Robert I of Scotland has a son in 1316

So, here's something I've been considering. In 1314, Elizabeth de Burgh wife of Robert the Bruce of Scotland was released from imprisonment in a prisoner exchange following Bannockburn, and during that time she got pregnant with her first child by her husband. My query is this, if in 1316, she'd given birth to a boy, named Robert, what consequences could this have had for Scotland and Anglo-Scottish relations? I imagine that in the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton, the boy would've been betrothed to Eleanor of Woodstock, sister of Edward III. But other than that, would his regency have been more stable, or would he still have had to flee to France? As an added pod, what changes if Edward Bruce, the brother of Robert was still alive when his brother died?
 
Robert II would be 15/16 by the time of the invasion, so he might be just be old enough to do some things himself (and if he's proving competent...). In any case, a Scotland ruled over by someone on the cusp of manhood is less appetising for the English than one ruled by an 8-year old.

A near-adult king would also probably have greater connections and have had more time to build up support within the Scottish nobility. Balliol might also get less in the way of supporters.

If the English do invade, an older king is better equipped to resist them, and even if defeated can continue to stir up trouble for the invaders. I'd imagine he'd be reluctant to go into exile too- a kid being sent to France for safekeeping is one thing, an adult king going into exile whilst his supporters are still fighting in his name is a bad look.

A living Edward Bruce would surely be regent, no? Unless he's still tied up in Ireland (which'd be a stretch), though even then he might abandon an uncertain situation in Ireland to pursue something more concrete in Scotland (he had apparently already been made Earl of Carrick by his brother).
 
Robert II would be 15/16 by the time of the invasion, so he might be just be old enough to do some things himself (and if he's proving competent...). In any case, a Scotland ruled over by someone on the cusp of manhood is less appetising for the English than one ruled by an 8-year old.

A near-adult king would also probably have greater connections and have had more time to build up support within the Scottish nobility. Balliol might also get less in the way of supporters.

If the English do invade, an older king is better equipped to resist them, and even if defeated can continue to stir up trouble for the invaders. I'd imagine he'd be reluctant to go into exile too- a kid being sent to France for safekeeping is one thing, an adult king going into exile whilst his supporters are still fighting in his name is a bad look.

A living Edward Bruce would surely be regent, no? Unless he's still tied up in Ireland (which'd be a stretch), though even then he might abandon an uncertain situation in Ireland to pursue something more concrete in Scotland (he had apparently already been made Earl of Carrick by his brother).

Alright interesting. I imagine that this son would have a lot to live up to, especially considering his father's legacy. I can still see Edward III potentially looking to invade Scotland, if for nothing more than to prove himself.

And aye I agree, Edward would be regent I think.

Which leads me to my next query, is it more interesting for Robert to have an older son, or for his otl son David II to have a son, or for him to be succeeded by a surviving brother?
 
Alright interesting. I imagine that this son would have a lot to live up to, especially considering his father's legacy. I can still see Edward III potentially looking to invade Scotland, if for nothing more than to prove himself.

And aye I agree, Edward would be regent I think.

Which leads me to my next query, is it more interesting for Robert to have an older son, or for his otl son David II to have a son, or for him to be succeeded by a surviving brother?

Depends on what your goal is. An older son for Robert allows for a better-established House of Bruce, and a son for David II probably results in shenanigans and has powers struggles with his Stewart cousins (if David still gets imprisoned and the Stewarts get comfy holding power in his absence; I think at one stage we actually discussed the possibility of David and Joan having a son whilst David was imprisoned in the Tower).

A son by Margaret Drummond might have a tougher time, because he's younger and his maternal family provide domestic baggage (feuds, jealousies etc.). His mother being a mistress before becoming Queen would also set tongues wagging.

If Robert the Bruce is succeeded by one of his brothers, then said brother will be getting on in age (40+) and might only reign for a few years- which might not be enough time to secure his regime.

An interesting possibility is having Edward Bruce's (illegitimate?) son Alexander survive (he died at Halidon Hill IOTL). Having a living, male-line cousin would affect David's regime somewhat (and he'd surely contend for the Guardianship at some stage if David still ends up imprisoned, maybe you could drum up a rivalry with the Stewarts). And if David still dies childless then Alexander (or his issue) could challenge for the throne on the basis of being male-line Bruces; and if Robert Stewart (i.e. Robert II) still has children of questionable legitimacy that just fans the flames.
 
Depends on what your goal is. An older son for Robert allows for a better-established House of Bruce, and a son for David II probably results in shenanigans and has powers struggles with his Stewart cousins (if David still gets imprisoned and the Stewarts get comfy holding power in his absence; I think at one stage we actually discussed the possibility of David and Joan having a son whilst David was imprisoned in the Tower).

A son by Margaret Drummond might have a tougher time, because he's younger and his maternal family provide domestic baggage (feuds, jealousies etc.). His mother being a mistress before becoming Queen would also set tongues wagging.

If Robert the Bruce is succeeded by one of his brothers, then said brother will be getting on in age (40+) and might only reign for a few years- which might not be enough time to secure his regime.

An interesting possibility is having Edward Bruce's (illegitimate?) son Alexander survive (he died at Halidon Hill IOTL). Having a living, male-line cousin would affect David's regime somewhat (and he'd surely contend for the Guardianship at some stage if David still ends up imprisoned, maybe you could drum up a rivalry with the Stewarts). And if David still dies childless then Alexander (or his issue) could challenge for the throne on the basis of being male-line Bruces; and if Robert Stewart (i.e. Robert II) still has children of questionable legitimacy that just fans the flames.

This is very true. Hmm, perhaps carving two ideas out of this would be for the best then? One where Robert the Bruce has an older son and maybe works alongside the Stewarts to secure Scotland, and another idea where war breaks out between the Stewarts and Alexander Bruce, son of Edward Bruce?
 
Top