younger Earl of Carrick."
Wishart himself swore fealty to Edward four times but it seems obvious that
it was done for "needs must" purposes rather than real loyalty. Tranter
obviously feels the Bruces thought likewise and as they were shortly in open
rebellion to Edward despite all they had to lose out of the situation it
seems a reasonable stance to take.
Allan
John Walker
I'm a bit rusty about this but my understanding was that Edward chose
Balliol because Balliol's claim was superior, notwithstanding any additional
political agenda?
John
Allan Connochie
"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
news:qeusdus844fime4fr...@4ax.com...
Wark
> in 1296. Edward had appointed him governor of Carlisle in 1295, a
position
> he held until 1297 when Edward replaced him with the Bishop of Carlisle.
He
> then retired from politics and went to live out his days on his English
> estates, dying in 1304. I think it is generally accepted that the Bruces
> played both sides of the fence through this period, the father siding with
> Edward, and the son campaigning against both the English and the Balliol
> faction in Scotland.
No one has denied that. In fact it was my whole point. They played the
English card but that does not mean their loyalty to Edward was genuine.
>
> >Certainly Edward had chosen
> >Balliol so perhaps he didn't trust the Bruces or felt they wouldn't be
> >controllable.
>
> I thought Edward chose Balliol because he had the better claim as the
> grandson of Margaret, the eldest daughter of David, earl of Huntingdon,
who
> was the grandson of David I and sire of the only surviving royal line
after
> the death of the Maid of Norway. The Bruces' claim was based on the
> Competitor being the son of Isabel, a younger daughter of the earl.
Edward's council decided that primogeniture rather than nearness of issue
should be the deciding factor. However this was not a clear cut matter as
this was English law and the 80 Scottish assessors had not declared that
this was relevant to Scotland. Had it been that clear cut then it would not
have taken six months to decide. In all Edward held great sway on the
decision and he chose Balliol. We can not be certain why he made this
decision. However it seems clear that Bruce the younger certainly was not
trusted. In later years Edward demanded Bruce's daughter as hostage for his
behaviour and when this was refused Edward seized some of Bruce's English
assets.
>
> >In the face of such a massive occupying force it
> >may have been complete folly to come out openly against the English king
but
> >Lynch states that Bruce [Earl of Carrick and future king] was shortly
> >involved in Wallace's guerilla campaign.
>
> I'm not aware of any evidence that Robert the future king was ever
directly
> involved with Wallace's guerilla campaign, although they both certainly
> cooperated with the leadership of Wishart and James the Steward.
I think Lynch's point is that the real leaders of the rebellion were
Wishart, James and the young Bruce.
Wallace
> supported Balliol and the Comyn faction. That put him at odds with the
> Bruce faction. That's not to say that Bruce didn't have his own campaign
> against Edward. He was among the nobles who capitulated to the English
> forces without a fight at Irvine in 1297. Barron and Barrows have him
> running his own campaign in the west of Scotland during Wallace's defeat
at
> Falkirk in 1298, after which he became joint Guardian of the Realm with
John
> Comyn the younger of Badenoch. After Falkirk, Wallace was in France and
> Rome lobbying for the restoration of John Balliol.
Again the fact that Comyn and Bruce basically worked as joint guardians then
only split once the perceived threat from England diminished showed at least
some kind of shared loyalty to the realm. Bruce went back over to the
English when he was being sidelined. This does not prove any real loyalty
to the English but may only be using one enemy against another.
>
> >"Contemporary English chroniclers
> >were firm in their suspicions . The real leaders of the revolt, two of
them
> >declared, were the ex-guardians, Robert Wishart Bishop of Glasgow, and
James
> >the Stewart who was Wallace's lord. They were joined shortly after by
> >MacDuff the son of the Earl of Fife, and the younger Earl of Carrick."
> >Wishart himself swore fealty to Edward four times but it seems obvious
that
> >it was done for "needs must" purposes rather than real loyalty. Tranter
> >obviously feels the Bruces thought likewise and as they were shortly in
open
> >rebellion to Edward despite all they had to lose out of the situation it
> >seems a reasonable stance to take.
>
> I can think of two occasions on which Bruce the younger swore allegiance
to
> Edward. The first was after the Irvine capitulation in 1297, and that was
> surely done grudgingly on a "must needs" basis. The second would have
been
> in 1302 when the rebellion seemed to be a lost cause. In this second
case,
> he even campaigned with Edward's forces against the Comyns, who were at
this
> time still commanding the Scottish forces, but Bruce's participation in
> these battles is understandable in light of the enmity that existed
between
> the Bruce side and the Comyn/Balliol side. Bruce undoubtedly thought that
> siding with Edward was his best hope of being granted the Scottish
kingship.
> By 1304, he began to suspect that Edward had no intention of putting
anyone
> but himself in charge of ruling Scotland. That's when Bruce made his
secret
> alliance with Bishop Lamberton. Edward may have become aware of this
> alliance. He excluded Bruce from the group of magnates he appointed to
> manage the governance of Scotland and demanded payment for a debt Bruce's
> now deceased father owed to the English exchequer. These actions made it
> clear to Robert that Edward was not going to grant him the Scottish crown.
> In 1305, Bruce left Edward's peace and returned to Scotland to begin his
> arduous campaign.
Agree with all of that so don't really know if you are contradicting
anything I've said or not. My main point was that Tranter's assertion that
the Bruces believed they owed Edward no loyalty for their Scottish lands
seems a reasonable assumption.
Allan
>
>
>
> MacHamish Mór
Allan Connochie
"John Walker" <jwsc...@NOSPAMblueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message
news:_cwD8.628$BJ.11...@news-text.cableinet.net...
The 80 Scottish assessors had not declared that the English law of
primogeniture applied in Scotland. [Both Bruce and Balliol were descended
from daughters of David the brother of William the Lion and Malcolm the
Maiden.] Had it been so clear cut then Edward would not have been needed to
adjudicate and the process would not have taken six months. Edward's
advisors decided that Balliol's claim was the stronger but we do not know
the real reason why. It may have been simply the law of succession as they
perceived it or it may have been more political.
Allan
>
> John
>
>
Allan Connochie
> On Sun, 12 May 2002 19:52:49 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
> <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >"MacHamish" <rus...@concentric.net> wrote in message
> >news:qeusdus844fime4fr...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 12 May 2002 09:31:00 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
> >> <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
> >> >news:1f9tut0.nrzkxuux6xjkN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
> >> >> Late, but perhaps still of interest...
> >> >>
> >> >> Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> >> >> > Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> the Bruces believed they owed Edward no loyalty for their Scottish lands
> But one wonders if a Bruce king would have accepted Edward as his liege
lord
> as Balliol was willing to do. My bet it that he would have done so gladly
> and then repudiated it later, just as Balliol did. In that event, would
the
> Bruces have been able to make the repudiation stick, or would they have
been
> ejected as Balliol was?
>
> I hope you don't think I've been trying to contradict anything you've
said.
> I was just trying to add a bit to the discussion. The interregnum was an
> interesting period to say the least.
Don't worry we thrive on people contradicting us. This was just one of
these cases where I wasn't sure if you were or not! It is an interesting
period but a period that I haven't read on all that much so I've enjoyed
your posts. These what ifs are interesting right enough. I just thought
that Sharon's post [saying that Tranter's work was ridiculous in saying that
Bruce would bend his knee to no man for his lands in Scotland] was a bit
OTT. As Auld Bob pointed out it was in a novel and generally novels don't
need to be 100% historically accurate. As far as Scots were concerned
earlier Scottish kings who had sworn fealty to the English crown had done so
only for the lands held in England so there was a precedent for this line of
thought. In the 'Story of Scotland' Tranter does say that Edward chose the
weaker vessel [Balliol] as unlike Bruce he was sure to do as he was told. I
freely admit that this is presumptuous as we don't know exactly what Edward
thought. It couldn't be proved but equally it couldn't be disproved so
maybe the author would have been wiser to say "according to tradition".
This is a tradition of some antiquity as Bower [15thC] claims that Edward
was going to choose Bruce but is warned off by his advisors that a strong
willed Scottish king would be a threat to England. Possibly pure pro-Bruce
propaganda of course but it is propaganda of some long standing and can we
really be 100% certain that there is no inkling of truth behind it? The
Bruces certainly proved themselves to be resilient, stubborn and defiant
especially in their refusal to accept Edward's decision. Chic mentioned an
existing Scottish patriotism at this time and I know that this is often
poopood especially by English historians but I wonder if he may have a
point. There was a thread on alt.history.british recently where the
generally agreement was that a real sense of Englishness developed during
the Hundred Years War with France. The general perception by many Scottish
historians is that a sense of Scottish nationhood was forged earlier during
the Wars of Independence. However it makes sense to me that the rebellion
may have been possible because some sense of nationhood and community was
already in place before Edward's conquest. Just wondered what your own
thoughts are on that. Contradictions are permitted :-)
Allan
>
>
> MacHamish Mór
duck
> grandson of Margaret, the eldest daughter of David, earl of Huntingdon,
who
> was the grandson of David I and sire of the only surviving royal line
after
> the death of the Maid of Norway.
*Excuse me butting in but you never, ever say 'I thought' in a news group,
any guy worth half his salt and vinegar (with ketchup for merkins) will
jump on you like a teen girlfriend on your acne spot. No matter what you
think at that point he's guaranteed to get all uppity and LOL ROFLMAO and
all that sorta ting just before he says "NO No no, you don't really
understand do you???"
Don't tell him what you think, tell him what you know, cos if you don't
he'll sure to tell you what you don't, even if he doesn't himself. Though
it can be used as a disarming bluff and lull him into the proverbial false
sense of security, which lets face it these are dangerous times, just one
mention of an 'I thought' and once he begins to rant, hit him hard with the
facts, so now the guys fallen from a greater height and you get to keep the
car while he runs off to hide forever, or comes back squeaking under a
different name. It's that simple, if I've helped at all a donation will be
kindly squandered.
duck
Turlough
duck wrote:
(snipped kind words of encouragement)
> It's that simple, if I've helped at all a donation will be kindly
> squandered.
MacHamish Mór is a veteran newsgrouper and has survived many flame wars
and and won many ferocious debates on SCI...thus the sobriquet, Mór. He
keeps his sword sharpened, Fr. Des will attest to that. Now, don your
flak jacket like a good lad and pray that he doesn't find out you're a
buddy of Cunningham... :>))
Turlough, always willing to help out
Helen Ramsay
************
> different name.
Excuse me butting in, but shouldn' that be "quacking"?
It's that simple, if I've helped at all a donation will be
> kindly squandered.
Gawnyersel duck!
Cheers, Helen
duck
"Helen Ramsay" <helen_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49gE8.44907$Yt.20...@read1.cgocable.net...
duck
duck
"Turlough" <turlo...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:3CE18D78...@excite.com...
duck
docaay
> >
> *DuckPun count: 1 in time 3mins 4secs
>
> duck
See, there's just something about a duck that begs for puns.
Sorry.
Doc
duck
"docaay" <**docaye**@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3CE191E9...@yahoo.com...
world, Noam Chomsky's my new pal. :)
duck
Helen Ramsay
> "Helen Ramsay" <helen_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> > "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote
> > > car while he runs off to hide forever, or comes back squeaking
under a
> > > different name.
> >
> > Excuse me butting in, but shouldn' that be "quacking"?
> >
> > > It's that simple, if I've helped at all a donation will be
> > > kindly squandered.
> >
> > Gawnyersel duck!
> >
> *DuckPun count: 1 in time 3mins 4secs
Is that some kind of record? Do I win a prize?:)
Cheers, Helen
Tom Thomson
I think that Chic is right, and a sense of nationality and patriotism
existed before this time and contributed to the success of the wars of
independence atthe time of Bruce. (I think that means I agree with
Allan too, but he hasn't maintained his usual standard of clarity in
the message above).
I'm not sure how early this idea of ŁScottishness" was formed, but if
I were forced to guess I would suggest that it came about during the
reign of Macolm Foireanach (early 11th century). The wars against the
Saxons during his reign may have led to a feeling of national unity,
What unity there was did not last long, of course; we have Scots
fighting (successfully) alongside the Northumbrians to put a puppet of
the Saxons on the throne only a few decades later (I'll admit Malcolm
III didn't remain a puppet throughout his reign, but that's certainly
where he started) but even the years of Ceann Mor's reign seem to show
some signs of national feeling - his own yonger brother, Domhuill Ban,
joned the resistance to this Saxon puppet and it was not until he had
abjured Nothumbrian and driven his armed forces as far as York to
chase them off that he could count on internal peace in his kingdom
(and he couldn't count on it very surely even then). That of course
is an interesting contrast with the man his Nothumbrian allies
defeated to give him the throne - Macbeth had so much internal peace
that he could afford to leave the country, trust junior "nobles" (most
of the senior ones wnt with him) to cover the southern border, and go
off on a long pilgramage to Rome.
The thing that astonds me about the interregnum is the naivety of
those who thought than an appeal to Edward for adjudication would
result in anthying other than an attempt by him to take control.
Perhaps this indicates a stable country with a sense of national
identity that would allow an appeal to an internationally recognised
authority rather than suffer internal dissension - if so, that
national identity existed before the wars of independence.
Lesley Robertson
Yes, this thread's actually been worth downloading and reading!
Lesley Robertson
des Kaisers Haarpracht
Thomson) wrote:
>I'm not sure how early this idea of ŁScottishness" was formed, but if
>I were forced to guess I would suggest that it came about during the
>reign of Macolm Foireanach (early 11th century). The wars against the
>Saxons during his reign may have led to a feeling of national unity,
[snip "Saxon puppets"]
I think it's clear that there was some sort of understanding of a
Scottish national identity during the Wars of Independence and
certainly elements of it beforehand. The idea that this has to be an
exclusively binary concept I believe to be wrong, and I think the
history of those times can only be understood by accepting a different
kind of national identity which existed alongside other identities
[feudal, regional, family/clan alignment, etc] which were not subsumed
by it.
This undermines the simplistic, binary and Braveheartian vision of
projecting modern concepts of nationality in medieval history, but
that's just tough.
>The thing that astonds me about the interregnum is the naivety of
>those who thought than an appeal to Edward for adjudication would
>result in anthying other than an attempt by him to take control.
>Perhaps this indicates a stable country with a sense of national
>identity that would allow an appeal to an internationally recognised
>authority rather than suffer internal dissension - if so, that
>national identity existed before the wars of independence.
It is hard to understand, but perhaps getting Edward involved with
their consent was seen as a way of managing his input to the selection
and getting the settlement legitimised in his eyes, instead of risking
his overt interference or active hostility in such an important matter
if the nobles presented him with a fair accompli. This is pure
speculation on my part, though.
Gavin Bailey
duck
shot.
> My aim doesn't have to be perfect, you know.
>
>
*Does if I'm standing behind you with the mousetrap at your balls. :)
duck
duck
>
>
*Psst, I'm not really a duck, even if I am adorable.........blink blink.
duck
duck
posting
> on Usenet. Thanks for bringing me around, Duck. A small donation will
be
> paid on your first visit to Grand Rapids, when I will buy you a pint or
six
> at the same establishment where I did the same for Bro in recognition for
> all his kindnesses over the years. That would be Flanagan's Pub,
complete
> with neon shamrocks on every wall and plastic Notre Dame leprechauns on
the
> liquor shelves. It's the least I could do.
>
> I'm in an Irish frame of mind today. Last night, I attended a concert
here
> in Michigan entitled "The Spirit of Ireland", complete with male and
female
> dancers of the Riverdance type and musicians playing one jig and reel
after
> another. The highlight was when the bodhran player took off on a solo
> performance that was absolutely the highlight of the show. I had no idea
a
> bodhran could make such a variety of sounds. The guy was awesome, as
were
> the rest of the musicians, especially the guy playing the uillean pipes.
> Erin gae braw.
>
>
*I was always more into Frank Zappa, BB King, haven't played Irish music in
years, I'll swap places if you like. Bro will tell you it's a nice wee spot
where I live, I can fill up my kayak with supplies within minutes...
duck
Elaine Goldberg
MacHamish enthused:
<snip>
>The highlight was when the bodhran
> player took off on a solo performance
> that was absolutely the highlight of the
> show. I had no idea a bodhran could
> make such a variety of sounds. The guy
> was awesome, as were the rest of the
> musicians, especially the guy playing
> the uillean pipes. Erin gae braw.
It sounds thrilling! Do you know the name of the bodhran player? My
all-time fave is Johnny McDonagh (formerly with DeDanann) who used to
play solo portions of tunes. He was an excellent bones player, as well.
Do you have any DeDanann albums? One song comes instantly to
mind...."Hey Jude" which may have been on their "Star Spangled Molly"
album. That song has an awesome percussion solo on it.
Elaine
Elaine Goldberg
Duck divulged:
>Psst, I'm not really a duck, even if I am
> adorable.........blink blink.
I thought you were leaving......but, I'm glad to see that you're still
around. We need you to fill in for Adam Whyte-Settlar since you're so
adorable.
Elaine
P.S. I just sent MacH the duck hunter cartoon, after reading that he
has a duck blind, etc.
duck
"Elaine Goldberg" <ElaineF...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:14800-3C...@storefull-2251.public.lawson.webtv.net...
duck
duck
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 21:32:06 +0100, "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> with you if it's within a good five iron shot of Royal Portrush or Royal
> County Down.
>
>
*Down, that's just outside Downpatrick isn't it? Well that's probably
closer than the other, done.
duck
Allan Connochie
"des Kaisers Haarpracht" <g.j.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3ce23351...@nntphost.dur.ac.uk...
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 02:52:40 +0000 (UTC), mich...@btinternet.com (Tom
> Thomson) wrote:
>
> >I'm not sure how early this idea of ŁScottishness" was formed, but if
> >I were forced to guess I would suggest that it came about during the
> >reign of Macolm Foireanach (early 11th century). The wars against the
> >Saxons during his reign may have led to a feeling of national unity,
>
> [snip "Saxon puppets"]
>
> I think it's clear that there was some sort of understanding of a
> Scottish national identity during the Wars of Independence and
> certainly elements of it beforehand. The idea that this has to be an
> exclusively binary concept I believe to be wrong, and I think the
> history of those times can only be understood by accepting a different
> kind of national identity which existed alongside other identities
> [feudal, regional, family/clan alignment, etc] which were not subsumed
> by it.
All makes sense to me and of course even now we have multiple identities.
For example in my area you have Scottish identity alongside various levels
of British identity, with a very to the fore Border's identity and even in
some cases extremely strong local identities and rivalries. Interesting
stuff.
Allan
duck
a trophy winner that one.
duck
duck
>
>
*No, he's the furry friend I'm the feathery.....
duck
duck
Do
> ducks have balls? I've always wondered.
>
>
*I'll check later........have to take my coat off, bit shy, you know how it
is.
duck
Allan Connochie
"Tom Thomson" <mich...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:3ce1c3ed...@news.btinternet.com...
> On Tue, 14 May 2002 19:47:31 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
> <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>> I think that Chic is right, and a sense of nationality and patriotism
> existed before this time and contributed to the success of the wars of
> independence atthe time of Bruce. (I think that means I agree with
> Allan too, but he hasn't maintained his usual standard of clarity in
> the message above).
My lack of clarity is probably down to my being sober when I posted that
one! Yes I agree with Chic too. There must have been a common Scottish
identity to some extent even before the Wars
Didn't the original treaty made between Edward and the Scottish nobility
over the marriage of the Maid of Norway to the English prince state that a
future Scottish king should not be subservient to the English crown's
interests? The fact that this was written into the treaty shows that they
recognised the danger and of course Edward had recently grabbed Wales. I
think you are right in that they were probably confident plus of course the
two kingdoms had been on reasonably good terms for half a century or so.
Allan
>
>
>
>
>
Helen Ramsay
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 21:17:28 +0100, "duck"
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
enough. Do
> ducks have balls? I've always wondered.
>
Cheers, Helen
duck
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 22:36:42 +0100, "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> duck....for dinner.
>
>
*Bring em on, I love Yorkies. Did I tell you I used to drive a long wheel
base Merc, nearly a truck.
duck
duck
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 23:03:16 +0100, "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> That's it, but we have one other problem. My two wee Yorkies are fond
of
> >> duck....for dinner.
> >>
> >>
> >*Bring em on, I love Yorkies.
>
Beanie
> Baby duck for a toy. They'd prolly jump up on your lap and lick your
> feathers. Then you'd have to scratch em behind the ears.
>
*I would but the only scratchy things I have are on the end of my webbed
feet, so if I did try to scratch I would just fall over. We ducks have our
respect you know.
> >Did I tell you I used to drive a long wheel
> >base Merc, nearly a truck.
>
> Do tell. Do you mean one of those Merkan Mercury automobiles? I didn't
> think those were sold overseas.
>
>
*No the Mercedes long white van types about the length of a small bus, I
used to deliver and service Televisions and the like. So on my holidays I
got the use of the van (free diesel) and would take it on a tour round
Ireland, I just cleaned it out and was left with two shelves inside which
made perfect bunks, threw in a couple of Kayaks and that was us all set.
duck
Séimí mac Liam
news:ptq5eu8qt9rho6d53...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 15 May 2002 23:03:16 +0100, "duck"
> <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> That's it, but we have one other problem. My two wee Yorkies are
>>> fond of duck....for dinner.
>>>
>>>
>>*Bring em on, I love Yorkies.
>
> Truth is, they'd greet you like a long lost friend. One of em has a
> Beanie Baby duck for a toy. They'd prolly jump up on your lap and
> lick your feathers. Then you'd have to scratch em behind the ears.
>
>>Did I tell you I used to drive a long wheel
>>base Merc, nearly a truck.
>
> Do tell. Do you mean one of those Merkan Mercury automobiles? I
> didn't think those were sold overseas.
>
>
> MacHamish Mór
>
Euro speak for Mercedes. Mercury don't make no damn trucks and you know
it.
--
Saint Séimí mac Liam
Carriagemaker to the court of Queen Maeve
Prophet of The Great Tagger
Canonized December '99
duck
> On 16 May 2002 02:47:20 GMT, "Séimí mac Liam" <gwy...@aracnet.com>
wrote:
>
> >>>Did I tell you I used to drive a long wheel
> >>>base Merc, nearly a truck.
> >>
> >> Do tell. Do you mean one of those Merkan Mercury automobiles? I
> >> didn't think those were sold overseas.
> >>
> >>
> >> MacHamish Mór
> >>
> >
> >Euro speak for Mercedes. Mercury don't make no damn trucks and you know
> >it.
>
> those big 'ol Mercuries that were around in the 50's. After all, I'm
> talking to a duck. How you gonna make any sense out of anything a duck
says
> other than quack quack?
>
>
*I know some people are nuts, you would never find me in a conversation
with a duck, Hamster maybe......
duck
duck
> On Thu, 16 May 2002 01:34:36 +0100, "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> >>
> >*I would but the only scratchy things I have are on the end of my webbed
> >feet, so if I did try to scratch I would just fall over. We ducks have
our
> >respect you know.
>
> will be growling and barking and nipping around your webbed feet. It
would
> not be a duck-friendly environment.
>
*Ducks have teeth you know and lots of mates........
> >> >Did I tell you I used to drive a long wheel
> >> >base Merc, nearly a truck.
> >>
> >> Do tell. Do you mean one of those Merkan Mercury automobiles? I
didn't
> >> think those were sold overseas.
> >>
> >>
> >*No the Mercedes long white van types about the length of a small bus, I
> >used to deliver and service Televisions and the like. So on my holidays
I
> >got the use of the van (free diesel) and would take it on a tour round
> >Ireland, I just cleaned it out and was left with two shelves inside
which
> >made perfect bunks, threw in a couple of Kayaks and that was us all set.
>
> Very cool. Are you a sea kyaker or a white water kayaker? Or both?
>
>
*Neither really, Surf Kayaking on the coastal water is well.. I was goin to
explain it but I'll just paste thelink where I did before in SCI, if you've
never tried it, do!
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=a269gl%24un8
mk%241%40ID-122481.news.dfncis.de
You may have to copy that in two parts to the address bar in your browser
if it doesn't link it probably.
duck
duck
> On Thu, 16 May 2002 11:31:57 +0100, "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >> Very cool. Are you a sea kyaker or a white water kayaker? Or both?
> >>
> >>
> >*Neither really, Surf Kayaking on the coastal water is well.. I was goin
to
> >explain it but I'll just paste thelink where I did before in SCI, if
you've
> >never tried it, do!
> >
> >
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=a269gl%24un
8
> >mk%241%40ID-122481.news.dfncis.de
> >
> >You may have to copy that in two parts to the address bar in your
browser
> >if it doesn't link it probably.
>
of
> the experience. I almost felt like I was out there in the surf, plunging
> down the face of a big wave. I'd like to try it someday, but if I were
that
> close to Portrush I'd have a hard time tearing myself away from Royal
> Portrush golf links to do anything else. Can you kayak surf at night?
>
>
*My mates have, just listening in the dark for the next wave. I wouldn't be
so popular among them at night, it's not unusual to get an out of control
kayaker bearing down on you. Next time you're out on the golf course look
left to town and the 'Strand' and right to 'Whitepark Bay' best to practise
a few rolls first if you want to use a kayak to do it. :)
On the west coast with the right conditions they're like massive long glass
sculptures heading for the sand, helluva sight.
duck
duck
> is....well....there's all manner of animals over there. I've actually
met
> the hamster. He's very charming in person, but I think that was because
he
> was under strict orders not to embarrass Bro.
>
> MacHamish Mór
*It's a small world and I'm sure he won't mind me saying he's from my town,
well the last decade anyhow.
duck
Helen Ramsay
> > Very cool. Are you a sea kyaker or a white water kayaker? Or
both?
> >
> >
> *Neither really, Surf Kayaking on the coastal water is well.. I was
goin to
> explain it but I'll just paste thelink where I did before in SCI, if
you've
> never tried it, do!
>
>
>
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF8&oe=UTF8&selm=a269gl%
24un8
> mk%241%40ID-122481.news.dfncis.de
>
> You may have to copy that in two parts to the address bar in your
browser
> if it doesn't link it probably.
'Jaysus Churissst de nite!' hardly covers it:)
Excellent piece on what sounds like the thrill of a lifetime. Mind
you, as I'd be the one ' shittin the pants', it's one I'll gladly
leave to you ducks...thank you very much!
You had me on the edge of my seat:) Thanks for sharing it.
Cheers, Helen
duck
> Portrush is easily in the top ten of all the golf courses in the world.
>
*I heard it was good but I would be more into the bikes.
> Now, I think I've seen that beach. Is it at the far eastern edge of the
> golf course? Is there a motel on a bluff or hill above the beach?
That's
> where I stayed last time I was in Portrush, which was 11 years ago.
>
*That must be the hostel over Whitepark beach which I've stayed in myself,
very new, clean and tidy and only £7.50 a night was well pleased with it.
duck
duck
experience it. When you see the waves from the beach you miss half the
story.
duck
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
news:abukmb$lfn5h$1...@ID-122481.news.dfncis.de...
Hey Duck! You any relation to Daffy? I used to like Daffy. I thought that
Bugs character was, well, despicable.
--
Aefauldlie, (Scots for Sincerely),
Auld Bob Peffers,
b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk
Web Site, *The Eck's Files*
http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk/
duck
"Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers" <b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in
message
> >
> Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
> Hey Duck! You any relation to Daffy? I used to like Daffy. I thought that
> Bugs character was, well, despicable.
>
*That's du du duh splicabuull!
duck
MacRobert
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
They're both Stewarts?
d@ve
is a self confessed War Crimminal
Viet Nam - ask him about it.
--
d@ve
"MacRobert" <MacR...@th.hoose> wrote in message
news:3ce6ff65...@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
duck
"d@ve" <da...@ddundee.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> MacRobert is a self confessed War Crimminal Viet Nam - ask him about it.
>
>
*Pretty liberal of him to admit it I would've thought.
duck
MacRobert
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
Well, as an American it just goes without saying... Just wait until
we revamp the Economic Imperialism, beginning with Dundee and marriage
services.
MacRobert
Turlough
> Well, as an American it just goes without saying... Just wait until
> we revamp the Economic Imperialism, beginning with Dundee and marriage
> services.
You've obviously forgotten the *prime directive* which states that we
are forbidden to interfere in the society of another country or planet.
That is why we didn't invade Afghanistan until the Northern Alliance
cried out begging for us to intervene to chase those Taliban fools away.
The US always plays by the book...
Turlough
d@ve
> cried out begging for us to intervene to chase those Taliban fools away.
Your Northern Alliance chummies are producing more drugs for the kids of the
USA
> The US always plays by the book...
Ha Ha
--
d@ve
duck
art) , btw where is Hippo this weather?
duck
MacRobert
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
I couldn't agree more, duck, I *haven't* been following anything at
all on SCI. I did take a look some years ago but was disqualified
(when they learned that Dad married my mother) and left in disgrace.
MacRobert
Sharon L. Krossa
> your posts. These what ifs are interesting right enough. I just thought
> that Sharon's post [saying that Tranter's work was ridiculous in saying that
> Bruce would bend his knee to no man for his lands in Scotland] was a bit
> OTT.
Why, when he clearly *did* bend his knee to Edward (I believe on more
than one occassion) as lord of Scotland, and everyone involved knew it
as it was said in so many words? In face of the actual facts, having
Bruce claiming to do otherwise is nonsensical. Argue that he only did so
out of expediency or argue that he only did so in face of greater force
if you must, but what sense does it make to think he was secretly
thinking "I'm only acknowleding Edward publicly as Lord of Scotland as
homage for my English lands" when there are so many other, much more
sensible explanations that actually fit in with the evidence and with
the general mindset and culture of the times?
> As Auld Bob pointed out it was in a novel and generally novels don't
> need to be 100% historically accurate.
Well, yes, of course. Novels can include space aliens, too. That's why
one shouldn't base historical understanding on what one reads in novels.
> As far as Scots were concerned
> earlier Scottish kings who had sworn fealty to the English crown had done so
> only for the lands held in England so there was a precedent for this line of
> thought. In the 'Story of Scotland' Tranter does say that Edward chose the
> weaker vessel [Balliol] as unlike Bruce he was sure to do as he was told. I
> freely admit that this is presumptuous as we don't know exactly what Edward
> thought. It couldn't be proved but equally it couldn't be disproved so
> maybe the author would have been wiser to say "according to tradition".
> This is a tradition of some antiquity as Bower [15thC] claims that Edward
> was going to choose Bruce but is warned off by his advisors that a strong
> willed Scottish king would be a threat to England.
So about two centuries later this idea pops up... after centuries of
Bruce/Stewart rule. This is the sort of thing one needs to take with a
pinch of salt -- Bower had the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight of someone
who knew what happened over the following centuries.
> Possibly pure pro-Bruce
> propaganda of course but it is propaganda of some long standing and can we
> really be 100% certain that there is no inkling of truth behind it?
See above. If I invent a totally new "tradition" the Bruce was really
the secret son of the King of France, and it sticks around for the next
500 years, that would make it of equally long standing in the 26th
century as Bowers claims are now. The issue isn't how long the tradition
has been around, the issue is how close to the actual events the
tradition first appears. Two centuries is a very long time. So while no,
we can't be 100% certain there is no inkling of truth behind it, that
isn't the issue -- we can't be 100% certain that Bruce's father wasn't
really the King of France (though I'd say it was much less likely ;-).
What is needed is to consider the source of the information, consider
the biases of the source, consider the distance in time and space from
the events described, etc., and try to determine what was the most
likely course of events from all the available information. And
sometimes we just have to accept that we can't know, although some
scenarios are clearly more plausible than others.
> The
> Bruces certainly proved themselves to be resilient, stubborn and defiant
> especially in their refusal to accept Edward's decision. Chic mentioned an
> existing Scottish patriotism at this time and I know that this is often
> poopood especially by English historians but I wonder if he may have a
> point.
Oh, no, it is the grand conspiracy theory again! Those horrible English
historians!
Nationalism in the modern sense and understanding of the term is rightly
"poopood" be *Scottish* historians. Those who say there was no
nationalism are the people who define nationalism as being the
particularly modern phenonmenon (which I think they date to the 18th
century or so) -- and they're right. But that is not to say there was no
sense of Scottishness or no sense of a Scottish kingdom, etc. -- see
below.
> There was a thread on alt.history.british recently where the
> generally agreement was that a real sense of Englishness developed during
> the Hundred Years War with France. The general perception by many Scottish
> historians is that a sense of Scottish nationhood was forged earlier during
> the Wars of Independence. However it makes sense to me that the rebellion
> may have been possible because some sense of nationhood and community was
> already in place before Edward's conquest. Just wondered what your own
> thoughts are on that. Contradictions are permitted :-)
There was clearly an existing sense of kingdomhood (I will not use
"nationalism" since that unfortunately brings too much baggage with it
from later centuries, and so does not help understand the 13th & 14th
centuries). This has been examined and discussed by many Scottish
historians, including notably GWS Barrow in "Robert Bruce and the
Community of the Realm of Scotland". The strongest evidence for it lies
not in the rising against Edward of England, but in the guardianships
from 1286 onwards, especially from 1290-2. The Scots clearly
demonstrated that they had a sense of being a kingdom even when there
was no tangible king -- so it could not have been loyalty to a person
that held the kindgom together.
However, I still maintain it is nonsense for Tranter to have Bruce going
on about "I'll give homage for my lands in England but not for Scotland"
since very clearly Bruce, his father, and his grandfather *did* give
homage to Edward I as lord of Scotland. If you want an excuse for why
they did so, go to the simpliest explanation -- they had to, Edward had
the power to demand it, they thought it was the way to the crown, etc..
But don't start unneccessary complex rationalizations. The Bruces knew
exactly what they were doing when they gave homage and they had good
reasons for it (wanting the crown of Scotland, Edward having a nice big
army to hand, etc.). The rationalizations in face of the facts are
modernly motivated and do not at all help us understand how 13th cnetury
people thought.
Remember also that the "obviousness" of the rightness of opposing Edward
is only visible with the 20/20 hindsight of those who know what happened
over the next several centuries. At the time, it was not clear at all
what was right and what was wrong. You don't need to paint Bruce as
always secretly anti-Edward in order for him to have been a Scottish
patriot. Indeed, not opposing Edward was not incompatible with sharing
in the sense of Scottish "kingdomism" -- that sense of kingdomism was
not necessarily tied to an idea that for Scotland to be a kingdom it had
to be completely independent of England and its king (as various
marriage treaties with England both before and after 1296 demonstrate).
In fact, one can make a strong argument that where things went wrong in
the 1290s and later was not that Edward claimed overlordship of
Scotland, but that Edward did not respect Scotland as a kingdom in his
claim for overlordship. (For example, if he had just installed a new
king or even declared himself king of Scotland, and tread carefully in
his exercise of overlordship, rather than trying to subsume Scotland as
a mere territory belonging to England, there may have been no
rebellion...)
Sharon
--
Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
duck
"MacRobert" <MacR...@th.Hoose> wrote in message
news:3ce9a3c0...@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
chucked out because your parents were married but because they were
related. Nothing to do with me, I'm not one for customs myself, in fact
I've a common in law sister. Must've taken after my dad he was an Ulster
Scot. :)
duck
MacRobert
Then it was all a big mistake and I'm really Irish?
Begorrah!
duck
"MacRobert" <MacR...@th.Hoose> wrote in message
> On Tue, 21 May 2002 04:18:52 +0100, "duck"
> <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
> >>
weren't
> >chucked out because your parents were married but because they were
> >related. Nothing to do with me, I'm not one for customs myself, in fact
> >I've a common in law sister. Must've taken after my dad he was an Ulster
> >Scot. :)
> >
> >
> >duck
> >
>
> Then it was all a big mistake and I'm really Irish?
>
> Begorrah!
>
families they don't even marry within their country! In fact a new law
might be on the cards, once reaching maturity you must leave, just to be
safe. We would move to Scotland but last time we tried that the Picts
weren't too happy about the marriage arrangements. :)
duck
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
So if the Tory Party begged the USA to depose Tony Blair's NuLab they would
do so and be playing by the book? BTW: What is this, *book*, the USA are
playing by? Is it Alice In Wonderland?
How about if we get the SNP to plead with the USA to get rid of the United
Kingdom Government from Scotland, would they do that and be playing by the
book?
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
I took after my Dad, he was a Scot with an ulcer.
MacRobert
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
>"MacRobert" <MacR...@th.Hoose> wrote in message
>news:3cea6dc...@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
>> On Tue, 21 May 2002 04:18:52 +0100, "duck"
>> <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>>
>> >>
>> >*I just got a email from a guy in SCI there protesting saying, you
>weren't
>> >chucked out because your parents were married but because they were
>> >related. Nothing to do with me, I'm not one for customs myself, in fact
>> >I've a common in law sister. Must've taken after my dad he was an Ulster
>> >Scot. :)
>> >
>> >
>> >duck
>> >
>>
>> Then it was all a big mistake and I'm really Irish?
>>
>> Begorrah!
>>
>*Nope, not only do the Irish (44 million abroad) not marry within their
>families they don't even marry within their country! In fact a new law
>might be on the cards, once reaching maturity you must leave, just to be
>safe. We would move to Scotland but last time we tried that the Picts
>weren't too happy about the marriage arrangements. :)
>
>
>duck
>
Thank goodness; well, as I read the sci it occurs that marriage is too
archaic for Erin's children and you just go with whatever
opportunities arise. Makes picking up dropped change a bit risky,
though...
MacRobert
MacRobert
<duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
>"MacRobert" <MacR...@th.Hoose> wrote in message
>news:3cea6dc...@basic.bs.webusenet.com...
>> On Tue, 21 May 2002 04:18:52 +0100, "duck"
>> <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>>
>> >>
>> >*I just got a email from a guy in SCI there protesting saying, you
>weren't
>> >chucked out because your parents were married but because they were
>> >related. Nothing to do with me, I'm not one for customs myself, in fact
>> >I've a common in law sister. Must've taken after my dad he was an Ulster
>> >Scot. :)
>> >
>> >
>> >duck
>> >
>>
>> Then it was all a big mistake and I'm really Irish?
>>
>> Begorrah!
>>
>*Nope, not only do the Irish (44 million abroad) not marry within their
>families they don't even marry within their country! In fact a new law
>might be on the cards, once reaching maturity you must leave, just to be
>safe. We would move to Scotland but last time we tried that the Picts
>weren't too happy about the marriage arrangements. :)
>
>
>duck
>
Thank goodness; well, as I read the sci it occurs that marriage is too
Allan Connochie
"Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
news:1fc6sid.rpt29bgsohxaN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
> Allan Connochie <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> > your posts. These what ifs are interesting right enough. I just
thought
> > that Sharon's post [saying that Tranter's work was ridiculous in saying
that
> > Bruce would bend his knee to no man for his lands in Scotland] was a bit
> > OTT.
>
> Why, when he clearly *did* bend his knee to Edward (I believe on more
> than one occassion) as lord of Scotland, and everyone involved knew it
> as it was said in so many words? In face of the actual facts, having
> Bruce claiming to do otherwise is nonsensical. Argue that he only did so
> out of expediency or argue that he only did so in face of greater force
> if you must, but what sense does it make to think he was secretly
> thinking "I'm only acknowleding Edward publicly as Lord of Scotland as
> homage for my English lands" when there are so many other, much more
> sensible explanations that actually fit in with the evidence and with
> the general mindset and culture of the times?
But the evidence actually shows that virtually every Scottish monarch who
swore fealty to an English king eventually turned on England be it Balliol,
Malcolm Canmore, David 1st or most strikingly Robert Bruce. They seemed to
pay homage on a needs must basis. Lynch desribes Malcolm's act of homage to
William the Conqueror as an empty gesture to be discarded at the first
opportunity and of course several years after paying homage he was invading
England. No-one is denying that Bruce paid homage to Edward but was it also
an empty gesture? The evidence of events suggests that it 'might' have
been. However I did not say that you were incorrect [as no one knows for
sure]rather that your statement that Tranter's work was ridiculous was "a
bit OTT"
>
> > As Auld Bob pointed out it was in a novel and generally novels don't
> > need to be 100% historically accurate.
>
> Well, yes, of course. Novels can include space aliens, too. That's why
> one shouldn't base historical understanding on what one reads in novels.
Quite true and of course I don't.
>
> > As far as Scots were concerned
> > earlier Scottish kings who had sworn fealty to the English crown had
done so
> > only for the lands held in England so there was a precedent for this
line of
> > thought. In the 'Story of Scotland' Tranter does say that Edward chose
the
> > weaker vessel [Balliol] as unlike Bruce he was sure to do as he was
told. I
> > freely admit that this is presumptuous as we don't know exactly what
Edward
> > thought. It couldn't be proved but equally it couldn't be disproved so
> > maybe the author would have been wiser to say "according to tradition".
> > This is a tradition of some antiquity as Bower [15thC] claims that
Edward
> > was going to choose Bruce but is warned off by his advisors that a
strong
> > willed Scottish king would be a threat to England.
>
> So about two centuries later this idea pops up... after centuries of
> Bruce/Stewart rule. This is the sort of thing one needs to take with a
> pinch of salt -- Bower had the benefit of the 20/20 hindsight of someone
> who knew what happened over the following centuries.
Well for a start I freely admit in the following passage that it is quite
possibly pro-Bruce propaganda. Never the less it is the traditional version
of things and even though we can't accept it blindly as truth we also can't
dismiss it out of hand. Neither was it two centuries after the events.
Bower was writing about 140 years after the Wars though some of his work
[including some sections on Bruce] were more or less picked from Fordun
who's chronicle was put together in the 1360s within living memory of
Bannockburn.
>
> > Possibly pure pro-Bruce
> > propaganda of course but it is propaganda of some long standing and can
we
> > really be 100% certain that there is no inkling of truth behind it?
>
> See above. If I invent a totally new "tradition" the Bruce was really
> the secret son of the King of France, and it sticks around for the next
> 500 years, that would make it of equally long standing in the 26th
> century as Bowers claims are now. The issue isn't how long the tradition
> has been around, the issue is how close to the actual events the
> tradition first appears. Two centuries is a very long time. So while no,
> we can't be 100% certain there is no inkling of truth behind it, that
> isn't the issue -- we can't be 100% certain that Bruce's father wasn't
> really the King of France (though I'd say it was much less likely ;-).
> What is needed is to consider the source of the information, consider
> the biases of the source, consider the distance in time and space from
> the events described, etc., and try to determine what was the most
> likely course of events from all the available information. And
> sometimes we just have to accept that we can't know, although some
> scenarios are clearly more plausible than others.
I think that I've already done all that you suggest and came up with the
thought that it's quite plausible 'perhaps even likely' that Bruce only
swore fealty to Edward grudgingly, and that he did so for his own purposes.
Of course it can't be proved either way.
>
> > The
> > Bruces certainly proved themselves to be resilient, stubborn and defiant
> > especially in their refusal to accept Edward's decision. Chic mentioned
an
> > existing Scottish patriotism at this time and I know that this is often
> > poopood especially by English historians but I wonder if he may have a
> > point.
>
> Oh, no, it is the grand conspiracy theory again! Those horrible English
> historians!
No conspiracy and certainly no horrible English historians. However there
are volumes and volumes of crushingly anglo-centric British history books.
But what you are saying there is exactly what I've been saying! Again
no-one has denied that Bruce paid homage. However it was most likely on a
needs must basis and for his own purposes. The English kings often claimed
themselves as lord of Scotland but this was never accepted unless there was
a dire situation and it was always temporary with the Scots attempting to
reassert themselves. It is in my opinion more likely that Bruce viewed
himself as the real lord of Scotland and bent to Edward's will when he had
to and used Edward's resources when he could.
>
> Remember also that the "obviousness" of the rightness of opposing Edward
> is only visible with the 20/20 hindsight of those who know what happened
> over the next several centuries. At the time, it was not clear at all
> what was right and what was wrong
I think the then population of Berwick may well disagree with that point.
Also the demonising of the English didn't take centuries. It was more like
a few years. The Declaration of Arbroath even threatens to depose the
monarch [Robert Bruce] and replace him with another if he makes the country
subject to the English.
You don't need to paint Bruce as
> always secretly anti-Edward in order for him to have been a Scottish
> patriot. Indeed, not opposing Edward was not incompatible with sharing
> in the sense of Scottish "kingdomism" -- that sense of kingdomism was
> not necessarily tied to an idea that for Scotland to be a kingdom it had
> to be completely independent of England and its king (as various
> marriage treaties with England both before and after 1296 demonstrate).
But royalty was always marrying other royalty to secure and strengthen their
status. I don't see the relevence. also I didn't suggest that pre-War of
Independence Scotland ws inheritantly anti-English or anti-Edward. The fact
that they asked him to decide on the succession shows otherwise. However as
you suggested previously there was a sense of Scottishness and community of
the realm. Pevious history showed that Scottish monarchs under normal
conditions regarded themselves as lords in their kingdom. I don't see any
reason why Bruce would have thought different. That doesn't necessarily
mean he would have been anti-Edward initially, rather just that he might not
have meant it when he swore allegiance. It is something anti-royals
nowadays have to do in order to take their seats in parliament. They swear
allegiance to the Queen then come out afterwards and say "Och I said it but
I didnae mean it"
> In fact, one can make a strong argument that where things went wrong in
> the 1290s and later was not that Edward claimed overlordship of
> Scotland, but that Edward did not respect Scotland as a kingdom in his
> claim for overlordship. (For example, if he had just installed a new
> king or even declared himself king of Scotland, and tread carefully in
> his exercise of overlordship, rather than trying to subsume Scotland as
> a mere territory belonging to England, there may have been no
> rebellion...)
Possible but we'll never know :-)
Allan
duck
"MacRobert" <MacR...@th.Hoose> wrote in message
> On Tue, 21 May 2002 19:04:21 +0100, "duck"
> <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
>
>
> archaic for Erin's children and you just go with whatever
> opportunities arise.
*Well with all the sexy women over here you have too.
> Makes picking up dropped change a bit risky, though...
>
>
*Oh come on, this is a Scottish room, nobody drops change or at least it
doesn't get to hit the ground.
duck
duck
>
> "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > art) , btw where is Hippo this weather?
> >
> So if the Tory Party begged the USA to depose Tony Blair's NuLab they
would
> do so and be playing by the book? BTW: What is this, *book*, the USA are
> playing by? Is it Alice In Wonderland?
>
not a lot he can do about it.
> How about if we get the SNP to plead with the USA to get rid of the
United
> Kingdom Government from Scotland, would they do that and be playing by
the
> book?
>
*I thought the UK government was in England? We have our own toys to play
with now. Why would the SNP need the US, why not just have vote?
duck
des Kaisers Haarpracht
<co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>But the evidence actually shows that virtually every Scottish monarch who
>swore fealty to an English king eventually turned on England be it Balliol,
>Malcolm Canmore, David 1st or most strikingly Robert Bruce. They seemed to
>pay homage on a needs must basis. Lynch desribes Malcolm's act of homage to
>William the Conqueror as an empty gesture to be discarded at the first
>opportunity and of course several years after paying homage he was invading
>England. No-one is denying that Bruce paid homage to Edward but was it also
>an empty gesture?
Then it must always have been an empty gesture: look at the career of
Henry II's sons, who levied war on him whenever they thought they had
to. The problem here is confusing 20th-century concepts of loyalty
and national independence with medieval concepts of feudal loyalty.
Every king was subject to a multitude of feudal obligations, both
upwards and downwards, and their actions were informed and influenced,
but not dictated, but these links in the contemporary political
context.
These people did not act under the motivations we would assume from
out own current personal understandings.
> The evidence of events suggests that it 'might' have
>been. However I did not say that you were incorrect [as no one knows for
>sure]rather that your statement that Tranter's work was ridiculous was "a
>bit OTT"
I think Tranter, perhaps influenced by his historical fiction, brings
his own conceptions of what ought to have been done in the light of a
later historical narrative to the issue. In other word's he's
committing an anachronism, and that undermines his value as a
historian.
>I think that I've already done all that you suggest and came up with the
>thought that it's quite plausible 'perhaps even likely' that Bruce only
>swore fealty to Edward grudgingly, and that he did so for his own purposes.
>Of course it can't be proved either way.
What explanation seems the most logical, as we would understand an
early 14th-century feudal aristocrat would see it? One issue that the
later Scottish sources are never happy about is the extent to which
the Scottish aristocratic polity as a whole were prepared to
acknowledge Edward I and his claims.
>> Oh, no, it is the grand conspiracy theory again! Those horrible English
>> historians!
>
>No conspiracy and certainly no horrible English historians. However there
>are volumes and volumes of crushingly anglo-centric British history books.
This is true, but I don't think this can be read to include Barbour,
the Scottichron, Blind Harry etc.
>But what you are saying there is exactly what I've been saying! Again
>no-one has denied that Bruce paid homage. However it was most likely on a
>needs must basis and for his own purposes. The English kings often claimed
>themselves as lord of Scotland but this was never accepted unless there was
>a dire situation
... or that they could secure their position or improve it by doing
so: much like they could with any feudal magnate who was in a
position to confer advantages by receiving homage. This realpolitic
dynamic does not just apply to Scottish kings in regard of feudal
obligations to English kings in isolation. It applies across the
board, and undercuts any unique monolithic nationalist self-idenity
within the Scots aritstocracy themselves. There is another element to
it, which is to be precise about what the protagonists understood was
being established by such a process. People like Henry II or Richard
I could be relied upon to characterise their interpretation of acting
within their obligations to the King of France with enormous
lattitude, amounting to autonomy in most areas. Later traditons of
historical narrative have tended to invest feudal obligations with
contemporary values and assumptions which in many cases are not valid
within an understanding of what the people concerned would have
understood was meant or implied.
>and it was always temporary with the Scots attempting to
>reassert themselves. It is in my opinion more likely that Bruce viewed
>himself as the real lord of Scotland and bent to Edward's will when he had
>to and used Edward's resources when he could.
Both sides on such a relationship used each other for their own ends.
This was normal. The extent to which this undercut recognised feudal
obligations is something else, and needs to be substantiated before it
can be characterised as an empty gesture. My criticism is that later
conceptions of national motivation are injected into these events,
while contemporary concerns such as dynastic ambition, security of
feudal reputation, title and position tend to be ignored or played
down.
>I think the then population of Berwick may well disagree with that point.
>Also the demonising of the English didn't take centuries. It was more like
>a few years.
There is certainly a propagandistic tradition lasting centuries built
upon it. I tend to be very unsympathetic towards recent ideas of
contemporary conceptions of popular national motivations being
injected into feudal conflicts, which tended to be more particular and
local than modern ideas of national conflict.
>The Declaration of Arbroath even threatens to depose the
>monarch [Robert Bruce] and replace him with another if he makes the country
>subject to the English.
The Declaration of Arbroath needs to be understood in the same light
as any similar document justifying the actions of one political
constituency. Jefferson's wonderful language shouldn't blind anybody
to the hypocrisies and propaganda of the American Declaration of
Independence. It says what the people concerned want to be understood
as defining their motivations and their cause by posterity: it does
not accurately define their real motivations or the issues at stake as
everybody else saw them at the time.
>. That doesn't necessarily
>mean he would have been anti-Edward initially, rather just that he might not
>have meant it when he swore allegiance. It is something anti-royals
>nowadays have to do in order to take their seats in parliament. They swear
>allegiance to the Queen then come out afterwards and say "Och I said it but
>I didnae mean it"
There's a real difference in the significance of oath. They were not
trival matters, which is why lawyers evolved to enable politicans like
Bruce to deal with the consequences of deciding to break them or go
against them. Breaking oaths was an option, but to avoid unnecceasry
damage to legitimacy and reputation (as well as scaring off followers
who relied upon your oaths to secure their position) great efforts
were made to justify such actions.
Gavin Bailey
Sharon L. Krossa
Indeed, it may well have been an empty gesture -- that is not what I am
protesting. What I am protesting is the weak argument that his "secret"
excuse (rationalization) was that he was only giving homage for his
English lands when he acknowledged Edwards as _Lord of Scotland_. (Why
in the world would one give homage to someone *as* _Lord of Scotland_
for your *English* lands?)
Tranter's theory was ridiculous (based on what was reported here about
his theory), and does nothing to illuminate or even explore what was
actually going on. Pointing that out is not OTT.
> > > As Auld Bob pointed out it was in a novel and generally novels don't
> > > need to be 100% historically accurate.
> >
> > Well, yes, of course. Novels can include space aliens, too. That's why
> > one shouldn't base historical understanding on what one reads in novels.
>
> Quite true and of course I don't.
But somehow Tranter got into this discussion, didn't he?
140 years is closer to two centuries than to contemporary -- so if the
claim _first_ shows up in Bower... The point remains that what matters
to how much credence one gives such claims is not how many centuries
have passed _since_ the claim was first made, but how many years passed
between the actual events and when the claim first shows up. I am not
suggesting that one dismiss it out of hand, but after nearly a century
and a half of rule by Bruce and his descendants, one needs to be
appropriately skeptical (and also keep in mind that the Bruce who was
not chosen was not the Bruce who actually became king but rather his
grandfather...)
Yes, indeed. But I don't think there is reason to think it is
Anglo-centrism that fuels the dismissal of "nationalism", it is
modernism (as in, modern historians and their modern history rooted
understanding of the, well, modern term).
Again, what I was objecting to was the specific "doing homage only for
English lands" rationalization.
> > Remember also that the "obviousness" of the rightness of opposing Edward
> > is only visible with the 20/20 hindsight of those who know what happened
> > over the next several centuries. At the time, it was not clear at all
> > what was right and what was wrong
>
> I think the then population of Berwick may well disagree with that point.
> Also the demonising of the English didn't take centuries. It was more like
> a few years. The Declaration of Arbroath even threatens to depose the
> monarch [Robert Bruce] and replace him with another if he makes the country
> subject to the English.
But then, the Declaration of Arbroath can be seen as propaganda for a
purpose (and unsuccesful propoganda at that). Just as Bruce may have
done homage to Edward without really intending to live up to it, so too
may the backers of the Declaration of Arbroath said what they did to the
Pope without really intending to live up to it (e.g., depose kings,
etc.). It was promptly forgotten rather than becoming a founding
principal of Scottish kingship, after all ;-)
> > You don't need to paint Bruce as
> > always secretly anti-Edward in order for him to have been a Scottish
> > patriot. Indeed, not opposing Edward was not incompatible with sharing
> > in the sense of Scottish "kingdomism" -- that sense of kingdomism was
> > not necessarily tied to an idea that for Scotland to be a kingdom it had
> > to be completely independent of England and its king (as various
> > marriage treaties with England both before and after 1296 demonstrate).
>
> But royalty was always marrying other royalty to secure and strengthen their
> status. I don't see the relevence.
The particular treaties I am referring to are the ones whereby the heir
of the Scottish throne was to be married to the heir of the English
throne, which would have produced in a single person the future heir of
both thrones. (These marriages always fell through, usually through
somebody dying inconveniently...) In these treaties there is a lot of
stuff showing that the Scots were trying to preserve Scotland as a
kingdom even while engineering that a future king of Scotland would
simultaneously be king of England. This is relevent to what the Scots
thought regarding whether Scotland being completely independent of
England and the English king was necessary for there to be a Scottish
kingdom, etc. And clearly these treaties demonstrate that they thought
Scotland could be a kingdom even if it's king was also the King of
England (and, indeed, so it eventually came to pass centuries later).
> also I didn't suggest that pre-War of
> Independence Scotland ws inheritantly anti-English or anti-Edward. The fact
> that they asked him to decide on the succession shows otherwise. However as
> you suggested previously there was a sense of Scottishness and community of
> the realm. Pevious history showed that Scottish monarchs under normal
> conditions regarded themselves as lords in their kingdom. I don't see any
> reason why Bruce would have thought different. That doesn't necessarily
> mean he would have been anti-Edward initially, rather just that he might not
> have meant it when he swore allegiance. It is something anti-royals
> nowadays have to do in order to take their seats in parliament. They swear
> allegiance to the Queen then come out afterwards and say "Och I said it but
> I didnae mean it"
But do keep in mind that oaths were taken much more seriously in the
Middle Ages than modernly. Indeed, breaking solemn oaths was believed to
imperil ones immortal soul (which was something they took quite
seriously indeed, again in constrast to many today ;-). Thus I think
Bruce and co. were much more likely to rationalize breaking such oaths
by viewing them as having been given under duress, or by regarding the
oath having been broken first by Edward, etc., than by thinking
"although I'm acknowledging Edward as Lord of Scotland, really I'm just
doing homage for my English lands...". Especially since large numbers
who did homage to Edward as Lord of Scotland didn't have any English
lands, anyway -- what was their excuse?
I think that one of the things that is confusing some on this issue is
that some earlier Scottish kings *did* claim they or their predecessors
had only done homage to the English king for their English lands, and
not as overlord of Scotland, when they were denying English overlordship
of Scotland. But Edward I was wise to this dodge, and he made it quite
clear what the homages to him meant and in what capacity they were being
given. This loophole had been closed (which is part of why the
Guardians, prior to the court case, cleverly denied capacity to
acknowledge Edward's overlordship on behalf of an as yet unknown king).
Further, this was a dodge exercised by earlier Scottish kings, not of
Scottish nobles (for whom it hadn't previously arisen, really). I don't
believe Bruce ever did homage to Edward when he was king of Scotland,
only prior to becoming king. When he declared himself king, he burnt
that bridge. (Balliol, of course, did acknowledge Edward as overlord
when king.)
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers
"duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
snip
by? Is it Alice In Wonderland?
> >
> *The US love Tony and lets face it if Tony doesn't like Bush well theres
> not a lot he can do about it.
That'swha they said to Bin Laden and see what happened.
>
snip
> *I thought the UK government was in England?
The U.K. Government is in the U.K but the U.K. cabinet is mainly made up of
Scots.
> We have our own toys to play
> with now. Why would the SNP need the US, why not just have vote?
>
>
> duck
>
>
We will do that too, sooner or later, but my point was simply that the USA
was playing by its very own book and they would have invaded anyway or found
some other underhand way to get what they wanted in Afghanistan. They did
not find Bin Laden there did they? Perhaps he was not there in the first
place. However he was a good excuse. Who will be the next government to be
deposed by the USA?
Allan Connochie
Even John Chancellor in his biography of Edward 1st states that in reality
"he was recognised as the sovereign lord while the Scottish throne was
vacant, and the realm was resigned into his hands". Virtually all the
Scottish monarchs who swore fealty to an English king did so out of
immediate necessity for short term benefits, then seemed to ditch the
thought as soon as they could get away with it. The Bruce's probably swore
allegiance to Edward in order to pursue their claim to the throne as he was
given the power to decide and after some blowing and huffing in various
directions due to the ongoing civil war, the English occupation, and no
doubt family politics too, the future king finally played his hand when it
became clear that despite Balliol's defeat he was not going to have the
throne given to him by Edward.
>
> Tranter's theory was ridiculous (based on what was reported here about
> his theory), and does nothing to illuminate or even explore what was
> actually going on. Pointing that out is not OTT.
Why is Tranter's theory ridiculous? It is well recognised that previous
kings in the 13thC had only sworn allegiance to the English king for their
lands actually in England. [The 13thC Scottish kings Alexander 2nd and
Alexander 3rd explicitly denied that they owed homage and fealty for
Scotland. However they did acknowledge that they were required to do so for
their lands in England...........Fiona Watson from In Search of Scotland]
She also talks about Bruce, Edward and the new different sense of kingship
and community of the realm which developed in the 13thC. [it was
increasingly unlikely that either king would accept the rights of others
over his kingdom, as opposed to personal lands held in other jurisdictions]
We will never know if Bruce murmered something like Tranter's quote under
his breath or not, however it certainly wouldn't be surprising if the family
continued the traditional belief of Scottish kings believing they were
undisputed lords in Scotland. It's certainly far from a ludicrous position
to take.
>
> > > > As Auld Bob pointed out it was in a novel and generally novels don't
> > > > need to be 100% historically accurate.
> > >
> > > Well, yes, of course. Novels can include space aliens, too. That's why
> > > one shouldn't base historical understanding on what one reads in
novels.
> >
> > Quite true and of course I don't.
>
> But somehow Tranter got into this discussion, didn't he?
He did. I was just pointing out that I don't base my historical
understanding solely in what I read in novels :-)
I am of course appropriately sceptical that is why I mentioned that it could
be part propaganda. However at the same time Bower does show Bruce warts
and all. It is not uncritical writing. "and just as afterwards, when King
Robert was making war, all the supporters of Balliol were suspected of
treason in his war, so also in Balliol's war , the aforesaid bishop and
earls, and all the supporters of Bruce's party were genrally considered
traitors to the king and country"
But the bulk of Scottish historians don't seem to dismiss nationalism out of
hand. You said it yourself [there was a sense of kingdomhood] though you
don't use the word nation. Watson of course is a very modern historian
[Senior Lecturer in History and Director of the Centre for Environmental
History and Policy......Stirling and St Andrew's universities] who did a PhD
on 'Edward 1st and Scotland'. Lynch who talked about the monarchs swearing
fealty being an empty gesture is Professor of Scottish History and
Palaeography at Edinburgh University. William Ferguson [Honorary Fellow in
Scottish History at Edinburgh University] says "It is indisputable that
national sentiment largely shaped and fortified Bruce's policies, and to
attempt to deny such a view would involve the sweeping aside of a formidable
body of evidence......... Identity of the Scottish Nation"
Was it? Mary Stuart was deposed as was James 7th. Edward Balliol failed to
secure a proper hold of the kingship because of involvement with the
English. Plus of course Charles 1st was handed over as a prisoner to the
English parliament.
That is corect of course though when it happened the dual kingship was a
disaster for Scotland.
Their excuse was the size of the army occupying their country. You still
haven't explained why do you think that Bruce is seperate from the previous
pre-war kings. Why is it so hard to believe that he could be loyal to
Edward for his English estates but not his Scottish when evidence shows that
the former kings took this line? I am quite sure that most probably viewed
their swearing loyalty to Edward as lord of Scotland as done under duress
though. Why can't both these things be valid?
>
> I think that one of the things that is confusing some on this issue is
> that some earlier Scottish kings *did* claim they or their predecessors
> had only done homage to the English king for their English lands, and
> not as overlord of Scotland, when they were denying English overlordship
> of Scotland. But Edward I was wise to this dodge, and he made it quite
> clear what the homages to him meant and in what capacity they were being
> given. This loophole had been closed (which is part of why the
> Guardians, prior to the court case, cleverly denied capacity to
> acknowledge Edward's overlordship on behalf of an as yet unknown king).
>
> Further, this was a dodge exercised by earlier Scottish kings, not of
> Scottish nobles (for whom it hadn't previously arisen, really). I don't
> believe Bruce ever did homage to Edward when he was king of Scotland,
> only prior to becoming king. When he declared himself king, he burnt
> that bridge. (Balliol, of course, did acknowledge Edward as overlord
> when king.)
Balliol acknowledged it at first then duly invaded England. Bruce was no
ordinary noble he was a claimant for the throne, and we've been over why he
may have swore fealt to Edward several times.
Allan
Allan Connochie
"des Kaisers Haarpracht" <g.j.b...@durham.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:3ceb7061...@nntphost.dur.ac.uk...
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 00:25:30 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
> <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
>
> >> Oh, no, it is the grand conspiracy theory again! Those horrible English
> >> historians!
> >
> >No conspiracy and certainly no horrible English historians. However
there
> >are volumes and volumes of crushingly anglo-centric British history
books.
>
> This is true, but I don't think this can be read to include Barbour,
> the Scottichron, Blind Harry etc.
Sorry for not giving a full reply but it's much the same points as was in
Sharron's post and I have a bed to go to. However I was intrigued as to
what your point was here. Of coure these are not anglo-centric writings.
Whatever made you think I might believe they were? :-)
Allan
MacRobert
<b...@peffers50.freeserve.co.uk> paused to reflect but wrote anyway:
>
>"duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:acemsk$oppd5$1...@ID-122481.news.dfncis.de...
>snip
>by? Is it Alice In Wonderland?
>> >
>> *The US love Tony and lets face it if Tony doesn't like Bush well theres
>> not a lot he can do about it.
>
>That'swha they said to Bin Laden and see what happened.
>>
>snip
>> *I thought the UK government was in England?
>
>The U.K. Government is in the U.K but the U.K. cabinet is mainly made up of
>Scots.
>
>> We have our own toys to play
>> with now. Why would the SNP need the US, why not just have vote?
>>
>>
>> duck
>>
>>
>We will do that too, sooner or later, but my point was simply that the USA
>was playing by its very own book and they would have invaded anyway or found
>some other underhand way to get what they wanted in Afghanistan. They did
>not find Bin Laden there did they? Perhaps he was not there in the first
>place. However he was a good excuse. Who will be the next government to be
>deposed by the USA?
>--
Dundee council...
duck
>
> "duck" <duck...@NOSPAMhotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:acemsk$oppd5$1...@ID-122481.news.dfncis.de...
> snip
> by? Is it Alice In Wonderland?
> > >
> > *The US love Tony and lets face it if Tony doesn't like Bush well
theres
> > not a lot he can do about it.
>
> That'swha they said to Bin Laden and see what happened.
>
Tony.
>
> snip
> > *I thought the UK government was in England?
>
> The U.K. Government is in the U.K but the U.K. cabinet is mainly made up
of
> Scots.
>
*But run by the US of course.
> >
> We will do that too, sooner or later, but my point was simply that the
USA
> was playing by its very own book and they would have invaded anyway or
found
> some other underhand way to get what they wanted in Afghanistan. They did
> not find Bin Laden there did they? Perhaps he was not there in the first
> place. However he was a good excuse. Who will be the next government to
be
> deposed by the USA?
>
*Well Afghanistan was of mutual benefit to us all, the Taliban were as
close to evil as can be. If anyone has seen the documentary 'beyond the
veil'? Will understand, from raping children to skinning people, sick
beings. Corporate America is very different though but it doesn't look like
we can do much about it.
duck
des Kaisers Haarpracht
<co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>> This is true, but I don't think this can be read to include Barbour,
>> the Scottichron, Blind Harry etc.
>
>Sorry for not giving a full reply but it's much the same points as was in
>Sharron's post and I have a bed to go to. However I was intrigued as to
>what your point was here.
Which sources do you think Tranter is relying on? Where do you think
he departs from them?
> Of coure these are not anglo-centric writings.
The problem stems from the definition of Anglo-centricism as it
applies to the wars of independence. Those events are not central to
the mythology of English nationalism or the English national identity,
so while I think the term has some value in discussing the larger
context of British medieval history, it does not account meaningfully
for the prejudices that exist in many of the most important and
influential Scottish sources.
Gavin Bailey
Allan Connochie
> On Thu, 23 May 2002 00:25:25 +0100, "Allan Connochie"
> <co...@conno.greatxscape.net> wrote:
>
> >> This is true, but I don't think this can be read to include Barbour,
> >> the Scottichron, Blind Harry etc.
> >
> >Sorry for not giving a full reply but it's much the same points as was in
> >Sharron's post and I have a bed to go to. However I was intrigued as to
> >what your point was here.
>
> Which sources do you think Tranter is relying on? Where do you think
> he departs from them?
You've honestly completely lost me here! I never suggested that either
Tranter or any of his sources were anglo-centric.
Allan
Sharon L. Krossa
> On Wed, 22 May 2002 10:48:26 GMT, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu (Sharon L.
> Krossa) wrote:
>
> >> I think the then population of Berwick may well disagree with that
> >> point. Also the demonising of the English didn't take centuries. It
> >> was more like a few years. The Declaration of Arbroath even threatens
> >> to depose the monarch [Robert Bruce] and replace him with another if
> >> he makes the country subject to the English.
> >
> >But then, the Declaration of Arbroath can be seen as propaganda for a
> >purpose (and unsuccesful propoganda at that). Just as Bruce may have
> >done homage to Edward without really intending to live up to it, so too
> >may the backers of the Declaration of Arbroath said what they did to the
> >Pope without really intending to live up to it (e.g., depose kings,
> >etc.). It was promptly forgotten rather than becoming a founding
> >principal of Scottish kingship, after all ;-)
>
> What about Mary QoS and Charles I? ;-)
I don't recall that the Declaration of Arbroath was invoked for either
one...
Sharon L. Krossa
> On Fri, 24 May 2002 01:34:31 GMT, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu (Sharon L.
> Krossa) wrote:
>
> >MacHamish <rus...@concentric.net> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 22 May 2002 10:48:26 GMT, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu (Sharon L.
> >> Krossa) wrote:
> >>
> >> >> I think the then population of Berwick may well disagree with that
> >> >> point. Also the demonising of the English didn't take centuries. It
> >> >> was more like a few years. The Declaration of Arbroath even threatens
> >> >> to depose the monarch [Robert Bruce] and replace him with another if
> >> >> he makes the country subject to the English.
> >> >
> >> >But then, the Declaration of Arbroath can be seen as propaganda for a
> >> >purpose (and unsuccesful propoganda at that). Just as Bruce may have
> >> >done homage to Edward without really intending to live up to it, so too
> >> >may the backers of the Declaration of Arbroath said what they did to the
> >> >Pope without really intending to live up to it (e.g., depose kings,
> >> >etc.). It was promptly forgotten rather than becoming a founding
> >> >principal of Scottish kingship, after all ;-)
> >>
> >> What about Mary QoS and Charles I? ;-)
> >
> >I don't recall that the Declaration of Arbroath was invoked for either
> >one...
>
> The principle expressed in the Declaration of Arbroath was that a Scottish
> monarch ruled at the will of the people and could be deposed if the reign
> proved unsatisfactory to the people. Hence, Mary *Queen of Scots*, not
> *Queen of Scotland*, etc.
Don't make too much over the "Queen of Scots" thing -- it appears it was
just linguistic habit, with no particular signficiance. In fact, in the
period in question she was often called "Queen of Scotland" by Scots,
just as the various kings were sometimes called "King of Scots" and
sometimes "King of Scotland" (both before and after MQoS).
> I don't think it had to be invoked specifically
> by name. It was traditional.
If so, then the principal also existed in England, France, and every
other kingdom that ever deposed a king. Somehow I find that hard to
believe of any of these kingdoms (including Scotland).
In fact, if you look at the patterns in Scottish history, the Scots come
across as much more conservative and unwilling to depose kings and
dynasties (even ones they didn't like or ones already deposed) than
other kingdoms. Witness the uprising against Edward I done in the name
of the abdicated King John Balliol, the Scots crowning Charles II while
the English went for a commonwealth, the stronger support for the
Stuarts after they were deposed among the Scots than the English, etc.
Indeed, it is worth noting that it was England, not Scotland, that
deposed both Charles I and James VII -- Scotland was just reacting to
these English faits accompli (and especially in the case of Charles I
not at all happy about it -- as said, they prompty crowned his son while
England tried to get rid of the monarchy altogether).
Looking at the wider context, and looking at the context of the
Declaration of Arbroath itself, it really does look to be an expedient
excuse for highly unusual circumstances -- an argument worth trying on
the Pope in case it worked (it didn't) -- not a guiding policy of the
theory of Scottish kingship.
Allan Connochie
Scotland deposed James VII though. The English had earlier claimed that his
flight was an abdication. Likewise the fight against Charles 1st had deep
roots in Scotland though they took exception to the English executing the
king. Also the stronger support forf Stuarts north of the border could in
a round about way be viewed as a wish to depose the sitting monarch!
Allan
/
Alan Smaill
> "Sharon L. Krossa" <kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu> wrote in message
> news:1fcniwx.1fjhhh51bpswgN%kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu...
> > In fact, if you look at the patterns in Scottish history, the Scots come
> > across as much more conservative and unwilling to depose kings and
> > dynasties (even ones they didn't like or ones already deposed) than
> > other kingdoms. Witness the uprising against Edward I done in the name
> > of the abdicated King John Balliol, the Scots crowning Charles II while
> > the English went for a commonwealth, the stronger support for the
> > Stuarts after they were deposed among the Scots than the English, etc.
> > Indeed, it is worth noting that it was England, not Scotland, that
> > deposed both Charles I and James VII
>
>
> Scotland deposed James VII though. The English had earlier claimed that his
> flight was an abdication. Likewise the fight against Charles 1st had deep
> roots in Scotland though they took exception to the English executing the
> king. Also the stronger support forf Stuarts north of the border could in
> a round about way be viewed as a wish to depose the sitting monarch!
How come neither of you mentions deposing Mary???
A much more obvious case than James VII.
> Allan
--
Alan Smaill email: A.Sm...@ed.ac.uk
Division of Informatics tel: 44-131-650-2710
Edinburgh University
Allan Connochie
"Alan Smaill" <sma...@dai.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:fwe3cwb...@puffin.dai.ed.ac.uk...
Mary was given as an example further up the thread.
cheers
Allan
Sharon L. Krossa
Because we were talking about trends, and when two out of your four
examples of a Scottish monarch being deposed are actually cases of an
English monarch being deposed and the Scots just going along with it
after the fact (in some cases not going along as much as circumstances
allowed ;-), you don't have much of a trend.
Mary is also not a good case for a claim that the sentiments of the
Declaration of Arbroath became a guiding principal for the theory of
Scottish kingship. She was, in many ways, exceptional.
And, of course, one of the (many ;-) problems with Mary wasn't that she
leant toward the English but rather that she did *not* lean enough
toward the (Protestant) English (preferring the (Catholic) French).
We should keep in mind that what the Declaration of Arbroath indicates
is *not* that it's okay to depose a _bad_ king, but rather that it is
okay to depose a king who agrees to make the kingdom subject to England:
"Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our
kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert
ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his
own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend
us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never
will we on any conditions be brought under English rule." This is the
only part of the D. of Arbroath that talks about deposing kings.
In fact, the D. of Arbroath says that Robert Bruce is king not because
Balliol was bad and rightly deposed, but rather says Bruce is king
according to the normal rules (e.g., after Balliol abdicated, Bruce
inherited by the regular law).
For the text of the D. of Arbroath (in both Latin and English), see:
http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath.html
Reading this text, it is all the more clear that it was not the basis
for any supposed Scottish theory that it was okay to depose bad kings.
Allan Connochie
Yes but surely that document uses that example [ie make the kingdom subject
to the English] because Scotland was in the middle of a prolonged war with
England at the time. In later years it was religion which would divide the
nation and the monarch. The fears and tensions of the 17th and 18thC were
obviously different from Bruce's time. The Claim of Right in some ways
echoes the same kind of feelings laid out in the Arbroath Decleration except
James 2nd and 7th sought to make [well at least it was perceived that way]
the country subject to Catholicism.
"Therefore the Estates of the Kingdom of Scotland, Find and Declare that
James the Seventh being a professed Papist, did assume the Regal power, and
acted as King, without ever taking the oath required by law, and hath by the
advice of evil and wicked counsellors, invaded the fundamental constitution
of the Kingdom, and altered it from a legal limited Monarchy, to an arbitary
despotick Power, and hath exercised the same, to the subversion of the
Protestant religion, and the violation of the laws and liberties of the
Kingdom, inverting all the ends of government, whereby he hath forfaulted
the right to the Crown, and the Throne is become vacant."
Allan
Alan Smaill
I'd missed that this happened earlier in the thread.
> Because we were talking about trends, and when two out of your four
> examples of a Scottish monarch being deposed are actually cases of an
> English monarch being deposed and the Scots just going along with it
> after the fact (in some cases not going along as much as circumstances
> allowed ;-), you don't have much of a trend.
I'm not claiming a trend, myself;
I am objecting to your claim of an opposite trend.
> Mary is also not a good case for a claim that the sentiments of the
> Declaration of Arbroath became a guiding principal for the theory of
> Scottish kingship. She was, in many ways, exceptional.
Always good to rule out the awkward cases as exceptions!
That's why they're awkward ...
> And, of course, one of the (many ;-) problems with Mary wasn't that she
> leant toward the English but rather that she did *not* lean enough
> toward the (Protestant) English (preferring the (Catholic) French).
Well, of course, that's what was at issue;
but since comparison with England is at issue, similar problems
arose with the English Mary, who leaned the same way, but did
not find herself on the end of an armed insurrection.
The reformation in Scotland (unlike England) involved overthrow of the
monarch; the presbyterian rhetoric from the time has echoes of this
vision of kingship, it seems to me. What did George Buchanan have to
say about kingship, eg? (I don't know, myself).
You seem to assume that it's the relation to the English that's at
issue, rather than the authority of the monarch -- as you say below;
but that's not what's at issue.
> We should keep in mind that what the Declaration of Arbroath indicates
> is *not* that it's okay to depose a _bad_ king, but rather that it is
> okay to depose a king who agrees to make the kingdom subject to England:
> "Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our
> kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert
> ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his
> own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend
> us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never
> will we on any conditions be brought under English rule." This is the
> only part of the D. of Arbroath that talks about deposing kings.
Is there any comparable declaration from another country
around that time? One that while claiming national sovereignty
places the monarch's role under surveillance in this way?
> In fact, the D. of Arbroath says that Robert Bruce is king not because
> Balliol was bad and rightly deposed, but rather says Bruce is king
> according to the normal rules (e.g., after Balliol abdicated, Bruce
> inherited by the regular law).
Was that an "i.e."?
It could be that Bruce was the rightful king under normal laws,
and Balliol had not been the right king under normal laws.
> For the text of the D. of Arbroath (in both Latin and English), see:
>
> http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/arbroath.html
>
> Reading this text, it is all the more clear that it was not the basis
> for any supposed Scottish theory that it was okay to depose bad kings.
I don't see how you can say how the text was understood by
later generations, simply on the basis of looking at the text itself.
After all, it's the basis, read or unread, for such theories now ...
>
> Sharon
> --
> Sharon L. Krossa, kro...@alumnae.mtholyoke.edu
> Medieval Scotland: http://www.MedievalScotland.org/
> The most complete index of reliable web articles about pre-1600 names is
> The Medieval Names Archive - http://www.panix.com/~mittle/names/
--