IN this week in 1332, Scotland uniquely found itself with two crowned kings, David II and Edward Balliol. There had been many occasions in previous centuries when the monarchy was in dispute and more than a few men over the course of the medieval era and the early Middle Ages thought they should be the King of Scots and were prepared to go to war to assert their rights as they perceived them.
Those disputes seemed to have ended with Robert the Bruce’s kingship of 1306. It is often forgotten, however, that the Bruce had to spend many years after his coronation fighting internecine wars to ensure his hold on the throne was secure, and even after the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320, he still had to fight off would-be usurpers as well as the English armies who came north to fight for their king Edward II – who still claimed overlordship of Scotland despite having been defeated at Bannockburn and elsewhere.
In 1328, the young English king Edward III – or rather his mother Isabella of France and her lover Roger Mortimer acting as regents – decided to make peace with Scotland to enable them to fight their many enemies in England. They forced the teenage king to deal with Robert the Bruce and sign the treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton which finally saw the Bruce recognised by the English as the king of an independent Scotland.
READ MORE: Scottish Reform breakthrough could bring chaos to Holyrood, John Curtice says
King Robert died at his west coast residence near Cardross in 1329 and his only son was proclaimed King David II at the age of just five with governors and guardians ruling for him. In the background all the time was Edward Balliol, son of King John Balliol, the Toom Tabard (empty shirt) who had been humiliated and forced to abdicate by King Edward I of England for daring to sign the Auld Alliance mutual defence treaty with France in 1295.
As the eldest son of the deposed king, Edward Balliol always said with some justification that he should be King of Scotland by right of descent. But he never dared to further his claim by attacking Robert the Bruce – that would not have ended well for him. When King Robert died and his boy David took the throne, Balliol saw his opportunity and began to agitate for his cause.
He found a willing accomplice in Edward III who began his personal reign in 1330 at the age of 17, having deposed and executed Mortimer who had been the effective ruler of England. Edward III also locked up his mother for a while, but this formidable woman was soon a vital presence at the royal court.
Edward III always felt that he had been humiliated by signing the 1328 treaty at his mother’s insistence and tried unsuccessfully to find several ways to have it declared void, even though part of that treaty was his sister Joan making a dynastic marriage to David of Scotland.
The storm that would plunge Scotland into the Second War of Independence began to gather when Edward Balliol arrived in England and joined several nobles who were on his side. They were a mixture of earls and other aristocrats who had refused to pledge their allegiance to Robert the Bruce who duly confiscated their lands and distributed them to his friends and allies.
Most had relocated to their lands in England and now they came together as “The Dispossessed” or “The Disinherited” as they are known to history. Chief among them was Henry de Beaumont, a veteran warrior, who had been Lord of Man and Earl of Buchan but fought on the English side at Bannockburn and had his earldom removed by the victorious Robert the Bruce.
In 1330, Edward III sent a personal plea to the Scottish regents to ask for de Beaumont to get his lands and title back, but this was refused. Also refused was a similar request on behalf of Thomas Wake, the claimant for the Lordship of Liddesdale. De Beaumont then became de facto leader of The Dispossessed and in late 1331, he travelled to France and collected Edward Balliol who was installed in a manor in Yorkshire.
With supporting Edward Balliol as the excuse, Edward III agreed to supply troops, mercenaries and weapons for the invasion of Scotland that was planned by de Beaumont. The invasion would be in breach of the 1328 treaty but Edward III had no compunction in attacking Scotland, though he apparently insisted the invasion should be seaborne as the treaty only mentioned no attacks over the Border.
De Beaumont gathered the army, nominally that of Edward Balliol, and sailed from Yorkshire to Fife from where they marched towards Perth in August 1332. The size of the invasion force has been estimated at anywhere between 1500 and 5000, but in any case, the Scottish royal army was much bigger, perhaps three or four times that size.
Having learned the lessons of Bannockburn, de Beaumont led his army towards the River Earn and crossed over at an unguarded ford. He formed his troops into a defensive formation on Dupplin Moor and awaited the Scottish attack rather than charge their schiltrons as that had proved such an unsuccessful tactic at Bannockburn.
The Scottish army was led by the Earls of Mar and Fife, and by Robert Bruce, lord of Liddesdale, the illegitimate son of King Robert. Knowing they outnumbered the invaders, the Scots charged towards them but in doing so, they became disorganised and were soon in trouble both from English archers and their own weight of numbers that saw the Scots trapped in a gorge where many died from sheer suffocation.
The Battle of Dupplin Moor became a rout and the Scots fled the field, leaving the way to Perth open. From there, it was just a short march to Scone where, on September 24, 1332, Edward Balliol was crowned King of Scotland. Chroniclers say it was not a celebration, with those in attendance wearing full armour as they expected an attack.
Now Scotland had two kings. Find out next week what happened next.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here