Robert The Bruce: King Of Scots. Ronald McNair Scott
Fraser, Bishop of St Andrews, John Comyn, Earl of Buchan, Patrick Graham and other supporters of Balliol lodged a petition in the name of King John that Edward should keep to the promise he had made in Northampton in August 1290 and reiterated at Norham in June 1291 that he would preserve the laws and customs of Scotland and should abide by the solemn agreement he had signed in the Treaty of Birgham that no Scottish lawsuit should be dealt with outside the kingdom.
To this Edward roundly replied that any promises, concessions or ratifications made during the interregnum, when the throne of Scotland was vacant, were ‘for the time being’ only and that henceforward nothing ever placed on parchment should keep him from hearing appeals from Scotland and that he would cite King John himself to appear before him if he so thought fit.28 So much for the integrity of a monarch who, on his gravestone, had engraved by a piece of prodigious irony pactum servo – I keep my word. He followed up his outburst by extracting from the Scottish King on 2 January 1293 two instruments, one in Latin, one in French, by which the Treaty of Birgham was declared ‘null and void’ and Edward was released from ‘every article, concession or promise’ therein contained.29
Nothing could more clearly demonstrate to the Scots what Edward understood by homage and the rights that appertained and they writhed in impotence.
But worse humiliation was to follow. King Edward had a set of standing orders drawn up by his lawyers for the hearing of Scottish appeals of a character unheard of in the history of appellate justice. By these rules the King of Scotland in person was required to attend in England the hearings of every appeal against him and if the English court adjudged a miscarriage of justice, he was to be held personally liable for damages, both to the appellant and to his lord superior.
The climax of this measured harassment was reached in October 1293 when King John was summoned to appear in person before the English parliament to hear an appeal against him by John Macduff, younger son of Malcolm, Earl of Fife. On presenting himself as requested, he was treated with deliberate discourtesy and made to stand at the bar like a private malefactor. Stiffened before the ordeal by his councillors, he showed at first a commendable firmness. He refused to answer to the charge on the grounds that he was King of Scotland and dared not nor was able to act in any matter affecting his kingdom without the advice of the good men of his realm, nor could he ask for any adjournment for that would imply that he recognized the jurisdiction of those before whom he was cited.30
The court thereupon declared that he was guilty of extreme contempt in that it was directed against the sovereign who had conferred upon him the dignity of the Crown, and that for this contumacy he should not only pay damages to the appellant but should also hand over to the King of England the three principal castles in his realm together with their attendant towns until he had purged his contempt. At this King John’s nerve failed him. Browbeaten by Edward and insulted by Parliament, he stood firm no longer. Before the court’s resolution could be passed into a decree, he submitted a humble petition to his lord superior, craving that time should be given him to consult his subjects and promising to report the result to the first Parliament after Easter. King Edward thereupon adjourned the next hearing to 14 June 1294. But as in the inexorable progress of a Greek tragedy, pride is followed by retribution, so now it happened to Edward.
Philip the Fair of France had observed the arbitrary manner in which Edward had treated the Scots as a prerogative of his overlordship. With ironic malice he decided to follow his example. Edward, in his capacity of Duke of Aquitaine, owed him fealty. Claiming that English seamen had attacked French ships without provocation, he cited Edward to appear in person before the parliament in Paris and there submit to the judgement of his lord superior. When Edward failed to attend, King Philip came down into the parliament, pronounced him contumacious and on 19 May 1294 seized his lands in Gascony as forfeit. On 24 June Edward retaliated by renouncing his homage as duke and despatched a formal declaration of war.
The opportunity had now come for those smarting under his subjection to regain their independence. In September 1294, on the very eve of the Edward’s departure from Portsmouth with his assembled forces for Gascony, the Welsh rose in revolt and compelled him to turn away from the expedition on which he had based his hopes of recovering his duchy.
By May 1295 he had crushed the Welsh rebellion but in the meantime the Scots, having lost all confidence in King John, had elected four bishops, four earls and four barons to manage the government of the country in his name,31 and had sent commissioners to negotiate an alliance with France. On 23 October 1295 an offensive and defensive league was concluded between the two countries and this was ratified by the Scottish parliament in February 1296.32
But before this Edward had got wind of the affair. He made an immediate decision that the conquest of Scotland had priority over that of Gascony and with his accustomed energy had summoned his feudal host to meet him at Newcastle on 1 March 1296 and a fleet of ships to be assembled in East Anglia and to sail along the east coast to join him on the same date.33 The Scottish Council in the name of King John issued a national call to arms for all free men to rendezvous at Caddonlee, four miles north of Selkirk.34
During all the time since the rebuttal of their claims, the Bruces had played no part in the affairs of Scotland. Robert the Competitor retired from public life and remained quietly on his estates until his death on 1 April 1295; but not before he had signified his contempt for the new king by rigging, in the previous year, the election of his own nominee to the bishopric of Galloway in the face of royal objection.35 His son, determined not to compromise his claim to the throne by doing homage to Balliol, departed in 1292 on a long visit to King Erik of Norway, accompanied by his eldest daughter Isobel.36 Within a year she was married to her host and her father remained at their court until he returned, on his own father’s death, to succeed to the lordship of Annandale and the English estates. In October 1295 he was appointed Governor of Carlisle by King Edward.37
In his absence his son and heir, Robert Bruce, the future king, to whom he had handed over the earldom of Carrick in November 1291, had become the virtual head of the lively and united family which remained in Scotland, consisting of his four brothers, Edward, Thomas, Alexander and Nigel, and his four sisters Mary, Christina, Matilda and Margaret. During this time, he would have been in close contact with his grandfather, Robert the Competitor, and, on his behalf, visited the family possessions in the Midlands and Essex and paid his respects at the English court. There it must be assumed he found favour with King Edward for loans from the Royal Exchequer were put at his disposal. It is probable that it was from London in September 1293 that he despatched his magnificent wedding gift to his sister Isobel of blue, scarlet and fur-trimmed gowns, bed linen, coverlets of gold and green, silver plate and dishes for the table.38
Soon after his father’s return in 1295 Robert married Isabella, daughter of the tenth Earl of Mar, whose great lands lay along the northeastern coast of Inverness; but it was a short-lived marriage, for after giving birth to a daughter, Marjorie, in 1296, Isabella died.39
When the call to arms was issued by King John, the conduct of the Bruces was clear and consistent. They had never recognized his coronation. They had never given up the hope of their succession to the Scottish throne. They had never paid homage to him. They abode by the vows of fealty they had made to King Edward in 1292 and reiterated in 1296 and he, in turn, to fasten their loyalty