No Need For a Maid of Norway

[Space Oddity]

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 that WASN'T what we were claiming, Elfwine. No one is denying that once he got involved things escalated quickly what with Edward Longshanks being Edward Longshanks. But prior to getting dragged in, Edward doesn't seem to have been looking to get involved--if he was a man looking to exploit Scottish weakness, then Edward did a pretty miserable job of it at first. He didn't go rushing up there when Alexander III died--hell, he didn't even go rushing up there when the Maid of Norway died--he got pulled in by the Bruces demanding he come to mediate, and things snowballed from that point. With a clear line of succession, I'd argue there's a pretty good chance Edward never even ventures up north. It just doesn't matter to him at that point. If something happens to make it matter to him, then things will likely progress. But that may never happen--Scotland, in the years previous (and the years that followed, for that matter), saw plenty of internal disputes and regencies where England involvement was minimal.

 

[Elfwine]

But that WASN'T what we were claiming, Elfwine.

No one is denying that once he got involved things escalated quickly what with Edward Longshanks being Edward Longshanks. But prior to getting dragged in, Edward doesn't seem to have been looking to get involved--if he was a man looking to exploit Scottish weakness, then Edward did a pretty miserable job of it at first. He didn't go rushing up there when Alexander III died--hell, he didn't even go rushing up there when the Maid of Norway died--he got pulled in by the Bruces demanding he come to mediate, and things snowballed from that point.

"In OTL he was basically forced to focus attention on Scotland because like the Welsh earlier in his reign it threatened stability in England.

I'm not sure how to read that other than claiming that Edward was dragged into it despite his wishes (as far as his relationship with Scotland went). Demands by the Bruces for him to mediate and so on are still things he responded to because he saw something in doing so.

With a clear line of succession, I'd argue there's a pretty good chance Edward never even ventures up north. It just doesn't matter to him at that point. If something happens to make it matter to him, then things will likely progress. But that may never happen--Scotland, in the years previous (and the years that followed, for that matter), saw plenty of internal disputes and regencies where England involvement was minimal.

"At first" Edward is busy with other things - Gascony and embers of rebellion in Wales. So yes, he didn't immediately leap on Scotland when Alexander III died - but assuming she'd lived past 1290, the Maid (or this hypothetical Alexander IV) is going to be a minor for another fourteen years.

If Edward could exploit John being over a barrel in the 1290s, I think he could at least pressure Alexander IV to accept him as his feudal superior.

And somewhat off topic, but while while we're talking about Scots kings - do you know of any good sources ON John? The Bruce-bias makes him sound like he was the worst king any nation ever had, but given his situation (including their discontent with him as the king while he was on the throne), I'm not sure if he had anything to work with.

The more I read about this, the more I detest Robert the Bruce (the famous one). Not unusually scummy - but no better than his peers at kissing English ass for his ambitions, either. He just happened to get the crown.

 

[Thoresby]

My main source for this era is A Great and Terrible King by Marc Morris. Not much about Balliol and Bruce except how they interacted with Edward but still pretty informative.

 

[Elfwine]

My main source for this era is A Great and Terrible King by Marc Morris. Not much about Balliol and Bruce except how they interacted with Edward but still pretty informative.

Will keep an eye out for a copy. Edward I is worth studying in his own right.

Moral issues of "Great king" ignored (since few of what we think comes to mind would mean anything to any of his peers), Edward has always struck me as one of England's best examples of kingship.

But it would be nice to base that on more detailed information - I'm terrible at actually reading biographies for some reason, so fixing that here looks worth it.

 

[The Wandering Poet]

My main source for this era is A Great and Terrible King by Marc Morris. Not much about Balliol and Bruce except how they interacted with Edward but still pretty informative.

Can I second this recommendation. A very good biography on a very complex monarch.

The problem with this issue is that we suffer from hindsight knowing how the whole period 1286-1328 unfolded. All I can say is that if Edward wanted to conquer Scotland in 1290-92 he could have assented to Robert Bruce's idea of dividing the kingdom into three. Instead he chose Balliol (who was the strongest claiment) who quickly proved to be too weak personally to resist Edward, who was always trying to dominate all those he came into contact with.

An son of Alexander would still have some pressure on him, but he would be Edwards blood relative. The nobility would not be that restless as the crown lost its unifying powers under Balliol, before that the MacAlpines had considerable prestige from being one of the oldest ruling families in Europe.

We would truely walking along a path unknown if someone was to write a TL on this idea.

 

[Elfwine]

Can I second this recommendation. A very good biography on a very complex monarch.

The problem with this issue is that we suffer from hindsight knowing how the whole period 1286-1328 unfolded. All I can say is that if Edward wanted to conquer Scotland in 1290-92 he could have assented to Robert Bruce's idea of dividing the kingdom into three. Instead he chose Balliol (who was the strongest claiment) who quickly proved to be too weak personally to resist Edward, who was always trying to dominate all those he came into contact with.

But not wanting to conquer does not preclude wanting to control Scotland (which Edward demanding to be recognized as Lord Paramount seems to justify being the case even before 1296). Having the monarch of Scotland pledge fealty to him and act as a loyal vassal would be a lot more satisfying to Edward's interests than the expense of conquering and then securing Scotland and then going back to the big stuff.

An son of Alexander would still have some pressure on him, but he would be Edwards blood relative. The nobility would not be that restless as the crown lost its unifying powers under Balliol, before that the MacAlpines had considerable prestige from being one of the oldest ruling families in Europe.

We would truely walking along a path unknown if someone was to write a TL on this idea.

Why would the nobility not be restless with a minority? Or at least, seeking their gain at the crown's expense.