Bruce 700

[Bartok]

http://heritage.scotsman.com/places.cfm?id=426352006

It is apparently 700 years this Sunday since Robert the Bruce crowned himself king at Scone. Is this worth commemorating? Bruce was a scheming murdering barsteward according to some, his worth distorted by the Bannockburn victory.

[Wolfetone Hibee]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

http://heritage.scotsman.com/places.cfm?id=426352006

It is apparently 700 years this Sunday since Robert the Bruce crowned himself king at Scone. Is this worth commemorating? Bruce was a scheming murdering barsteward according to some, his worth distorted by the Bannockburn victory.

We should commemorate this Dix.

True the Bruce stabbed a competitor in a church (it was bruce's lieutenants who actually finished comyn off) but Bruce secured Scotland's independence and indeed presided over one of only two scottish armies to have an ascendancy over the english (1307 untill his death in 1329, the other decent scottish army being the one we had until cromwell crushed it at dunbar and worcester in the 1650's)

Bruce got us recognition from Europe and more importantly from the vatican, as after Bruce scottish kings were annointed, like other major european monarchs. They hadn't been before.

He was 10 times the soldier that Wallace ever was and could beat the english in pitched battle rather than just ambushes (unlike Wallace)

Bruce acted the way he did in pursuit of the throne as he genuinely believed his family had the better claim,his family having been promised succession by alexander II. However this verbal promise was not taken into account during the succession crisis of the 1290's and without it, Balliol did have the better claim than Bruce's grandad.

a lot is made by dodgy historians of bruce and other scottish nobles bowing to edward I of england now and then, though it's easy to forget ones patriotism and principles when one has a knife at ones throat, especially when there is no realistic chance of effective resistance at the time.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by Wolfetone Hibee

We should commemorate this Dix.

True the Bruce stabbed a competitor in a church (it was bruce's lieutenants who actually finished comyn off) but Bruce secured Scotland's independence and indeed presided over one of only two scottish armies to have an ascendancy over the english (1307 untill his death in 1329, the other decent scottish army being the one we had until cromwell crushed it at dunbar and worcester in the 1650's)

Bruce got us recognition from Europe and more importantly from the vatican, as after Bruce scottish kings were annointed, like other major european monarchs. They hadn't been before.

He was 10 times the soldier that Wallace ever was and could beat the english in pitched battle rather than just ambushes (unlike Wallace)

Bruce acted the way he did in pursuit of the throne as he genuinely believed his family had the better claim,his family having been promised succession by alexander II. However this verbal promise was not taken into account during the succession crisis of the 1290's and without it, Balliol did have the better claim than Bruce's grandad.

a lot is made by dodgy historians of bruce and other scottish nobles bowing to edward I of england now and then, though it's easy to forget ones patriotism and principles when one has a knife at ones throat, especially when there is no realistic chance of effective resistance at the time.

All excellent points. But I wonder whether Bruce's usurping of the crown (Balliol was still alive) is anything to crow about? Bannockburn is worth celebrating, manifestly. But Bruce's "coronation" would have been a shockingly contentious event at the time, especially after the murder in Dumfries and his subsequent excommunication. Surprisingly it did not seem to give rise to that many questions about the legitimacy of his line as Scottish monarchs, presumably as his success in battle in 1314 tended to vindicate it, in terms of the thinking of the time.

I also think it is a tad surprising that some avowed Scottish republicans are happy to celebrate the seizure by force of the Scottish crown by a pretty brutal aristocrat.

[Wolfetone Hibee]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

All excellent points. But I wonder whether Bruce's usurping of the crown (Balliol was still alive) is anything to crow about? Bannockburn is worth celebrating, manifestly. But Bruce's "coronation" would have been a shockingly contentious event at the time, especially after the murder in Dumfries and his subsequent excommunication. Surprisingly it did not seem to give rise to that many questions about the legitimacy of his line as Scottish monarchs, presumably as his success in battle in 1314 tended to vindicate it, in terms of the thinking of the time.

I also think it is a tad surprising that some avowed Scottish republicans are happy to celebrate the seizure by force of the Scottish crown by a pretty brutal aristocrat.

Ah so technically we have evidence of a class struggle in medieval Scotland? two over privelleged aristo's disputing the right to lord it over their fellow scots?

A lot is made of the excommunication issue now but it in no way hampered Bruce in achieving his goal, partly as the bishop of glasgow basically ignored the pope and absolved Bruce of his part in the murder of Comynn.

poor old king john does get an awfuly bad press, mostly thanks to centuries of bruce propaganda and all that "toom tabard" nonsense.John was by all accounts a brave knight and competent ruler. After all, he did have the best claim to the throne and he was put in an impossible situation by Edward and when he did try to reassert his independence by forming an alliance with france It was lack of cavalry that saw him defeated at spottsmuir( Dunbar) and deposed, not cowardice on his part.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by Wolfetone Hibee

Ah so technically we have evidence of a class struggle in medieval Scotland? two over privelleged aristo's disputing the right to lord it over their fellow scots?

Well, naw.

I just find it quite funny that some nationalists' patriotism seems to override their distaste for autarchy.

A lot is made of the excommunication issue now but it in no way hampered Bruce in achieving his goal, partly as the bishop of glasgow basically ignored the pope and absolved Bruce of his part in the murder of Comynn.

poor old king john does get an awfuly bad press, mostly thanks to centuries of bruce propaganda and all that "toom tabard" nonsense.John was by all accounts a brave knight and competent ruler. After all, he did have the best claim to the throne and he was put in an impossible situation by Edward and when he did try to reassert his independence by forming an alliance with france It was lack of cavalry that saw him defeated at spottsmuir( Dunbar) and deposed, not cowardice on his part.

He had nae luck at all, and it is fascinating to conjecture what might have been if he'd won at Spottsmuir, particularly if the French had won as well.

IMO (and some others) the Arbroath Declaration reveals not so much an unprecedented claim of popular sovereignty as a concern that the Scottish crown was vulnerable to coups d'etat like Bruce's, and an attempt to establish limitations to his powers on the basis of that.

[Wolfetone Hibee]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

Well, naw.

I just find it quite funny that some nationalists' patriotism seems to override their distaste for autarchy.


He had nae luck at all, and it is fascinating to conjecture what might have been if he'd won at Spottsmuir, particularly if the French had won as well.

IMO (and some others) the Arbroath Declaration reveals not so much an unprecedented claim of popular sovereignty as a concern that the Scottish crown was vulnerable to coups d'etat like Bruce's, and an attempt to establish limitations to his powers on the basis of that.

that's a very good point about the arbroath delcaration, it's fair to say it's a combination of that and some good old fashioned back slapping on the part of those who signed it.

some argue that it's the closest thing we have to magna carta, but magna carta was just a series of concessions anyway.

If you ever want to teach kids what DIDN'T happen in Bruce's time, i'd recommend the young persons guide to bannockburn available from the visitor centre (which isnt even on the battlesite) , its damn awful

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by Wolfetone Hibee

that's a very good point about the arbroath delcaration, it's fair to say it's a combination of that and some good old fashioned back slapping on the part of those who signed it.

some argue that it's the closest thing we have to magna carta, but magna carta was just a series of concessions anyway.

If you ever want to teach kids what DIDN'T happen in Bruce's time, i'd recommend the young persons guide to bannockburn available from the visitor centre (which isnt even on the battlesite) , its damn awful

I've seen it mate.

[cavalier]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

All excellent points. But I wonder whether Bruce's usurping of the crown (Balliol was still alive) is anything to crow about? Bannockburn is worth celebrating, manifestly. But Bruce's "coronation" would have been a shockingly contentious event at the time, especially after the murder in Dumfries and his subsequent excommunication. Surprisingly it did not seem to give rise to that many questions about the legitimacy of his line as Scottish monarchs, presumably as his success in battle in 1314 tended to vindicate it, in terms of the thinking of the time.

I also think it is a tad surprising that some avowed Scottish republicans are happy to celebrate the seizure by force of the Scottish crown by a pretty brutal aristocrat.

Was there any other kind of medievil aristo??

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by cavalier

Was there any other kind of medievil aristo??

None that prospered.

[Hampden_Hibby]

Originally Posted by Dixie Chicken

a concern that the Scottish crown was vulnerable to coups d'etat like Bruce's, and an attempt to establish limitations to his powers on the basis of that.

I've always thought it was the most powerful part of the declaration. King Robert, you're the main man....but get in bed with Edward and you're out of here before your feet hit the floor.

If anything symbolises the difference between King of Scots and King of Scotland, it's that part of the document.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by Hampden_Hibby

I've always thought it was the most powerful part of the declaration. King Robert, you're the main man....but get in bed with Edward and you're out of here before your feet hit the floor.

If anything symbolises the difference between King of Scots and King of Scotland, it's that part of the document.

Exactly; it makes independence a condition of monarchy. So that if any English puppet tried to pull off a coup he knew what to expect.

[pilrig70]

As an avowed scottish republican i'm more than happy to celebrate the ahievemnts of robert the bruce. His wasnt a typicaly Scottish glorious failure but he was a winner. Robert The Bruce's legacy was 400 years of independent statehood, and a unique scottish identity.

The Bruce was no pampered Windsor-esque monarch either. He was a throwback to the Celtic warrior kings of old whose job description was basically to organise the defence of the kingdom against outside attack - which he did.

Bruce was a master tactician too. Before the death of his father in 1304 and the death of Wallace in 1305 Bruce was torn in two directions. But from 1306 onwards - and for the next 25 years of his life - Bruce never wavered once. When he grabbed the crown of Scotland from under the noses of Edward 1st he was an outlaw and freedom fighter who waged a guerilla struggle for freedom.

When Bruce's brother locked him into the set piece battle at Bannockburn in 1314 Bruce famously rode out alone towards the English lines before the battle began, dodged a lance attack, and struck the first blow with his axe through the napper of an English noble.

Robert The Bruce gets the from me.


And the Declaration of Arboath which telt him to keep doing the business or yer fired gets the big too. Nae divine right to rule for the King of Scots back then. Sovereignty rested with the people. The way it should be.

Saorsa.

[Bartok]

Originally Posted by pilrig70

As an avowed scottish republican i'm more than happy to celebrate the ahievemnts of robert the bruce. His wasnt a typicaly Scottish glorious failure but he was a winner. Robert The Bruce's legacy was 400 years of independent statehood, and a unique scottish identity.

The Bruce was no pampered Windsor-esque monarch either. He was a throwback to the Celtic warrior kings of old whose job description was basically to organise the defence of the kingdom against outside attack - which he did.

Bruce was a master tactician too. Before the death of his father in 1304 and the death of Wallace in 1305 Bruce was torn in two directions. But from 1306 onwards - and for the next 25 years of his life - Bruce never wavered once. When he grabbed the crown of Scotland from under the noses of Edward 1st he was an outlaw and freedom fighter who waged a guerilla struggle for freedom.

When Bruce's brother locked him into the set piece battle at Bannockburn in 1314 Bruce famously rode out alone towards the English lines before the battle began, dodged a lance attack, and struck the first blow with his axe through the napper of an English noble.

Robert The Bruce gets the from me.


And the Declaration of Arboath which telt him to keep doing the business or yer fired gets the big too. Nae divine right to rule for the King of Scots back then. Sovereignty rested with the people. The way it should be.

Saorsa.

Except it would have taken a consus of nobles to remove him, or failing that (and far more likely) a bloody civil war, maybe several of them. Fortunately enough the Scottish monarchs up until Mary Stewart seemed happy enough to maintain that independence. It was the Stewart aspiration to both thrones that did for us IMO, not their adherence to catholicism and divine right.