Reclaiming the Edwards?

Concerning atrocities. The first acts of barbarism were actually commited by the Scots at the beginning of the Anglo-Saxon war of 1296. The Scots invaded England, commiting atrocities such as infanticide, mutilation of women, and the burning alive of 200 schoolchidren at Corbridge. Furthermore, at Easter of that year a large Scottish force attempted to storm Carlisle, failed but then ravaged the surrounding countryside.

The Scots actually invaded England at Easter of that year when Edward I was at Newcastle. He did not begin military activity until after Easter. And the atrocities committed by the Scots actually happened.

The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland. When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit. The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.

Let me say this. The English had NO claim to Scotland no matter what Edward Longshanks or any other Englishman thought. None. Absolutely none. Being an overlord didn't give one unlimited rights. How many times had the English fought their own king's French overlords? Hmmmm?

This oh so honorable English king also made a Solemn Oath not to  interfere in the traditional workings of Scotland when he agreed to mediate the dispute between Comyn and Bruce over the crown of Scotland. He had already secretly revealed to certain barons that he intended to conquer Scotland AND summoned his army to the border so that with an army sitting over the border they had no choice but to accept his demands even though they knew he couldn't be trusted. (And they certainly didn't consider their oaths binding given, as they were, under duress.)

The treachery or falsehood by which he is advanced he calls prudence and the path by which he attains his ends, however crooked, he calls straight, and whatever he likes he says is lawful.

As for the raid into England, of course it caused damage and loss of life. What do you think? You think the English invasion wasn't causing MORE damage and loss of life--but Scots were suppose to sit there and just let themselves be conquered? I think not! Want to know how many Scots the English killed and how much they destroyed over the next twenty years of warfare as they tried to conquer a FOREIGN COUNTRY?

The demands he made of Baliol within weeks were ones that he mad made SOLEMN VOWS that he would not make ever. He broke every oath he had made. Baliol (weakling though he was) had no choice except to fight.

Being overlord, which the French kings were to the English kings by the way, gave him no right to depose Baliol who he had chosen against the best interests of Scotland knowing that Bruce the Competitor would have gone to war rather than submit.

And most scholars believe Wynton's numbers are too low, nor was putting a civilian population to the sword typical medieval behavior in spite of your claim that it was.

His barbarity was remarkable in an age known for barbarity. Find another king who had a woman (Mary Bruce) hung in a cage exposed to abuse and the elements winter and summer outside a castle. (She should have chosen anther brother) Oh, yes he prepared a similar cage to hang an eleven year old girl, Marjorie Bruce.  At the urgings of others he rescinded that to solitary confinement!

Explain that--A child whose only crime was having a father.

Oh, yes, he was a REMARKABLE king. He was indeed.

As for who had the right to Scotland it was the Community of the Realm of Scotland and no one could give that away. From the 1320 Declaration of Arbroath referring to King Robert Bruce:

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. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Originally posted by Wulfstan The Scottish king, John Balliol had  acknowledged Edward I as having superior lordship over Scotland. When Balliol took up arms, Edward regarded him as a rebellious vassal and declared the realm of Scotland forfeit. The English king was behaving, in effect, as any medieval king would do.   The attack on Carlisle was not a minor event as you suggest, but a large scale affair. In fact there were three Scottish incursions into northern England before Edward crossed the frontier; and two of these raids caused considerable loss of life and damage to property.   Concerning the number of deaths after the fall of Berwick. The Scottish chronicler, Edward of Wynton, who was anti-English and consequently hardly impartial, gives a figure of 7,500. Moreover, in medieval times, a rebellious town was in law at the mercy of its overlord, and Edward regarded Berwick in those terms.

Edited by JRScotia - 21-May-2009 at 06:44

I started out asking about the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-Norman, Anjouvin and Plantagenet king's names, now we've descended into the usual bitter and futile bickering about Scotland and England...

All nobles from those eras were not particularly 100% pleasant, no matter whom you scrutinise.

JRScotia:

Originally posted by Wulfstan JWallace when he skinned the English nobleman Hugh Cressingham. In mitigation of Wallace`s interest in anatomy, Cressingham was dead at the time.

He did this personally? There is neither doubt nor reason for doubt about the flaying of de Cressingham, there were, however reasons for the treatment meted out to his body.

de Cressingham was even more hated in Scotland than Longshanks, but he was not loved in England either. This is an extract from the Chronicle of Walter of Guisborough:-

"The Scots stripped him of his skin and divided it amongst themselves in small parts, not indeed for relics but for insults, for he was a handsome and exceedingly fat man and they called him not the King's treasurer but the King's 'Treacherer' and this was truer than they believed. For he led many astray that day, but he too, who was smooth and slippery, exalted with pride and given over to avarice, was himself led astray."

Longshanks was even by 14th century standards, a vicious man.


Edited by Chookie - 21-May-2009 at 23:38

You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there.

Originally posted by Eigon It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating! He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.   Back to the numbering issue - probably best to leave it as it is, with the Anglo-Saxon rulers clearly differentiated from the Normans.

Originally posted by JRScotia You'll get no argument here. What he did in Wales was at least as bad, possibly worse, than what he did in Scotland. I just happen to be a Scot so I'm more knowledgeable about his actions there. Originally posted by Eigon It wasn't just Scotland (or Gascony, or other continental forays).  My reasons for disliking Edward I are for what he did to the Welsh - specifically hanging, drawing and quartering Prince Dafydd for 'rebellion'.  This was a man he'd played with when they were both children!  And while Dafydd could be infuriating - nobody is that infuriating! He's also blamed for killing all the bards of Wales (get rid of all the intellectuals to subjugate the country) though I think this is an exaggeration.  He certainly took the Welsh crown (reputed to be that of Arthur) and a large gold cross with a piece of the True Cross embedded in it, which was part of the royal regalia of Gwynedd.  That ended up in St George's Chapel Windsor, where there are still pictures of it, though the cross itself was later melted down.

JRScotia`s suggestion that Edward sired a bastard called John Botetourt is based solely on his name being written over an erasure in a genealogical table in a Hailes Abbey chronicle. It seems to be an error by a scribe. There is nothing in John Botetourt`s subsequent career to suggest that he was Edward`s illegitimate son. Indeed there is nothing in Edward`s character to suggest infidelity. He was, after all, deeply devoted to his queen, Eleanor.