'The Scottish political community acted
collectively to maintain Scotland's
peace and prosperity between 1286
and 1290' How valid is this view?’
The death of Alexander III’s son and heir in 1284 had caused considerable uncertainty
throughout the kingdom of Scotland. It was the desire to acquire a new heir that led the King
of Scots to remarry. It was while travelling to visit his new wife on a stormy night that
tragedy struck, Alexaner had finished some business at Edinburgh castle where he announced
it was in his intentions to travel on to Kinghorn, where his wife was waiting for him. His
retainers and guards cautioned against travelling in such a storm. However, Alexander
ignored their pleas and duly set off for the night, with only a small escort. Somewhere in the
darkness of the night the legend King was separated from his men and never seen alive again.
The next day his body was found, his neck broken, due to a fall from his horse. Alexander III,
King of Scots was dead, and Scotland was without a King. In a substitute, the Guardianship
was established as the Kingdom could not afford a leaderless country for that beheld many
risks. For six months, the Guardianship. Appointed by a parliament at Scone in April 1286,
operated in the name of the “Community of the Realm of Scotland”, composing of the late
King’s former nobles. Some historians hold strong revisionist views such as Fiona Watson
who argued ‘Despite the reputation usually given to them, the Scottish nobility, while by no
means entirely united, managed to maintain control of the situation.’ Suggesting that the
Scottish political community may have managed to keep issues under control however they
might have not acted collectively in the effort which could show a flaw in maintaining peace
and prosperity throughout the Kingdom. Michael Brown agrees with this arguing that the
Guardians “lacked the stature of a king in the vital job of managing flashpoints and rivalries
within the nobility” perhaps attempting to suggest that there were strong elements of
factionalism involved in the circle of the Guardianship. In order to understand whether the
view ‘The Scottish political community acted collectively to maintain Scotland’s peace and
prosperity between 1286 and 1290’ is valid or not the following factors will be assessed;
immediate aftermath of Alexander III's death, maintaining routine of royal government and
managing Edward & the succession. Arguably, the view that the Scottish political community
acted collectively to maintain Scotland’s prosperity between 1286 and 1290 is conclusively
invalid.
After the death of Alexander III, the country was left with no king and merely a presumptive
heir in Norway. In the absence of even a nominal royal head, it was vital to find a basis for
government and collective action. It was agreed that an oath of fealty should be taken to the
heir ‘who ought to inherit’ and that official business be authorized by a seal ‘appointed for the
government of the kingdom’, bearing both royal arms and an image of St. Andrew. During
, the later 1280s, the term ‘commune’ was used to sanction. The election of six guardians of
the peace to head the royal government. The choice of guardians reflected contemporary
concepts of representation; the church was represented by bishops Fraser and Wishart; the
earls by the veteran Alexander Comyn of Buchan and young Duncan of Fife; and the barons
by John Comyn of Badenoch and James Steward. However historians argue that there might
have been a misunderstanding in the composition of the Guardians in the first part of the
interregnum. Foremostly revisionist historians found that the Bishop of Dunkeld may have
been the seventh guardian, however no papers or signatures were found to prove that he acted
as one probably due to the fact that he died within few months of the Guardianship, likely
between April & September 1286. The fact that in the first few months of the guardians rule
they lost one of their guardians proves to be a flaw, questioning how strong the composition
was and whether they could manage to rule over the Kingdom while waiting for an heir to the
Scottish throne. However this wasn’t as significant than when in 1289 the Guardianship was
reduced to five after the Earl of Buchan died, and In that same year in September the Earl of
Fife was murdered in his prime at Pittillock near Falkland, while on his way to Dunfermline,
the seat of Scottish government at that time, by some of his kinsmen in September. Barrow
argues he was "cruel and greedy beyond the average" moreover agreeing that “The failure to
replace as guardians either Fife or the elderly Alexander earl of Buchan, may have been due
to this factionalism” This is significant in proving that the view that the community of the
realm failed to act collectively to manage peace and prosperity between 1286 and 1290 is
invalid as it shows that the guardians might have failed to act collectively, and in that mistake
they lost a fair composition of the guardianship which was no longer able to represent the
Kingdom justly by the fact that three guardians died and none of them were replaced,
supporting the belief that the initial plan was for a church-dominated guardianship of seven,
and that mere chance led to the idea of an evenly balanced council of six. In addition, the
Guardians faced pressing issues with opposition. The exclusion of the Bruces and their allies
from this temporary government has been taken by historians as a key reason for the Bruce
uprising in the autumn of 1286. The Turnberry Band was more a settlement regarding Bruce’s
allies in Ireland, but the uprising attacked Balliol and Comyn lands in Scotland – signaling
the unfairness of the composition of the Guardianship. However, the Bruce uprising was
successfully quelled by the Guardians that it ran out of steam, but then again it was enough to
remind the Comyn dominated guardianship of the dangers of excluding their opponents
entirely. Because of this the Bruce’s were included within the embassy to Norway, suggesting
the Guardians adopted a more conciliatory attitude as their control continued. In conclusion,
It is clear that the Guardians faced issues of opposition however managed to silence them
sufficiently which could show a sense of collectiveness between the guardians that also
resulted the Bruce’s ‘war’ to end in a settlement which saw them hand back the castles they
had taken and swear fealty to Margaret Maid of Norway, further approved by Michael Brown
who argued “this group showed a sense of community which existed alongside the issues that
divided individual lords.”. however, the failure to replace three significant playing guardians
who died during the interregnum stripping them down to merely four amounts to greater risks
of governing. Geoffrey Barrow supports this stating “Despite this swift justice, Fife’s murder
was a dramatic indication of the limits of the guardians authority” proving that the Guardians
between 1286 and 1290 ultimately failed to maintain peace and prosperity enough for the
view to be valid.
