The Lords of the Isles remain powerful for longer

[BlackMage]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lord_of_the_Isles

Although they were, for much of their existence, mere vassals of foreign powers, the Lords of the Isles exerted much power over western Scotland, remaining functionally independent for over a century (depending on who you ask) until being stripped of the title by James III in the 15th century.

How could the Lords of the Isles have retained their power over western Scotland for longer, and what would the consequences have been? The death of feudalism means that they have an inevitable use-by date anyway, but an effectively autonomous western Scotland for many more years could have interesting consequences.

 

[Fletch]

If the crown made a deal in such the Lords were allowed autonomy as long as they supply troops in time of war, but with regards to International matters(including relations with England) left the politicing to Edinburgh, then I can see that working, but otherwise a fall in the short term is inevitable. In the long term, the Government would need to map and control the coastline to safeguard against invasion, so in the long term they would end up as lords with a prouder history than the other aristos.

There is a movement I believe within the SNP who argue that upon independence the Shetland and Orkney Isles recieve a form of devolution. Not sure though....

 

[BlackMage]

If the crown made a deal in such the Lords were allowed autonomy as long as they supply troops in time of war, but with regards to International matters(including relations with England) left the politicing to Edinburgh, then I can see that working, but otherwise a fall in the short term is inevitable. In the long term, the Government would need to map and control the coastline to safeguard against invasion, so in the long term they would end up as lords with a prouder history than the other aristos.

Well, such a deal isn't out of the question, and indeed was pretty much what happened for much of the 14th century, with the first three Lords of the Isles. John II tried to negotiate something like that with England, where he would gain much greater land and thus power over his own territory in return for fealty. Unfortunately, John II happened to be a dill. If you had a more competent and less land-hungry ruler who tried to preserve the status quo, I think a deal like that could work. You might be able to stretch out their survival for a few centuries longer, but as you've said the growth of national power means that they're doomed in the long run, since they're probably not big enough to ward off Scotland forever.

Still, a long and proud independent history without much interference from Scotland could lead to an independent national identity. When (if) issues of devolution arise later, we could see Scotland effectively divided in two.

 

[Grey Wolf]

You could have a situation similar to the Isle of Man, where they remain OUTSIDE of the United Kingdom but become a fief of the British crown. Thus they govern themselves but have no independence outside that.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Michael B]

You could have a situation similar to the Isle of Man, where they remain OUTSIDE of the United Kingdom but become a fief of the British crown. Thus they govern themselves but have no independence

The difference is that the Lords of the Isles were far more powerful than the Isle Of Man as well as holding some of the mainland. A Medieval/early Modern monarch could afford to ignore the occasional lightweight magnate. Heavyweights were a different kettle fish especially as they could be listed as rebellious subjects.

 

[Calgacus]

The difference is that the Lords of the Isles were far more powerful than the Isle Of Man as well as holding some of the mainland. A Medieval/early Modern monarch could afford to ignore the occasional lightweight magnate. Heavyweights were a different kettle fish especially as they could be listed as rebellious subjects.

Sooner or later the Scottish kings would have had to take action. The English kings did make occasional deals with the Lords as a form of leverage against Scotland, in much the same way as France did with Scotland against England. Maybe if the English had made greater use of this and encouraged the existence of a separate Lordship. I can't see the Lordship becoming a fully independent nation - I can't think of any other example of such a situation in Europe.

Another option might be to have the Norwegian kings remaining in possession of the Hebrides. A victory at Largs in 1263 might have this result, and the Norse-Celtic lords of the Hebrides might be able thus to fend off Scots suzerainty.

 

[Iñaki]

I give an interesting link that provides a clear briefing about the history of the Lords of the Isles including an useful list of the Kings and Lords of the Isles.

http://www.friesian.com/germania.htm#isles

There is an index after the introduction, in the index there is a theme titled Kings and Lords of the Isles.

I recommend also give a look at all the entire site ww.friesian.com, no doubt a very cool site.

According to the explanation showed in the site, I suppose that some ways to permit the Lords to remain independent more time could be made with a best luck for Norway in the struggle against Scotland and that the Balliots could have had better luck in their struggle for the throne of Scotland (McDonalds -Lords of the Isles- supported the Balliots).

 

[Grey Wolf]

I was thinking more of the situation at the end of the fifteenth century, with James III and James IV and the last of the Lords of the Isles. If they had been allowed to remain as under-kings, and potentially married into the Scottish aristocracy then the situation looks pretty analogous to that in the Isle of Man where the native dynasty married into and was turned into one of the English aristocratic dynasties, before they sold the fief to the crown in IIRC the eighteenth century

Best Regards
Grey Wolf