 DAVID II KING OF SCOTLAND
1329-1371
CHAPTER 1
ANCESTOR OF CARRUTHERS
INTRODUCTION AND CHAPTER 1
Only recently, since the beginning of the twentieth
century, has fourteenth—century Scotland received much
examination. With the exception of the works of such scholars
as G. W. S. Barrow (who has done an excellent biography on
Robert I, king of Scotland), and a handful of other authors
who have provided general overviews of Scotland, in-depth
examinations of this period of Scottish history have largely
been ignored by most scholars.1 This deficiency of
scholarship extends to the topic of this work, David II, king
of Scotland from 132 9 to his death in 1371.
David II, king of Scotland from 1329 to his death in
1371, reigned over forty years and had an undeniable effect on
medieval Scottish history. However, the lack of current
scholarship directly associated with David II (born in 1324),
only reinforces the conception of him most nineteenth and
twentieth century historians have as a weak and do-nothing
king. Certain undeniable facts seem to support this view :
namely his government in exile in France during his formative
years; his subsequent capture and imprisonment for eleven
years during what could have been the height of his power; and
an attempted rebellion by his heir apparent and two of his
most powerful nobles. All three illustrate such weakness.
However, David II not only overcame these handicaps to his
1 Only recently within the last fifteen years has there been a resurgence
of scholarly work on the fourteenth century.
2
reign but also left his mark on Scotland’s future. David II,
king of Scotland from 1329 to 1371, influenced the fourteenth
century more than any other Scottish historical figure of the
period with the possible exception of his father, Robert I. I
intend to show through a presentation of the facts that David
II was not a weak or indecisive king totally given over to
self-indulgence, but a strong monarch that helped lead
Scotland through a difficult time not of his own creation.
During the last decade of the thirteenth century and the
early decades of the fourteenth century, the Scots fought the
great War for Scottish Independence. It generated heroes
(such as William Wallace, Robert the Bruce, and the “Good Sir
James” Douglas to name a few) who live on in legend even
today. Great families fell, and lesser families rose to
prominence. The legacy left behind at the war’s end
in 1327 with the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton, namely
Scottish unity, lasted a scant five years.
However, the impact of the accomplishments of the Bruce
and his allies did not totally dissolve when Edward Balliol,
the Pretender, marched north to assume the throne in 1332.
The Scots recognized the need for unity. Unfortunately, they
were just as unable to get behind a single man effectively as
they had been during the Interregnums of 128 6 to 12 92 and 12 9 6
to 1306.2 They had as their choices of rallying points a weak
2 Two of the problems the Scots had were their fierce independence and
political infighting. The nobility was unwilling to act as a whole behind
3
and adolescent Robert Stewart,3 their boy-king’s heir, the
boy-king David II himself, or yet another Guardian of
Scotland.
The Scots chose the last. Only a few farsighted
individuals had the honor and strength of will to support yet
another option, the institution of the Crown itself. (David
II rewarded these loyalists handsomely upon his return to
Scotland after nearly a decade in exile.) Even so the Scots
saw limited success until all three rallying points became in
fact the same. With the king’s heir, crown loyalists, and the
Guardian all supporting the idea of the Crown, the Scots
finally rekindled a portion of what burned so brightly for
them during the 1320s, nascent nationalism.
Throughout the bulk of his minority, David II contributed
to the cause only by the use of his family name as a focus for
the Scottish patriots of his time. Royal holdings in Scotland
nearly disintegrated by the mid-1330s. They would have
entirely disappeared had it not been for the efforts of the
Guardian Andrew Moray and a few others acting for the crown.
Moray slowly revived the loyalists and began the arduous task
of regaining lost land, strongholds, and allegiances from the
puppet king, Edward Balliol.4
one man during these periods, which created the problem. And no single
strong ruler appeared to take that position.
3 Later King Robert II (1371-1390).
4 This was the same Moray that was captured while trying to capture Balliol
in 1332. He was to remain inactive for approximately two years after his
release from captivity. Edward III allowed him to be ransomed in 1333.
4
By 1342, David II returned to a nearly recovered
Scotland. He rewarded those he deemed loyal, such a Sir
Malcolm Fleming, as well as those who needed rewarding because
it was the politic thing to do (Robert the Steward comes to
mind). David II began an aggressive campaign against the
English to recover what lands remained in English hands. By
1346, David II succeeded well enough to raid on English soil,
an action that provoked confrontation with an English army at
Neville’s Cross.
Neville’s Cross proved a turning point in David II’s
career. The king found himself wounded and placed in
captivity for the next eleven years. This created opportunity
for the more ambitious members of the Scottish nobility not
only to regain more Scottish lands for Scotland, but also to
advance their own personal causes at the expense of the king’s
authority. To be sure, the Scots retained a Guardian in the
name of the heir-apparent Robert the Steward, but it soon
became obvious that the Steward was more interested in
advancing his own personal power than in bringing David II
home.
David II survived his captivity by consorting with the
enemy. He enjoyed the courtesy of Edward III and may even
have become an admirer. Some scholars have suggested a
possible friendship between the two as David II upon his
return to Scotland was said to have emulated Edward Ill’s love
of pageantry. Whether or not this was true, David II’s return
5
certainly affected the Steward and his allies in ways they had
not considered plausible.
Assuming that David II stood a good chance of allowing
the Steward to continue his administration of the land, Robert
expected more honor than he received, even though David yet
again richly rewarded him upon his return from captivity.
From 1357 to his death in 1371 at the age forty-seven, David
II ruled Scotland more absolutely than the Steward cared for.
He did so with a style all his own, having learned from some
of the best examples possible during his years of exile and
captivity.
David II learned much while away from his homeland in how
to govern a kingdom without the permission of the greatest
nobles of his kingdom. Scottish lords had a difficult time
accepting this, being used to a near absolute control of their
own domains and subsequently Scotland itself. Indeed the
greatest of these nobles, the heir-apparent Robert the Steward
himself, viewed David II’s governmental style with such
contempt he engineered a rebellion with one of his long time
companions William Douglas, the newly created earl of Douglas.
With the aid of several of his closest confidants, David
II succeeded in quickly breaking the back of the rebellion and
humbling Robert the Steward. After his last and final return
from foreign soil, David II used lesser noblemen in key posts
throughout his kingdom to guarantee action when he needed it.
The king of Scotland no longer had to rule at the pleasure of
6
his nobility as long as he controlled key offices with men
loyal only to himself, a kind of Scottish ministeriales.
These men aided David II in carrying out policy where the
nobility may have argued. The best of them, Archibald
Douglas, went on after David II’s death to become major
nobility in his own right, ending his days much more powerful
than even David II envisioned.
It is my intention through close examination of the reign
of David II to show that he was not a weak king, nor as
incompetent as many historians would have him appear. David
II made significant contributions to foreign as well as
domestic policy and helped bring the Scots out of an era
fraught with conflict. By his release in 1357, David II
emerged as politically astute and savvy as Edward III appeared
when dealing with internal and external foes. David’s
government dealt with some difficult problems: a declining
work force, an exorbitant ransom which Scotland was at the
very least unwilling and at the most unable to pay, English
lords in possession of Scottish lands along the borders, and
an erstwhile ally in the French for support in the Scots wars
against England. Far from the do-nothing king some scholars
choose to see him as, David II earned the honor that went with
the Bruce name.
CHAPTER ONE : OVERVIEW
The source material for the study of David II’s reign
comes from basically two types : chronicles and governmental
records. Due to the fact that Scotland did not enjoy premier
status amongst European nations during the middle ages,
chronicles that actually cite their events remain few. In
addition, nearly all the contemporary fourteenth-century
chronicles contain a decided English bias as most of them were
written either by Englishmen or in England. Scottish
chronicles of the period are based on works completed shortly
after the death of David II. It is not possible to determine
what additional sources were available to the Scottish
chroniclers than the English, but almost invariably the bias
found in them is neither as strong as the pro-English bias
found in English chronicles, nor is it specifically pro
Scotland in its entirety. Numbers and descriptions of events
are generally more accurate. By contrast, one can never be
sure of those facts if one looks, for example, at ballads.
They tend not only to popularize certain events, but also to
place certain people in places they could not have been, or
doing things we know from other sources that they could not
possibly have done.
Several chronicles are more important with respect to
Scotland in the fourteenth century than the rest. The
Frenchman Froissart wrote a chronicle about the first half of
8
the Hundred Years War. The chronicle itself is concerned
mainly with the events of the war on the continent, but
occasionally Scotland, being at certain times important to the
progress of the war for both the French and the English, does
make an appearance. Froissart actually went to Scotland
during the second half of the fourteenth century reportedly to
research his chronicle. One might expect a contemporary
account such as this to hold immense value and be highly
accurate when describing events. Unfortunately, historians
have long taken great pains to point out the inaccuracy of his
work. Froissart appears not nearly as well informed as one
might hope when examined through other corroborating sources
about specifics involved in certain events. Nevertheless, his
general history of the period is quite useful.
Another chronicle equally important to the subject is
Andrew of Wyntoun’s Original Chronicle. Not much is known of
Andrew of Wyntoun, other than that he “… became a canon-
regular in the Augustine Priory of St. Andrews; that he was
about or shortly after 1393 made Prior of St. Serf’s in
Lochleven; that documentary references show him still in
office as prior, apparently until the close of 14 21.”5 He
lived until at least 1421, for petitions to the Pope
5 Andrew Wyntoun, The Original Chronicle of Andrew Wyntoun. with an
Introduction by F. J. Amours, (Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons,
1914), vol. 1, p. xxxiii.
9
concerning him exist in December of that year.6 Wyntoun
almost certainly used John of Fordun’s Chronicle of the
Scottish Nation, as a source although he never recognized him
other than as an anonymous author. Nevertheless, there are
several passages lifted directly from Fordun. Some rationale
for this behavior might stem from his reported dislike of
Fordun, as he is generous in his acknowledgements of others.7
Regardless, Wyntoun wrote as a near contemporary of David II,
providing a useful interpretation of events which concurs with
those of his fellow authors on the subject.
In the late fourteenth century John of Fordun wrote his
Chronicle of the Scottish Nation, from the “earliest times”;
his presentation of the legendary period is doubtless
conjectural unless he had access to information that has since
been lost. Unfortunately, his treatment of the latter
fourteenth century is superficial. He makes few references
to David II and his young protégé Archibald “the Grim,”
although he does expand to a certain degree our knowledge of
other earlier magnates, particularly earlier Douglases in the
“Good Sir James” and William, the first earl.
Far more valuable is Walter Bower’s the Scotichronicon,
which supplements and continues Fordun. Bower’s
6 Wyntoun, pp. xxx-xxxv.
7 Wyntoun, pp. xxxix—xl. With respect to his writing, Wyntoun wrote in Old
Scots prose making for difficult reading at some points, but his modern
editor, F.J. Amours, provides a glossary and notes to the text.
10
Scotichronicon, published until recently only in Latin, has
frequently been confused with other works. In 1722, Thomas
Hearne, an English antiquarian, published John of Fordun’s
chronicle under the name of the Scotichronicon.8 While it
remains true that Bower expanded and continued Fordun’s work,
their works have always been separate. In 1977, a team of
Scottish scholars began work on a new edition. This edition is
a translation with the corresponding Latin text on the facing
page, along with notes concerning the various manuscripts of
the Scotichronicon and notes on the text itself. It is a
definitive work, not only on Bower, but also for the bulk of
fourteenth-century Scottish history’s primary sources.
The Book of Pluscarden, an abridged edition of Bower’s
Scotichronicon, appeared after Bower’s death.3 This work has
been translated. However, as it was published after Bower’s
death, some things in its text are different from Bower’s
original. These changes are not fundamental, merely
differences or exaggerations in numbers, usually prices,
wages, costs, numbers of troops, or numbers of people present
at a particular event, all of which are frequently
suspiciously high. Therefore, Bower’s figures will be used if
the actual figures are for some reason relevant to the
discussion. A possible explanation for these discrepancies
0 Walter Bower, Scotichronicon. ed. by D. E. R. Watt, (Aberdeen:
Aberdeen University Press, 1987), vol. 8, p. ix.
11
resides in the fact that this work was transcribed at a later
date, some thirty to eighty years after Bower’s death.
Chroniclers of all ages have the habit of changing information
slightly to suit what they have either heard, thought, or in
some cases discovered.
Two other more decidedly English chronicles are also
important to this work, the Chronicle of Lanercost and
Knighton”s Chronicle, written by Henry Knighton. The former
chronicle was composed by the monks at Lanercost, England,
near the border of Scotland and England yet remaining in
England. Lanercost felt the sting of frequent depredations
whenever the Scots crossed the borders on a raid into the
English countryside. As a result, the Lanercost chronicle is
decidedly anti-Scottish, and anti-David II. For example, the
chronicler on different occasions refers to David as a “wicked
king” or “David the Defaecator” and associates David with the
devil in pronouncing judgement on a captured knight.10
Knighton, a fourteenth century English contemporary, keeps his
writing more to facts than does the Lanercost chronicler.
However like many chroniclers, he gives implausible numbers of
troops and payments, such as Balliol entering Scotland after
the Battle of Neville’s Cross with over three hundred thousand
f Bower, vol. 8, pp.ix-x.
“° The Chronicle of Lanercost 1272-1346. translated by Sir Herbert Maxwell,
(Glasgow: Jammes Maclehose and Sons, 1913), pp. 331-335.
12
men, or accepting the sum of £9,000 from certain Scottish
towns in payments for protection from his troops.11
Other chronicles exist but of much less importance for
the purposes of this work. Sources such as the Anonimalle
Chronicle and Ranulph Higden’s Polychronicon contain valuable
information for the period, but little specifically relating
to the topic at hand. However, one last chronicle does hold a
certain importance and relevance, the Scalacronica by Sir
Thomas Gray. Gray was himself captured by the Scots near the
time of David II’s release from his English prison, and was
kept for several years in some comfort at Edinburgh castle
where he proceeded to write his chronicle. Even though Gray
was English, and thus had an English bias, he reports certain
events that appear in few other places, for instance the death
of Katharine Mortimer on the road near Soutra.12 His chronicle
concerns the events of England also, and while he relates
information about Scotland found in few other places, he did
not write his chronicle specifically for the Scots but rather
more for his king, Edward III.
The primary chronicle sources record the actions of
various individuals they have interest in, including apparent
prejudices along with the facts. However, there also exist
I- George Martin, ed. and trans., Knighton’s Chronicle 1337-1396. (Oxford:
Clarendon Press, 1995), pp. 7 6-79.
Sir Thomas Gray, Scalacronica; the Reigns of Edward I, Edward II, and
Edward III, trans. Sir Herbert Maxwell, (Glasgow: J. Maclehose & Sons,
1907)
13
other sources of information, namely charters, grants,
supplications, calendars, registers, exchequer and chamberlain
accounts, legal codes, ballads, and even local folklore. Some
of the listed sources provide more accurate versions of the
facts than others. For example, royal acts such as charters
and grants can provide an accurate picture of the important
individuals, residing or traveling with the king, at a
particular point during a year, through the list of witnesses
to charters issued by the king.
Some dangers of using grants and charters also reveal
themselves, especially English charters of approximately the
same period, for the accuracy of these witness lists is under
debate over whether or not they accurately represent people
present on the day of issuance.13 While discrepancies in
England may be checked using other sources, in Scotland very
few alternate sources exist. Also, Scottish monarchs had not
changed from the policy of frequent travel across the kingdom
yet, issuing charters and grants as they went, because of the
consistent unrest in some of the more remote and/or
independent areas of the kingdom.
Let us turn to a discussion of the charters issued under
the Great Seal of the king of Scotland. The evidence I have
derived from these charters comes mainly from the witness
lists. Each charter, regardless of who issued it, has at the
13 Bruce Webster, ed., Reqesta Regum Scottorum: The Acts of David II
(Edinburgh: University Press, 1982), pp. 8, 9.
14
end of the body of the text a list of the people who gathered
to witness the act for future generations. Information
gathered from these lists not only explains the nature of the
grant or charter (i.e., from whom to whom), but also, by
virtue of association, allies and possibly even retainers.
There are two volumes of primary importance, both of which
contain royal acts, in the Reqesta Regum Scottorum series : The
Acts of David II, 1329-1371, and the Register of the Great
Seal. Other primary source documents include the Calendar of
Documents Relating to Scotland, the Papal Registers, the
Rotuli Scaccarii Regum Scotorum (the accounts of the
exchequer), and the Compota Camerariorum Scotiae (the accounts
of the chamberlain), each of varying importance for the
purposes of this work.
Most important of these works for information concerning
associations with possible allies are the Calendar of
Documents Relating to Scotland and the Reqesta. These two
works give more information with respect to associations in
one manner or another than any of the other sources. Charters
comprise most of the evidence from the Regesta, while such
things as writs, commands, letters, safe conducts, and
negotiations with the king’s council make up much of the
information from the Calendar of Documents Relating to
Scotland. Various other documents, such as the Warrants for
Issues and Indentures of War, provide some interesting
information concerning the placement and holders of some
15
offices, but provide little or no information relevant to
David’s kingship.
I have searched other documents at the Public Record
Office in England, notably the Miscellanea of the Chancery, or
the Chancery Rolls. Also the Roman Rolls, Accounts Various
Army Navy and Ordinance, and Issues Rolls have been examined
and found lacking for the type of documents necessary to this
work. The Chancery Rolls contain some mention of calls to
arms and raising of troops for campaigns against the Scots,
including the punitive expedition mounted after the Battle of
Neville’s Cross.14 Issue Rolls as they relate to this work are
concerned primarily with outlays of cash to various
individuals for upkeep or transportation of individuals. It
is here that one may find evidence of how well David II lived
during his captivity and the expense the English king incurred
in keeping him.
Unlike the previous works, the Rotuli Scaccarii Regum
Scotorum and the Compota Camerariorum Scotiae provide
information concerning the amount of money individuals
received from the king by way of reimbursement or as payment
for services rendered, more specifically as they related to
David and his kingship. For example, the exchequer rolls list
Sir Archibald Douglas as receiving certain funds for his
position as custodian of Edinburgh castle in 1362. 15 Usually,
^ PRO, Miscellany of the Chancery, C47/2/6Q/(34).
15 George Burnett, ed. Rotuli Scaccarii Regum Scotorum (Edinburgh:
Neill and Company, 1878), vol. 2, p. 92.
16
reimbursements for outlays made in the name of the crown or in
the kingdom’s interests and approved of by the king appear
along with a brief description on what the money was spent.
Secondary sources have drawn from the primary source
material in a manner with varying degrees of effectiveness.
Some scholars, such as Ranald Nicholson and Bruce Webster,
have undertaken as unbiased a view possible while performing a
thorough review of all the primary source material at hand.
Others, such as P. Hume Brown; Fitzroy Maclean; William Croft
Dickinson; John Hill Burton (historiographer royal for
Scotland); J. 0. Mackie and Patrick Fraser Tytler have looked
at primary sources incompletely. As a result, they have an
incomplete and popularized view of David’s accomplishments and
reign.
For example, Hume Brown states that, “in spite of the
desires and endeavors of David II, Scotland found itself a
free and independent kingdom at his death.”16 Tytler found
that his “inconsistent wavering and contradictory line of
policy, … was the effect of his passion and caprice.”17 He
continues by saying that it “is humiliating to think that the
early death of the only son of Robert the Bruce must have been
regarded as a blessing, rather than a calamity, by his
country.”18 Mackie saw David II as “ineffective when he was at
16 P. Hume Brown, History of Scotland to the Present Time, vol. 1, (London:
Cambridge University Press, 1911), p. 145.
1- Patrick Tytler, The History of Scotland: from the Accession of Alexander
III to the Union, vol. 1, (Edinburgh: William P. Nimmo, 1869), p. 231.
Tytler, pi 232.
17
home.”19 Burton boldly illustrates his distaste for David II
even in his table of contents where he complains about David
II’s “unsatisfactory conduct … [and] … secret arrangements.”20
Dickinson accuses David II of negotiating with Edward III in a
manner unworthy of the son of Robert the Bruce.21 MacLean also
determined David II “far from being a worthy son of his
father.”22 Even an article by E. W. M. Balfour Melville
accused David II of striving “in league with Edward III to
induce his subjects to accept the English overlordship against
which their fathers had fought long and successfully.”23 Such
views of David II preclude an overall accurate picture of his
reign.
This type of treatment of historical figures is
unfortunate but is more common throughout the field than one
might expect. Having discussed briefly the nature of the
source material for David II, one must also have an overview
of Scotland in the middle of the fourteenth century.
Fourteenth-century Scotland began in a turbulent manner.
A war of rebellion against English rule raged back and forth
across the Scoto-English border. Occasionally, the Scots won
a battle enabling them, with their new leader, William
John Mackie, A History of Scotland, (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books Ltd.,
1964), p. 89.
John Hill Burton, The History of Scotland, vol. 2, second edition,
(Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1873), p. xi.
21 William Croft Dickinson, Scotland: from the earliest times to 1603,
JLondon: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd, 1965), p. 183.
22 Fitzroy Maclean, A Concise History of Scotland, (New York: The Viking
Press, Inc., 1970), p. 47.
2” E. W. M. Balfour-Melville, Edward III and David II. (London: George
Philip & Son, 1954), p. 22.
18
Wallace, to strike the infrequent blow upon England, which
generally served to infuriate King Edward I of England. It
appalled him that the Scots would not simply lie down and
accept the governance of the realm by their “rightfully
acknowledged overlord.” Certainly he had just cause to be
upset, for the Scots could not seem to agree on anything
amongst themselves as evidenced by the participation of Scots
in the war on both sides. Perhaps Edward thought he truly
deserved to be overlord of Scotland; he certainly did desire
it. He was determined to bring the Scots to their knees for
their continued disobedience.
While Wallace remained in charge of Scotland’s army in
rebellion, this remained possible, not because Wallace was
incompetent, but because the Scottish nobility had trouble
allowing Wallace, an extremely able commander but not a
highborn noble, to lead them along with the commoners that
made up the bulk of his army. After Edward crushed Wallace’s
rebellion and allowed most of the dissident Scots to come back
into the fold, it looked as if there would finally be peace
for a while, to Edward anyway.24 Little did he suspect that a
noble in the person of Robert Bruce, earl of Carrick, would
turn Scotland against him once more with a more devastating
result.
Two Scots that were not repatriated were, of course, Wallace, whom
Edward rightly saw as probably the most serious threat to him because of
his exceptional military skill, and William “the Tough” Douglas, father of
the “Good Sir James,” who he thought would never surrender to English rule.
In this, Edward was most certainly correct.
19
Leading a new revolt against the English in 1306, Robert
Bruce had a few advantages that escaped Wallace. First, his
highborn family did not suffer from relative obscurity as did
Wallace. Second, Robert Bruce happened to be the grandson in
direct descent of Robert Bruce the Competitor, who along with
a dozen others had vied for the throne of Scotland when it
became vacant at the death of Alexander III in 128 6. Third,
this Robert Bruce had served Edward well against the Scots of
the previous revolt, possibly allowing him some small amount
of time while Edward recuperated from his shock at Bruce1 s
treachery.
With the help of several other key individuals over the
next twenty-two years, including the “Good Sir James” Douglas,
William Lamberton Bishop of St. Andrews, Edward Bruce
(Robert’s brother), and Thomas Randolph (his nephew), Robert
Bruce succeeded in gaining a lasting independence for Scotland
from England. Unfortunately for Scotland, he then promptly
died in 132 9, supposedly of leprosy, though this remains
uncertain as there exists no proof of the cause of death.25 He
left as co-regents Randolph and Douglas, an arrangement he
knew would cause problems for the kingdom. King Robert knew
that Douglas had proven himself the more able commander and
certainly the more loyal, for Randolph had originally sided
25 Ranald Nicholson, Scotland: The Later Middle Ages (Edinburgh: Oliver
& Boyd, 1974), pp. 121-2.
20
with the English. However, Randolph was the king’s nephew,
and though rash, would be followed more readily by the rest of
the nobility because of his kinship with the king. Therefore
on his deathbed, King Robert made Douglas promise to go on
crusade and convey his heart to the Holy Land, knowing that
the two strong personalities of Randolph and Douglas would not
work well together. While this seemed a good plan to Robert
and indeed showed great prudence, disaster pounced on the
Scots when they had finally achieved all of their goals.
Douglas never made it to the Holy Land. He stopped off
in Spain to fight the Muslims (which was acceptable as a
crusade) where he met his death in battle, reportedly with the
heart of Bruce around his neck. Within two years, Randolph
had also died, leaving the kingdom in the hands of Sir Andrew
of Moray. As if this were not enough, Edward III of England,
from whose government the Scots had finally won recognition in
1328 with the treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton, came forcibly
to his majority in 1330.
The life of David II began with all the advantages one
might expect. Robert Bruce, David II’ s father, created a
Scotland for David that was united, internally peaceful,
prosperous, protected by powerful allies, and able to project
real power for the first time since the king of Scots William
the Lion (1165-1214) in the twelfth century. Robert forced
the English the sign the humiliating Treaty of Edinburgh-
21
Northampton in 1328, guaranteeing David II’s indisputable
succession to the throne of a truly independent Scotland. A
scant one year later, the now boy-king David II, having
succeeded at his father’s death, began to have his entire
world torn from him.
Sir Henry Beaumant, one of king Robert’s hated
Disinherited, began to organize a faction to address the loss
of his and his ally’s lands in Scotland with the Scottish
government. He met with no success. Scotland would not
return to a traitor what they forfeited by their actions
against their rightful king during the War for Scottish
Independence. Early drafts of the Treaty of Edinburgh-
Northampton even stated there would be no compensation for the
Disinherited on either side of the border. Beaumant thought
differently and began to organize an expedition to not only
recover his lands, but to ultimately remove the rightful king
of Scotland in favor of the English puppet, Edward Balliol,
son of the hapless king John Balliol, who forfeited his entire
kingdom in 1296.
Edward III backed Edward Balliol (the son of John Balliol
who received the kingship as a result of Edward I’s judgment
in 1292 and resigned it to the same in 1296), and his claim
through his father to the Scottish throne.20 Throughout the
1330s and 1340s Scotland had continuing warfare inside and
22
outside its borders. At the Battle of Neville’s Cross in
134 6, Scotland again — as had previously happened at the
Battle of Halidon Hill in 1333 — lost a large portion of its
nobility to the English. Unfortunately, King David II was
taken prisoner along with many other nobles, including William
Douglas, the Knight of Liddesdale.
For the next eleven years, Scotland had to endure the
humiliation of having its king held hostage and the loss of
much of the land that had been recovered during the 1330s and
1340s after the debacle of Halidon Hill. However, by the mid
1350s, especially after the death of the Knight of Liddesdale
at the hands of his godson, William Douglas, Lord of Douglas,
the future first earl of Douglas, Scotland began to recover
much of the border lands then held by the English. Edward
Ill’s scheme to acquire Scotland in the 1350s rested to a
great extent upon the Knight of Liddesdale.27 After the
Knight’s elimination in 1353, the Lord of Douglas attained
control of the borders, effectively spoiling Edward’s plans.28
Another thorn in Scotland’s side removed itself a scant
three years later. Edward Balliol finally resigned his rights
to the kingdom of Scotland in 1356 and the mild chaos of the
Nicholson, pp. 123-63.
2′ In 1352, the Knight entered into an agreement with Edward III which not
only invested the Knight with some of the lands he formerly held, but also
guaranteed his cooperation with the king of England and his heirs against
any of the king’s enemies. At the same time it guaranteed Edward III free
passage into Scotland through the Knight’s lands at any time, so that
Edward III gained an entry point for his armies.
23
’30s and ’40s subsided to a constant rumble.29 Rarely during
the rest of the century did either the Scots or the English
participate in more than border raiding at anything close to
the frequency of the 1320s, the height of the War for
Independence. Most of the English efforts at conquest were
directed at France, an infinitely more attractive prize to
most Englishmen, including Edward III.
From the death of Robert the Bruce to his son’s return
from exile in 1342, Scotland’s domestic political fortunes
endured massive shifts dependant upon who controlled the bulk
of the country at the time (the Royalists or the Usurpers),
and who led the Bruce party in resisting the usurpers. The
instability of the first thirteen years of David II’s reign
characterizes the period and makes it suitable for study.
David returned to Scotland from his exile in France at
Chateau Gaillard in 1342 to a much-changed Scotland. Once
again Scotland was relatively safe from the then internal
prédation brought on by Edward Balliol and his ilk. The
Pretender ensconced himself in Galloway where his claim
Nicholson, p. 159.
25 Nicholson, p. 161.; Edward Ill’s policy of investing Balliol with men
and money to make his own bid for the control of Scotland came to an
uneventful end when the money and men Edward III had supplied him with
dried up. However, when Balliol resigned his rights to the kingdom of
Scotland, he became a pensioner of the English king with an annuity of two
thousand pounds and a substantial sum as a gift to pay off old debts.
Balliol in the end helped the Scots more by uniting them and by causing
Edward III to not only pay him a large sum of money as an annuity, but also
by closing one more avenue by which Edward III had hoped to gain control of
24
received the most support from old ties the Balliol family had
to the territory. This meant that David II was free to begin
the work of recovering the portions of his kingdom sold off by
Balliol to the English as payment for his crown.
Unfortunately for David II, the failed military
enterprise at Neville’s Cross in England ended his personal
involvement in the process for the next eleven years.
However, Scotland benefited enough from the accomplishments
and attitudes of some sufficiently able individuals (William
Douglas, the Knight of Liddesdale for one) to allow it to
recover from the disaster of 134 6 and progress towards
recovery. Therefore the second portion of David II’s career
suitable for examination runs from 1342 until his return in
1357 .
Upon David II’s return from captivity, he resumed the
reigns of government. This time however, David rewarded the
faithful and at the same time kept an eye on those most likely
to cause him trouble, especially Robert the Steward and his
allies. Eleven years of cooling his heels in the Tower of
London and Odiham castle did nothing to increase David’s love
for his nephew, Robert the Steward, lieutenant of Scotland and
one of the primary negotiators for his safe return. A brief
period of approximately two years existed where David appeared
Scotland. Now he had only a personal claim, which had already been found
to be baseless by his own treaty with the Scots early in his reign.
25
to follow the lead of some of the great barons of his realm,
namely Robert Steward and William Douglas, both of whom he
awarded with earldoms in 1358. Ranald Nicholson reported the
change in the political climate adequately.
“Yet it soon became clear that the great nobles were
being excluded from the king’s inner counsels.
David’s mistress, Katharine Mortimer, seemed a fit
victim for their resentment.”30
In the June of 1360, Richard Holly and another man named Dewar
belonging to Thomas Stewart, earl of Angus, murdered her while
she was in the king’s company coming back to Scotland from
England near Soutra.31 For this, Thomas Stewart paid with his
life in Dumbarton castle later that summer.32
Following the death of the earl of Angus, Robert Steward
and his allies the earls of March and Douglas openly opposed
David II in a short-lived attempt at overthrowing royal power
with their own. David put down the rebellion quickly. The
previous year, Queen Joan died in England, allowing David
another chance to marry and produce an heir. He married
Margaret Logie in the spring of 1363 much to the consternation
of the Steward. For the next six years, David struggled with
the issue of the ransom and to produce an heir. By 1369, he
had divorced Queen Margaret and within the next year had
planned to marry yet again. By his death in February of 1371,
30 Ranald Nicholson, Scotland: The Later Middle Acres. (Edinburgh: Oliver &
Boyd, 1974), p. 168.
3* Gray. pp. 162-163.
32 Bower, vol. 7. pp. 320-21.
26
David II had reached a stable and beneficial arrangement
concerning the ransom, but had failed to produce an heir.
Through the end of David II’s and the first half of
Robert II’s reigns, most of the fighting that took place
benefited the Scots. By the 1370s the Scots had slowly
recovered almost all they had lost to the English at Halidon
Hill and Neville’s Cross. At the death of the childless David
II, Robert the Steward became King Robert II of Scotland. He
came to the throne as a man advanced in years; he no longer
had the temperament for warfare. The lackluster manner in
which he governed during David II’s imprisonment nearly
guaranteed a weak kingship.
Throughout the next three reigns (Robert II’s, Robert
Ill’s, and James I’s) the Stewart monarchy found itself
plagued by a growing and unchecked power of the nobility. It
was only halted by an aggressive and vigorous campaign against
noble power by James II and his successors, over sixty years
after David II had accomplished the same during the last
thirteen years of his reign. The Stewart’s saw at last the
wisdom of David II’s policy. David’s policy grew not by
chance but by choice. As a result of years of personal
hardship, and the ability to watch and learn from Edward III
(albeit from prison), David pursued the only course that would
allow him to rule Scotland in deed as well as name. The
following chapters will not only outline his life, but also
27
how it became apparent to him that if he wanted to rule
Scotland, he had to ultimately find the power and influence
do it by himself.
The rest of the chapter follow on the main blog page.
Chapter Two : https://carrothersclan.wordpress.com/2021/02/06/clan-carruthers-ccis-david-ii-king-of-scotland-1329-1371-2/
Preserving Our Past!  Recording Our Present! Informing Our Future!
The Ancient and Honorable Carruthers Clan International Society CCIS
carruthersclan1@gmail.com        carrothersclan@gmail.com
BRUCE ROBERT HOMAN
DR GAIL CARUTHERS BOHANNON GRAY – CCHS – SEANACHAIDHI
CLAN CARRUTHERS INT SOCIETY CCIS HISTORIAN AND GENEALOGIST
You can find us on facebook at :
https://www.facebook.com/carrutherscarrothers.pat.9
https://www.facebook.com/CarruthersClan
https://www.facebook.com/CarruthersClanLLC
Disclaimer Ancient and Honorable Carruthers Clan International Societ
CLAN CARRUTHERS - FAMILY HISTORY AND GENEALOGY 
You must be logged in to post a comment.