No Need For a Maid of Norway

Alexander III, king of Scots died suddenly and without children during a nocturnal ride to go visit his new wife. His three children from his first wife Margaret Plantagenet of England had all predeceased him and the Scots estates decided on his granddaughter - the Maid of Norway - as the new ruler of Scotland (don't know enough about Scots medieval history to know if they would've accepted a queen, the English had rejected Matilda as queen regnant a century before).

What if, his son, Alasdair(Alexander) prince of Scots, had survived whatever killed him or at least fathered a child (preferably a son) by his wife, Marguerite, daughter of the comte de Flandres before politely dying?

It presumably goes to the grandson, as Scotland has been (De facto, at least) inherited by primogeniture for a while.

Not quite as good an opportunity to meddle as Longshanks had on the Maid's death OTL, but a child king is almost always bad while the regency lasts.

A son of Alexander III would be a blood relative of Edward I (Edward's nephew). Alexander III had good relations with Edward, and I don't see there being a change with Alexander IV.

Certainly Edward would put pressure on the new King but I cannot see any change from the cordial relations which had been the hallmark of Scottish/English relations for the last fifty years or so.

Scotland would be in a far better shape in OTL, and it would be interesting to see how its internal politics would develop...

A very interesting POD.

Elfwine said:

It presumably goes to the grandson, as Scotland has been (De facto, at least) inherited by primogeniture for a while.

Not quite as good an opportunity to meddle as Longshanks had on the Maid's death OTL, but a child king is almost always bad while the regency lasts.

Click to expand...

Not really, many scholars do not believe that Edward had any goals regarding Scotland until after Alexander died, when the Maid of Norway gave him an opportunity (as well as giving the Norwegians an opportunity to meddle)...

It was only with the Great Cause that Edward began to think of conquest, though even then he chose to have a puppet king of all Scotland, rather than divide the country in three as suggested by Robert Bruce.

The Wandering Poet said:

Not really, many scholars do not believe that Edward had any goals regarding Scotland until after Alexander died, when the Maid of Norway gave him an opportunity (as well as giving the Norwegians an opportunity to meddle)...

It was only with the Great Cause that Edward began to think of conquest, though even then he chose to have a puppet king of all Scotland, rather than divide the country in three as suggested by Robert Bruce.

Click to expand...

I don't know if he had any specific goals, but we're talking a strong and ambitious southern neighbor. At the very least, a child king and regency are in a poor position to deal with him as an equal in anything that comes up - and the idea that Edward would never dream of using it to his advantage is not credible, even if he has no desire for outright conquest.

And more definitely - a child king and a regency within Scotland has problems. Royal authority is only as strong as the king, after all.

Alexander had been a child king himself. Henry III of England had tried to take advantage of this by demanding homage for Scotland when Alexander married one of Henry's daughters. Alexander was only 10 at the time. He didn't pay homage and nothing came of it.

If even a useless English king like Henry would try to take advantage of a minor ruling in Scotland, expect a more determined effort from his successor, who was made of sterner stuff. The best outcome for Scotland is if Alexander lives longer. He was only 44 when he died.

Bee said:

Alexander had been a child king himself. Henry III of England had tried to take advantage of this by demanding homage for Scotland when Alexander married one of Henry's daughters. Alexander was only 10 at the time. He didn't pay homage and nothing came of it.

If even a useless English king like Henry would try to take advantage of a minor ruling in Scotland, expect a more determined effort from his successor, who was made of sterner stuff. The best outcome for Scotland is if Alexander lives longer. He was only 44 when he died.

Click to expand...

Preferably with an adult heir (son or grandson, or even an adult Margaret), or we've just postponed the problem.

Longshanks dying first (he was 47 in 1286) wouldn't be bad either.

Edward I taking advantage of Scotland is far better than OTL when he managed to conquer and subjugate most of it...

Edward in the 1270's and 80's didn't want to deal with Scotland, he was perfectly happy with the status quo under Alexander III who had paid him homage. Unlike Wales Scotland was a peaceful semi-vassal and profitable trading partner. He was forced into paying attention by the succession crisis leaving a dangerous vacuum to his northern flank that he couldn't ignore for fear of Civil War in Scotland spreading chaos South as most of the Scottish players held land in England and the English border lords inevitably would got involved.

What Edward wanted to do was defend his right in Gascony from the encroachments of the French and launch his Grand Crusade to Jerusalem. So with Scotland calm if weak under Alexander IV he might intervene to firm up the vassalage and prop up a useful ally but his attention will be focused south. Remember Gascony was far richer and generally more important than Scotland in this era.

"who paid him homage" may be the key thing, however. Longshanks meddling to get that result is still meddling, even if its only a fraction of the time he spent OTL on Scotland. And his demands on King John do not sound like he just wanted a peaceful northern frontier and what the King of Scots did was entirely his business as long as it stayed that way, although that's the 1290s and not 1270s and 1280s.

Elfwine said:

"who paid him homage" may be the key thing, however. Longshanks meddling to get that result is still meddling, even if its only a fraction of the time he spent OTL on Scotland. And his demands on King John do not sound like he just wanted a peaceful northern frontier and what the King of Scots did was entirely his business as long as it stayed that way, although that's the 1290s and not 1270s and 1280s.

Click to expand...

Well Alexander III paid Edward homage and while I'm sure he'd push a child King a bit harder but all the evidence suggests that Edward was a deeply pious warrior King who had an obsession from his youth about the rights of the Monarchy and stability. Now such a King isn't going to happily remain in Westminster talking to monks and sleeping with mistresses, the question is where he's going to be fighting. Now I think that with a stable situation in Scotland defending Gascony and his Crusade project will be the focus of his attention. Especially as that's what he was focusing on before the death of Alexander III.

In OTL he was basically forced to focus attention on Scotland because like the Welsh earlier in his reign it threatened stability in England. Prior experience told him that because of the large number of cross-border landholdings, the English Marcher Lords etc. events in Scotland would (and did in OTL) spill over into England. Preserving stability in England had to come first and that meant he had to drop the Crusade project and sign a humiliating peace with the French over Gascony, neither of which were at all in character and clearly massively pissed him off. Obviously he once he got involved in Scottish affairs he focused on expanding his rights and authority by trying to impose on Scotland a King who would be dependent on him. But its pretty clear that he was trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Now with a PoD of Alexander III having a clear heir Scotland probably isn't going to blow up the way it did in OTL. Edward isn't going to be forced to divert attention north and that means he is going to continue the same policy as the first part of his reign. Paying as much attention and putting as much pressure on the Scots to get the maximum gain with the minimum effort will focusing on more important matters. Now our hypothetical Alexander IV could have a James VI like Regency or be a Richard II style incompetent in which case Edward is going to get involved but it won't be by choice.

At the end of the day the question is which issues Edward would focus on;
Defending against French encroachments in Gascony,
a new Crusade,
or invading a peaceful but weak Scotland.

My bet is that Scotland would come last.

Thoresby said:

In OTL he was basically forced to focus attention on Scotland because like the Welsh earlier in his reign it threatened stability in England. Prior experience told him that because of the large number of cross-border landholdings, the English Marcher Lords etc. events in Scotland would (and did in OTL) spill over into England. Preserving stability in England had to come first and that meant he had to drop the Crusade project and sign a humiliating peace with the French over Gascony, neither of which were at all in character and clearly massively pissed him off. Obviously he once he got involved in Scottish affairs he focused on expanding his rights and authority by trying to impose on Scotland a King who would be dependent on him. But its pretty clear that he was trying to make the best of a bad situation.

Click to expand...

Saying that English stability demanded multiple, expensive campaigns to conquer Wales and Scotland is something I have very grave doubts on, to put it mildly

It looks more like him trying to use a bad situation for his neighbors to his advantage than him simply concerned about stability in England. Especially (looking at Scotland) once John has been crowned and the issue of a conflicted succession meaning civil war in Scotland is resolved.

Now with a PoD of Alexander III having a clear heir Scotland probably isn't going to blow up the way it did in OTL. Edward isn't going to be forced to divert attention north and that means he is going to continue the same policy as the first part of his reign. Paying as much attention and putting as much pressure on the Scots to get the maximum gain with the minimum effort will focusing on more important matters. Now our hypothetical Alexander IV could have a James VI like Regency or be a Richard II style incompetent in which case Edward is going to get involved but it won't be by choice.

Click to expand...

No, it will be by choice, just like his OTL intervention. He might have "more important matters" - I have no doubt that if Edward had to pick which he'd rather have, Gascony or Scotland that Scotland would be dropped faster than you can say "Which one?", but he chose to push well beyond "concern about the marche(r)s". And because of his inability to compromise there - I blame his pride rather than his ambitions per se (as in, Edward not wanting to back down once this had gotten started rather than him wanting Scotland all along or something) - that lead him further and further. But that was him, not the Scots or "circumstances".

At the end of the day the question is which issues Edward would focus on;
Defending against French encroachments in Gascony,
a new Crusade,
or invading a peaceful but weak Scotland.

My bet is that Scotland would come last.

Click to expand...

I don't think Edward would invade a peaceful but weak Scotland for the sake of invading it, but I don't think he'd be satisfied with little more than nominal respect for his authority by Alexander IV either.

Elfwine said:

Saying that English stability demanded multiple, expensive campaigns to conquer Wales and Scotland is something I have very grave doubts on, to put it mildly

It looks more like him trying to use a bad situation for his neighbors to his advantage than him simply concerned about stability in England. Especially (looking at Scotland) once John has been crowned and the issue of a conflicted succession meaning civil war in Scotland is resolved.

Click to expand...

Obviously Edward is a medieval monarch no some proto-Ban Ki Moon. As I said earlier is number one priority is going to be serving his own interests whether that's expanding his domains or saving his soul by killing infidels. You can see that in Wales where a Civil War, Welsh involvement in the Baronial conflict and cross-border raids focused his attention on the area and his pride and ambition demanded he did whatever it took to win.

Elfwine said:

I don't think Edward would invade a peaceful but weak Scotland for the sake of invading it, but I don't think he'd be satisfied with little more than nominal respect for his authority by Alexander IV either.

Click to expand...

I've got to disagree. He was happy with that from Alexander III and while he might like more he can live with maintaining the status quo.

Elfwine said:

No, it will be by choice, just like his OTL intervention. He might have "more important matters" - I have no doubt that if Edward had to pick which he'd rather have, Gascony or Scotland that Scotland would be dropped faster than you can say "Which one?", but he chose to push well beyond "concern about the marche(r)s". And because of his inability to compromise there - I blame his pride rather than his ambitions per se (as in, Edward not wanting to back down once this had gotten started rather than him wanting Scotland all along or something) - that lead him further and further. But that was him, not the Scots or "circumstances".

Click to expand...

To an extent I agree with you. If he gets involved his pride and his ambition means he will follow an OTL course of demanding that whoever ends up on the Scots throne is an actual rather than just theoretical vassal. But I don't see how that makes he bound to intervene in Scotland. Think about the OTL course of events. In 1286 Alexander III dies and leaves the Maid of Norway as heir. Edward does nothing about it and around that the time that he leaves for France to try and resolve the extremely complicated situation in Gascony He stays for three years trying to hold things together and only papers over the cracks. The situation in Scotland with an absentee Queen and feuding Regents leads to returning in 1289 when he oversees the Treaty of Birgham where Edward succesfully arranges the marraige of the Maid of Norway to Edward II. Then she dies and the whole thing blows up.

Now put yourself in Edward's boots in 1289. You're in Gascony, while you have made major strides in stabilising the administration the new French King Philip IV is looking for any excuse to confiscate your Duchy. He's extremely competent and is busy turning France into a centralised efficient Kingdom like England. You are aware that Scotland has a boy King but there is no real prospect of a Royal Marriage bringing Scotland into your realm (though you may still try and negotiate a marriage between Edward II and Margaret, its an alliance that makes sense). You've also got your Crusade project, it's on the backburner at the moment but you fervently believe that the path to heaven is paved with infidel bodies.
Now do you go home to Britain and start causing trouble with Scotland or do you make a flying visit to Westminster to extract some more money from Parliament and remind your Barons that you're still number one and then head back to France whether to fight Phillip or organise a Crusade?

Thoresby said:

Obviously Edward is a medieval monarch no some proto-Ban Ki Moon. As I said earlier is number one priority is going to be serving his own interests whether that's expanding his domains or saving his soul by killing infidels. You can see that in Wales where a Civil War, Welsh involvement in the Baronial conflict and cross-border raids focused his attention on the area and his pride and ambition demanded he did whatever it took to win.

Click to expand...

Forget Ban Ki Moon (don't get the reference, I'm afraid). This is Edward the Conqueror, with all of what that means.

I've got to disagree. He was happy with that from Alexander III and while he might like more he can live with maintaining the status quo.

Click to expand...

Even homage for Alexander's English territories alone is more than just "nominal". And unlike the hypothetical Alexander IV, we're dealing with an of age and reasonably secure (internally) king, which is not offering an easy opportunity the way OTL or TTL is. So I can see Longshanks having more interest in squeezing the grandson than the grandfather.

To an extent I agree with you. If he gets involved his pride and his ambition means he will follow an OTL course of demanding that whoever ends up on the Scots throne is an actual rather than just theoretical vassal. But I don't see how that makes he bound to intervene in Scotland. Think about the OTL course of events. In 1286 Alexander III dies and leaves the Maid of Norway as heir. Edward does nothing about it and around that the time that he leaves for France to try and resolve the extremely complicated situation in Gascony He stays for three years trying to hold things together and only papers over the cracks. The situation in Scotland with an absentee Queen and feuding Regents leads to returning in 1289 when he oversees the Treaty of Birgham where Edward succesfully arranges the marraige of the Maid of Norway to Edward II. Then she dies and the whole thing blows up.

Click to expand...

And if Alexander III's heir is instead an underaged son (who does live, unlike the Maid), I don't see Longshanks using that to squeeze as hard as he can the way he squeezed John OTL. Not immediately - as you said he's dealing with Gascony, which is several times more important - but if this hypothetical son is born in 1284, and is thus two when his grandfather dies - there's plenty of time for Edward exploiting an underaged king for all he can get while dealing with the immediate Gascony situation.

Now put yourself in Edward's boots in 1289. You're in Gascony, while you have made major strides in stabilising the administration the new French King Philip IV is looking for any excuse to confiscate your Duchy. He's extremely competent and is busy turning France into a centralised efficient Kingdom like England. You are aware that Scotland has a boy King but there is no real prospect of a Royal Marriage bringing Scotland into your realm (though you may still try and negotiate a marriage between Edward II and Margaret, its an alliance that makes sense). You've also got your Crusade project, it's on the backburner at the moment but you fervently believe that the path to heaven is paved with infidel bodies.

Now do you go home to Britain and start causing trouble with Scotland or do you make a flying visit to Westminster to extract some more money from Parliament and remind your Barons that you're still number one and then head back to France whether to fight Phillip or organise a Crusade?

Click to expand...

The problem is that it isn't as if Edward can't do #2 now and #1 later when the situation with Gascony isn't demanding his immediate attention. Edward was in fairly good health most of his life, which means that (going with Alexander IV being born in 1284) he has over a decade between 1289 Alexander IV being of age and at least slightly harder to push around.

So if I was in Edward's shoes and acting as Edward did: Deal with Gascony and Philip now (making a quick trip to England to knock heads together and say "I am the king. Gimme my subsidies." if needed), see if the crusade idea can be revived, and take advantage of any opportunities to exploit Alexander IV's position for all they're worth when they come up.

I don't have to pick "deal with Gascony and forget Scotland" or vice-versa. And in Longshanks's position, I doubt he would.

Elfwine said:

Forget Ban Ki Moon (don't get the reference, I'm afraid). This is Edward the Conqueror, with all of what that means.

Click to expand...

Ban Ki Moon is the UN Secretary General. If Edward the Conqueror gets involved its not going to be as a prot-UN peacekeeper.

Elfwine said:

Even homage for Alexander's English territories alone is more than just "nominal". And unlike the hypothetical Alexander IV, we're dealing with an of age and reasonably secure (internally) king, which is not offering an easy opportunity the way OTL or TTL is. So I can see Longshanks having more interest in squeezing the grandson than the grandfather.

Click to expand...

Homage by the King of Scotland for his English possessions isn't an optional extra. Just as with the King of Englands French possessions any holder of land in England, even a foreign King, either makes homage or gets his English possessions confiscated and that was generally accepted by everyone. The question is whether that homage has any effect on the Realm of Scotland, the evidence seems to suggest that prior to 1290 English Kings had accepted that the homage didn't include Scotland except in a vague "we're your stronger neighbour so don't piss us off sense" but as the succession crisis develops Edward changes his mind and the history books. There is a chance that in this scenario he might do the same but I doubt it. There is a big difference between acting as Judge and Jury in a succession dispute where you have a massive authority and ordinary diplomacy.

Elfwine said:

So if I was in Edward's shoes and acting as Edward did: Deal with Gascony and Philip now (making a quick trip to England to knock heads together and say "I am the king. Gimme my subsidies." if needed), see if the crusade idea can be revived, and take advantage of any opportunities to exploit Alexander IV's position for all they're worth when they come up.

Click to expand...

Absolutely no argument. I'm just not sure it ever will come up because Scotland just isn't that valuable or interesting. It has a certain surface attraction in the sense of securing England's northern border forever and bringing the entire island under one rule but considering the anarchy of the Highlands and the power of the Scots noblemen (who were far mightier in relation to the crown than their English equivalents) it was obvious to everyone including Edward the potential for it to be a running sore. On the continent Edward has ancestral claims to pursue and hypothetical rights inherited from the Angevins that cover far richer and more valuable lands. Though it is against a much more formidable foe. But even that isn't necessarily a deterrent. Edward was extremely fond of burnishing his name and beating up Philip the Fair would be a great way to do that.

If I may add my two cents--popular accounts aside, Edward hardly rushed up there to play conqueror--he had to get invited in, and even then his initial actions don't suggest a man trying to create a vassal, but a man trying to get something he saw as a distraction over with. It's worth noting that his choice of king wasn't Robert VI de Brus--father of the famous one--the man who had called on him to settle the dispute and had been quite blatantly promising to be his man in Scotland, but John Balliol, who had viewed the English intervention with suspicion. And that his reasons for this were--well, almost purely dynastic--he genuinely seems to have thought that John had the better claim. It was only after it became clear that that wouldn't stick that Edward really started getting ambitious.

Thoresby said:

Ban Ki Moon is the UN Secretary General. If Edward the Conqueror gets involved its not going to be as a prot-UN peacekeeper.

Click to expand...

Ah. Gotcha.

But that undermines the idea that it was merely as concerned about English stability and he was dragged into it willy-nilly, I think. Defensive vs. offensive is a thing, after all, especially given that neither of these areas are that valuable.

Homage by the King of Scotland for his English possessions isn't an optional extra. Just as with the King of Englands French possessions any holder of land in England, even a foreign King, either makes homage or gets his English possessions confiscated and that was generally accepted by everyone. The question is whether that homage has any effect on the Realm of Scotland, the evidence seems to suggest that prior to 1290 English Kings had accepted that the homage didn't include Scotland except in a vague "we're your stronger neighbour so don't piss us off sense" but as the succession crisis develops Edward changes his mind and the history books. There is a chance that in this scenario he might do the same but I doubt it. There is a big difference between acting as Judge and Jury in a succession dispute where you have a massive authority and ordinary diplomacy.

Click to expand...

Certainly. But the point is, given that the border between what is Scotland what is England isn't as fixed as what is within the realm of France - hell, Alexander's grandfather and Edward's grandfather had fought over where that is - that's something other than just "yeah, yeah. Whatever." in a way that isn't the case when you're unambiguously holding lands within France is for Edward.

Space Oddity said:

If I may add my two cents--popular accounts aside, Edward hardly rushed up there to play conqueror--he had to get invited in, and even then his initial actions don't suggest a man trying to create a vassal, but a man trying to get something he saw as a distraction over with. It's worth noting that his choice of king wasn't Robert VI de Brus--father of the famous one--the man who had called on him to settle the dispute and had been quite blatantly promising to be his man in Scotland, but John Balliol, who had viewed the English intervention with suspicion. And that his reasons for this were--well, almost purely dynastic--he genuinely seems to have thought that John had the better claim. It was only after it became clear that that wouldn't stick that Edward really started getting ambitious.

Click to expand...

But that what wouldn't stick? Edward doesn't seem to have been content to just leave John alone and let him rule once the dispute was resolved.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/Scottish%20Monarchs%28400ad-1603%29/DescendantsofMalcolmIII/JohnBalliol.aspx

Although I agree that he seems to have chosen John in the first place because of the primogeniture vs. proximity issue - that fits Edward's legal expert mind better than picking John as a pawn (Given, as you said, the Bruces were smooching his ass).

I would guess given what we know of Edward and what we know of this in particular that if Alexander III is succeeded by an adult heir in a reasonably secure position, Edward will treat him like his father. Its if he's succeeded by a minor that Edward's interest in milking the situation will influence how much attention he diverts to Scotland - after all, solidifying "Yes, you are a vassal." is useful if that vassal does vassal services, even if campaigning in Scotland is time and money he'd rather spend on crusade and Gascony.

Elfwine said:

But that what wouldn't stick? Edward doesn't seem to have been content to just leave John alone and let him rule once the dispute was resolved.

http://www.royal.gov.uk/HistoryoftheMonarchy/Scottish%20Monarchs%28400ad-1603%29/DescendantsofMalcolmIII/JohnBalliol.aspx

Click to expand...

That source leaves out a LOT of context. See--after the decision, the Bruces KEPT agitating and causing problems and kissing Edward's ass. Which caused him to realize that he had Balliol over the proverbial barrel. Which lead to--'So, Johnny boy--I need soldiers for Gascony. Send them. Pronto.' Which lead to the war. Which from Edward's point of view became a horrible sink for money, time and manpower that he really would have preferred to spend on killing Frenchmen and Saracens.

I think Elfwine, you are subtly missing what for Thoresby and I keep pointing out--Scotland was not something Edward viewed as a major concern at first--it was a little side-project that he got pulled into almost by chance, that then blossomed into something far beyond what he thought it would. Edward MIGHT be a bit more aggressive with Alexander the Child, but even then he isn't going to make this into a major concern because to him it ISN'T a major concern.

Space Oddity said:

I think Elfwine, you are subtly missing what for Thoresby and I keep pointing out--Scotland was not something Edward viewed as a major concern at first--it was a little side-project that he got pulled into almost by chance, that then blossomed into something far beyond what he thought it would. Edward MIGHT be a bit more aggressive with Alexander the Child, but even then he isn't going to make this into a major concern because to him it ISN'T a major concern.

Click to expand...

That's exactly what I've been trying to suggest. Edward went in thinking he'd just act as a mediator, it then blossomed into a power grab and when it all turned to shit his pride stopped him from cutting his losses. He absolutely didn't sit down in 1290 and think "I'm going to spend the rest of my reign fighting the Scots in an effort to incorporate them into England."

Space Oddity said:

That source leaves out a LOT of context. See--after the decision, the Bruces KEPT agitating and causing problems and kissing Edward's ass. Which caused him to realize that he had Balliol over the proverbial barrel. Which lead to--'So, Johnny boy--I need soldiers for Gascony. Send them. Pronto.' Which lead to the war. Which from Edward's point of view became a horrible sink for money, time and manpower that he really would have preferred to spend on killing Frenchmen and Saracens.

Click to expand...

Well, it was posted as a quick and easy reference to Edward going far beyond "Okay, so that's settled, back to Gascony.", not a complete history.

But my point is, that (his demands on John) is all Edward seeing "I have a chance to use this to my benefit." and no "Edward was dragged into this to keep the (northern) march safe from chaos in Scotland."

I think Elfwine, you are subtly missing what for Thoresby and I keep pointing out--Scotland was not something Edward viewed as a major concern at first--it was a little side-project that he got pulled into almost by chance, that then blossomed into something far beyond what he thought it would. Edward MIGHT be a bit more aggressive with Alexander the Child, but even then he isn't going to make this into a major concern because to him it ISN'T a major concern.

Click to expand...

I don't think it has to be a major concern for Edward for it to be something where he puts serious pressure on Alexander the Child (and is thus a major concern for Scotland - or at least, Scotland's king), however.

Thoresby said:

That's exactly what I've been trying to suggest. Edward went in thinking he'd just act as a mediator, it then blossomed into a power grab and when it all turned to shit his pride stopped him from cutting his losses. He absolutely didn't sit down in 1290 and think "I'm going to spend the rest of my reign fighting the Scots in an effort to incorporate them into England."

Click to expand...

I may have been less than completely clear, but I've never argued Edward would have done that here or intended that OTL.

But there's a huge difference between "Scotland was not a major priority" and "Edward was dragged into this and only dragged into this because of an interest in securing his flanks in England."

The former, I heartily agree with - Wales was probably more of a priority than Scotland ever was intended to be, thanks to stuff before he was even on the throne. The latter, I still dispute.