WI Robert the Bruce is excommunicated in 1306?

in 10 february 1306 Robert the Bruce and his followers murdered John Comyn Earl of Buchan (who had a claim to the Scottish Crown too being the nephew of John Baliol) inside a church in Dumfries...
Robert Bruce realised that he had either to accept the Crown or become a fugitive... As the murder happened inside a church it was a sacrilege and faced excommunication too...
In OTL he went to Glasgow where he met with Bishop Robert Wishart who instead of excommunicating him he absolved him from the sacrilegious murder and called for a revolt... They both travelled to Scone where Robert Bruce was crowned by him Robert I King of the Scots...
WI Bishop Wishart (or any other Bishop) had excommunicate Robert Bruce?
Would Scotland entered a new civil war? Or John Baliol returns from France with renewed claim to the Scottish Crown?
Any thoughts?

Don_Giorgio said:

in 10 february 1306 Robert the Bruce and his followers murdered John Comyn Earl of Buchan (who had a claim to the Scottish Crown too being the nephew of John Baliol) inside a church in Dumfries...
Robert Bruce realised that he had either to accept the Crown or become a fugitive... As the murder happened inside a church it was a sacrilege and faced excommunication too...
In OTL he went to Glasgow where he met with Bishop Robert Wishart who instead of excommunicating him he absolved him from the sacrilegious murder and called for a revolt... They both travelled to Scone where Robert Bruce was crowned by him Robert I King of the Scots...
WI Bishop Wishart (or any other Bishop) had excommunicate Robert Bruce?
Would Scotland entered a new civil war? Or John Baliol returns from France with renewed claim to the Scottish Crown?
Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

You've got you John Comyns mixed up. John 'the Red' Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, was murdered in Dumfries by the Bruce and his supporters while John Coymn, Earl of Buchan, fought againt the Bruce in the Scottish Civil war that followed the Red Comyn's murder. The Earl of Buchan would die in England after being appointed Warden of the West Marches in 1308.

If the Bruce is not absolved of the murder of the Red Comyn and crowned King then there is a relatively strong chance that the Comyns will get the support of the Scots in place of the Bruce. In OTL the Bruce became King of Scots and rose up against the English but the Comyns, because of the blood fued the Bruce himself had brought about through his murderous acts, joined the English side.

The Comyns, before the Red Comyn's murder, had always been more anti-English than the Bruces and so it is likely that, if the Bruce does not become King, Robert the Bruce will be perseived as an English spy who was sent into Scotland to kill their great leader John the Red Comyn and the Scots will likely raise up into rebellion again, led by the Earl of Buchan, against the English and call for the Red Comyn's son (another John) to become king.

The Bruce will likely fade into obscurity and be remembered as a murderer in stead of a great warrior and the Comyn's will be remembered as great Scottish heroes, though who the Comyn's fight of the English Kings, Edward I or Edward II, will depend on whether or no they will gain their independence.

Darn! i always confused the Comyns...

Anyway... Baliols could be accepted as legitimate after Bruce is excommunicated and falls from power?

Don_Giorgio said:

in 10 february 1306 Robert the Bruce and his followers murdered John Comyn Earl of Buchan (who had a claim to the Scottish Crown too being the nephew of John Baliol) inside a church in Dumfries...
Robert Bruce realised that he had either to accept the Crown or become a fugitive... As the murder happened inside a church it was a sacrilege and faced excommunication too...
In OTL he went to Glasgow where he met with Bishop Robert Wishart who instead of excommunicating him he absolved him from the sacrilegious murder and called for a revolt... They both travelled to Scone where Robert Bruce was crowned by him Robert I King of the Scots...
WI Bishop Wishart (or any other Bishop) had excommunicate Robert Bruce?
Would Scotland entered a new civil war? Or John Baliol returns from France with renewed claim to the Scottish Crown?
Any thoughts?

Click to expand...

Robert the Bruce could have been excommunicated, if Edward I, Edward Longshanks as the Scots called him, told the Pope. If he was excommunicated, then he wouldn't have defeated the English in 1314.

bard32 said:

Robert the Bruce could have been excommunicated, if Edward I, Edward Longshanks as the Scots called him, told the Pope. If he was excommunicated, then he wouldn't have defeated the English in 1314.

Click to expand...

Actually Longshanks did send a message to the Pope and the Bruce was excommunicated by Rome, he was pardoned by Robert Wishart and William Lamberton - two powerful Bishops in Scotland - but to everyone else in Christendom he was a outlaw who had committed the sin of murder on holy ground. The excommunication by the Pope was overturned later.

Longshanks asked for the Bruce to be excommunicated because the Bruce "rose against King Edward as a traitor, and murdered Sir John Comyn, Lord of Badenoch, in the church of the Friars Minor in the town of Dumfries, at the high altar, because John would not assent to the treason which Bruce planned... to resume war.. and make himself king of Scotland."

Wishart and Lamberton had been scheming for years to make the Bruce King of Scots and throw out the English. It was Wishart who convinced the Bruce to seek a deal with the Comyn to unite their strength because the Comyn was defacto ruler of Scotland, the most powerful noble in the realm, and without his support they did not think any rebellion could be successful/

But the Comyn had always been a supporter of the exiled King John Balliol and, in the event that Balliol didn't return, Comyn's claim to the throne was just as strong, if not stronger, than the Bruce's and he had a long held annimosity towards the Bruce so he would not consent to helping the Bruce get the crown. Although he had never been a friend of the English and he and his father had been the main power behind every major rebellion against King Edward he would not support the Bruce's claim even if it meant getting rid of the English.

The Bishops were not happy with the Bruce for killing the Comyn on holy ground but they absolved him of the crime anyway because they had to, they had planned and schemed too long to let one nobleman's murder stop them, reagardless of the fact that the nobleman was the most powerful man in Scotland and the murder happened on holy ground.

The Comyn claim to the throne was not strong at all - and it certainly wasn't stronger than Bruce, who claimed direct descent from David I, while the Comyn claim went indirectly through John Balliol and earlier Celtic kings. As noted the Pope did excommunicate Robert the Bruce, but it didn't affect the support of the Scottish Church for him - their patriotism was stronger than their obedience to the Pope.

Lord Douglas said:

The Comyn claim to the throne was not strong at all - and it certainly wasn't stronger than Bruce, who claimed direct descent from David I, while the Comyn claim went indirectly through John Balliol and earlier Celtic kings. As noted the Pope did excommunicate Robert the Bruce, but it didn't affect the support of the Scottish Church for him - their patriotism was stronger than their obedience to the Pope.

Click to expand...

The Red Comyn's claim to the throne was from Donald Ban and from John Balliol who, for all his faults and failings, was the last King of Scots before the Bruce. As such the Comyn combined both Celtic and Norman royaly lines and, by the time of his death, was the eldest male descendant of the last Kings of Scots outside the Balliol line in Scotland and certainly the only other possible alternative to the Bruce both because of his close kinship to the last King of Scots and his position as the most powerful noble in Scotland. This meant that when the Bruce and the Comyn met at the Grey Friars Church in Dumfries the Comyn had just as strong a claim to the throne as the Bruce did. Before John Balliol had been crowned King then the Comyn's claim to the throne was weak to say the least but because Balliol had been King the Red Comyn's claim was much stronger.

No he doesn't, because the Comyn claim is based upon the Balliol claim, and there's already a Balliol claimant alive - John himself, and then his son Edward. The Bruce claim to the throne rejects the legitimacy of the Balliol monarchy entirely. If the strength of the Comyn claim comes from the family's links to the Balliol family then while John Balliol and his male line descendants exist they're always going to be second in line. Contrast this with the position of Robert the Bruce and his family which was that Balliol should never have been king in the first place, and his claim is stronger because it doesn't depend upon one's acceptance of a more senior branch's rights.

EDIT: Also, his relationship to John Balliol does not give him by the fact of kinsmanship a strong claim. If Comyn can't claim as strong a link to the Canmore royal house as the Bruces can, then he doesn't have a claim. Even with John becoming king this doesn't mean that the line of succession is rebooted completely. If one accepts that the two strongest contenders for the throne are the Bruce and Balliol lines, and that the Balliols have the strongest claim, then upon the removal of the Balliol line the Bruces have the strongest claim.

Lord Douglas said:

No he doesn't, because the Comyn claim is based upon the Balliol claim, and there's already a Balliol claimant alive - John himself, and then his son Edward. The Bruce claim to the throne rejects the legitimacy of the Balliol monarchy entirely. If the strength of the Comyn claim comes from the family's links to the Balliol family then while John Balliol and his male line descendants exist they're always going to be second in line. Contrast this with the position of Robert the Bruce and his family which was that Balliol should never have been king in the first place, and his claim is stronger because it doesn't depend upon one's acceptance of a more senior branch's rights.

EDIT: Also, his relationship to John Balliol does not give him by the fact of kinsmanship a strong claim. If Comyn can't claim as strong a link to the Canmore royal house as the Bruces can, then he doesn't have a claim. Even with John becoming king this doesn't mean that the line of succession is rebooted completely. If one accepts that the two strongest contenders for the throne are the Bruce and Balliol lines, and that the Balliols have the strongest claim, then upon the removal of the Balliol line the Bruces have the strongest claim.

Click to expand...

To be honest all this stuff confuses me to no end and I've probably gotten a lot wrong so I''ll conceded.

However my point about the Red Comyn is that, in the event that neither Balliol returns to Scotland he becomes the figurehead of the Balliol Claim and as such is a major obsticle to the Bruce unless he either can be persuaded to side with the Bruce or removed. The Comyn was steadfast in his support of the Balliol's and would likely have favoured either a return of King John or the crowning of Edward over taking he crown himself but many believed the Balliol's to be completely removed from the situation and, to all intents and purposes, that was the case thus the Red Comyn became the head of the Balliol claim in Scotland.

And the Bruce at that time lacked the very same thing the Balliol's lacked, a powerbase from which to declare himself King of Scots. The Red Comyn was the only noble who could provide that powerbase. Without that powerbase the Bruce was just a pretender to the throne, murdering the Red Comyn forced him to act quickly and get himself crowned King before the Pope excommunicated him - he managed to beat that deadline twice - but had the Comyn lived the Bruce could never have become King.

Some historians postulate that Bruce offered Comyn a deal - Bruce gets the Crown while Comyn gets Bruce lands in the South of Scotland - and some think that Comyn accepted the deal and then reneged upon it. But you are right that the Comyns are a threat to the Bruce claim to the throne, and their power would have to be neutralised or removed completely.

However I disagree entirely that Bruce did not have a powerbase from which to declare himself King of Scots - even if the Comyns were the most powerful family in the land the Bruces were not far behind. There was a substantial Bruce faction including such notables and families as the earls of Mar, Lennox, Atholl and Menteith, the Stewart, Campbells and Douglases - the fact is that if Bruce didn't have a power base then he couldn't have pulled off his seizure of the Crown, or been accepted by a substantial part of the Scottish political community.