Royal House of Bruce

This is something that I have been wondering for a while, what if when Margaret Maid of Norway dies in 1290, or if she dies even earlier say in 1286, Robert De Brus, Fifth Lord of Annandale decides to act and seizes the throne and is crowned King at Scone through all the proper channels?

Obviously Balliol and Comyn would rebel and fight, but who would join them? And what of Edward I what would he do?

Thinking about it, the Bruces would have a fair bit of support as one of the most powerful families in Scotland, it seems as though the country might well be torn in two, so perhaps Longhshanks comes north to try and 'settle the dispute' and to put a puppet on the throne.

House of Bruce:

King Robert I Bruce, Lord of Annandale (1210-1296) reign as King 1290-1296

King Robert II Bruce, Lord of Annandale (1243-1306) reign as King 1296-1306

King Robert III Bruce, Lord of Annandale (1274-1329) reign as King 1306-1329

these are the first three Bruce Kings of Scotland, with each one holding the title Lord of Annandale, they would of course be contested by the Balliols and the Comyns and the Bruces other enemies.
 
Last edited:
The whole reason the Edward I was asked to mediate was to avoid a civil war. The Guardians and the Claimants could not agree on who's claim was stronger and some nobles were beginning to assemble armies. The Scots turned to Edward I to pass judgement in the hopes of avoiding conflict.

Edward I's judgement was fair, proper and legally accurate. Scotland had decided the line of succession based on primogeniture since 1097, the Guardians and Claimants had accepted this as the proper method when they agreed that Margaret Maid of Norway was the legitimate heir to Alexander III. Balliol had the strongest claim via primogeniture while the Bruce tried to claim he had a great claim due to proximity of blood to the previous monarch.

The way succession was decided in OTL would constitute the "proper channels". While it was true that Edward I dragged out the legal proceedings for his own benefit - in an attempt to establish the legal precedent that the English Monarch was Overlord to the Scots - they were thorough and left little doubt about the outcome.

If the Bruce the elder had tried to claim the throne via "the proper channels" he would have failed just as he did in OTL.

He could attempt to seize power like his son did - go to Scone with a band of conspirators and have himself crowned without the majority support of the nobility or clergy and hope to establish his legitimacy afterwards - but this would sure to have resulted in a civil war. This would inevitable have spilled over to England - English and Scottish nobles intermarried and had lands both sides of the border during this time - which would draw Edward's attention which would result in either the appearance of the formidable English war machine or else mediation of the dispute by the "English Justinian", neither of which scenario is likely to turn out well for the Bruce's.

Part of the reason the younger Bruce - the one which became King in OTL - was able to establish his legitimacy was because he killed the Red Comyn prior to his attempt to seize power and left his opposition leaderless and directionless. The elder Bruce, in that scenario would be attempting to seize power while his main enemies were still alive and capable of organizing opposition to him, and while the nobles were beginning to arm themselves for some kind of combat, and I would suggest it wouldn't go very well.

So the Bruce is not able to secure the throne through the laws of succession and would face a significant struggle to achieve it through force of arms. It's possible he might succeed, but it wouldn't be easy.
 
The whole reason the Edward I was asked to mediate was to avoid a civil war. The Guardians and the Claimants could not agree on who's claim was stronger and some nobles were beginning to assemble armies. The Scots turned to Edward I to pass judgement in the hopes of avoiding conflict.

Edward I's judgement was fair, proper and legally accurate. Scotland had decided the line of succession based on primogeniture since 1097, the Guardians and Claimants had accepted this as the proper method when they agreed that Margaret Maid of Norway was the legitimate heir to Alexander III. Balliol had the strongest claim via primogeniture while the Bruce tried to claim he had a great claim due to proximity of blood to the previous monarch.

The way succession was decided in OTL would constitute the "proper channels". While it was true that Edward I dragged out the legal proceedings for his own benefit - in an attempt to establish the legal precedent that the English Monarch was Overlord to the Scots - they were thorough and left little doubt about the outcome.

If the Bruce the elder had tried to claim the throne via "the proper channels" he would have failed just as he did in OTL.

He could attempt to seize power like his son did - go to Scone with a band of conspirators and have himself crowned without the majority support of the nobility or clergy and hope to establish his legitimacy afterwards - but this would sure to have resulted in a civil war. This would inevitable have spilled over to England - English and Scottish nobles intermarried and had lands both sides of the border during this time - which would draw Edward's attention which would result in either the appearance of the formidable English war machine or else mediation of the dispute by the "English Justinian", neither of which scenario is likely to turn out well for the Bruce's.

Part of the reason the younger Bruce - the one which became King in OTL - was able to establish his legitimacy was because he killed the Red Comyn prior to his attempt to seize power and left his opposition leaderless and directionless. The elder Bruce, in that scenario would be attempting to seize power while his main enemies were still alive and capable of organizing opposition to him, and while the nobles were beginning to arm themselves for some kind of combat, and I would suggest it wouldn't go very well.

So the Bruce is not able to secure the throne through the laws of succession and would face a significant struggle to achieve it through force of arms. It's possible he might succeed, but it wouldn't be easy.

Okay interesting, I would also point out that Balliol was also much more malleable than the Bruce would ahve been toward Edward's aims, that Balliol finely grew a backbone and was desposed is prove of this
 
Okay interesting, I would also point out that Balliol was also much more malleable than the Bruce would ahve been toward Edward's aims, that Balliol finely grew a backbone and was desposed is prove of this

Balliol's personality is irrelevant to his legitimacy as the potential heir with the strongest claim via the accepted laws of succession. It played into Edward's hands, certainly, but it wasn't relevant to his decision in mediating the Great Cause.
 
Balliol's personality is irrelevant to his legitimacy as the potential heir with the strongest claim via the accepted laws of succession. It played into Edward's hands, certainly, but it wasn't relevant to his decision in mediating the Great Cause.

I would disagree, yes Balliol had the best claim through promigenture, but the fact he was so malleable, would have also made Edward more interested in having him on the throne
 
Hmm, are you meaning around the time Alexander III called the estates?
I'm currently reading Robyn Young's third novel on king Robert Bruce, and she refers to the grandfather's earlier status as heir presumptive lots of times, but I do not know the truth behind the details of the novels, and it was thirty years since I read Scottish history, so ... :eek:

Anyway, Wikipedia says so, apparently, so it seems true.
 
But if it is true that Bruce the elder had been designated heir a few years earlier, then his claim would seem the stronger.

The Bruce claimed that he had been designated heir when Alexander III had no male offspring but was unable to produce written evidence to back up the claim making it as valid legally as was Floris V of Holland's claim that David of Huntingdon had forfeited the future rights of his descendants to claim the throne to his brother William in exchange for land.
 
The Bruce claimed that he had been designated heir when Alexander III had no male offspring but was unable to produce written evidence to back up the claim making it as valid legally as was Floris V of Holland's claim that David of Huntingdon had forfeited the future rights of his descendants to claim the throne to his brother William in exchange for land.

Is there not actual evidence from the time though showing that Bruce was indeed Tanist when King Alexander had no male offspring?
 
Is there not actual evidence from the time though showing that Bruce was indeed Tanist when King Alexander had no male offspring?

If there was then he still failed to produce it to support his case when Edward sat in judgement over the claims.
 
If there was then he still failed to produce it to support his case when Edward sat in judgement over the claims.

Did he though? Because in all I have read on the matter, they all seem to agree at one point Bruce was Alexander's tanist, not that he claimed as such and had nothing to back him up, if I am reading the wrong tihngs, I would be grateful if you could point me to the right ones :)
 
Is it at all possible that Edward, simply hoping to create chaos in Scotland, names Bruce as the king, as he knows Balliol and the Comyns will contest this, and he can then come in as the supposed saviour?
 
Top