IT was in this month of 1332 that Scotland found itself in the unique position of having two kings.
We saw last week how Edward Balliol returned to his native land to claim the throne vacated by his father John “Toom Tabard” Balliol in 1296. He invaded despite the fact that King David II was without doubt the legitimate King of Scotland, recognised as such by other monarchs across Europe except for England’s King Edward III.
Most importantly the Pope then based in Avignon, John XXII, considered David II to be the legitimate king – he had suffered some trouble with a rival himself, the antipope Nicholas V, so was probably not keen on usurpers.
Backed by an army provided by Edward III, Balliol – or rather his general Henry de Beaumont – landed in Fife in the summer of 1332 and marched to Perth, winning the Battle of Dupplin Moor along the way. At Scone on September 24, Balliol had himself crowned as Scotland’s king, but crucially he was not able to retain all of de Beaumont’s troops, many of them mercenaries.
He did have forces provided mostly by the so-called “dispossessed” or “disinherited” lords whose lands had been confiscated and given to his allies by Robert the Bruce, but despite the loss of several leading nobles at Dupplin Moor, the government in Scotland was still in operation under the Guardians – consider them as regents – loyal to the eight-year-old boy king David II. I’ll call them the Bruce faction as most had fought for Robert the Bruce and venerated the late king’s memory.
READ MORE: When Scotland had two crowned kings - 700 years ago this week
So what was it like to be in Scotland in the Year of the Two Kings? By curious coincidence, I have just written about the Second War of Independence which began that year in my history of the Borders series in The National, but today I am concentrating on the events of 1332 and what Balliol got up to in the hope of showing how much of a treasonous and treacherous usurper he was – I cannot understand why anybody gives Balliol any credit whatsoever.
The ordinary folk of the country must have been baffled to learn of Balliol’s claim to be king, but Scotland had been a feudal society since the reign of King David I some 200 years earlier and most people followed the lead of their lord or laird, while the increasing “clanification”, as I have called it, of the Highlands meant most people there did as they were told by their chief. By and large, the Highland clans stayed out of the civil war between Balliol and David II’s loyal nobles in the Bruce faction.
Curiously, almost all the events surrounding Balliol happened in the south of the country, for he got no further north than Scone near Perth. It was in that city that “king” Balliol soon found himself under siege by an army loyal to the real king and led by Patrick de Dunbar, the 9th Earl of March also known as the Earl of Dunbar, who had been appointed joint Guardian.
March’s army had to move elsewhere, most probably to Galloway which was Balliol territory and where the local people were said to have risen in rebellion against David II.
We do not know for certain why the siege of Perth was lifted, but even stuck in the city, Balliol was already showing why he should not be trusted with the crown. He acknowledged Edward III as his overlord, and began negotiations to cede at least five counties to England. Had he been allowed to continue his reign, Scotland would no longer have the Scottish Borders and the Lothians.
Balliol with his small army took the opportunity to leave Perth in the hands of his ally the Earl of Fife and move down the west coast. No sooner had Balliol gone than Perth was occupied by Bruce faction loyalists led by Robert Keith, the Earl Marischal. The Earl of Fife and his family were imprisoned until the Earl switched sides but there was no such luck for one laird, William Murray of Tullibardine, who had been blamed for the disaster at Dupplin Moor and was promptly executed for treason.
Pursued by likes of co-Guardian Sir Archibald Douglas and Sir Andrew Murray, the son of the Murray who was joint commander with William Wallace at Stirling Bridge in 1297, Balliol moved through Ayrshire and the Bruce lands of Carrick where he made peace with Alexander Bruce, the Earl of Carrick and nephew of King Robert – as I have said, there was much switching of sides in those days.
Moving to Roxburgh Castle, Balliol’s army fought off the attack by Sir Andrew Murray’s force with Murray himself captured and then swiftly ransomed, most probably because Balliol was desperately in need of funds.
Balliol then based himself at Annan and from there issued proclamations, Her had already prepared one that gave the sheriffdoms of Berwick and Peebles to Edward III “in perpetuity”.
READ MORE: Back in the day: The Scottish Borders trio blessed with genius
That action plus Balliol’s acknowledgement of Edward III as overlord of Scotland infuriated Sir Archibald Douglas and his allies such as Robert Stewart, the future King Robert II, Sir Simon Fraser and John Randolph, the 3rd Earl of Moray, and they began to gather a much larger army than Balliol possessed.
In early December, members of the Bruce faction went to England in an attempt to persuade Edward III to back them against Balliol, but the monarch who had only just turned 20 was still smarting at having the 1328 Treaty of Edinburgh and Northampton imposed on him and gave them short shrift.
The Bruce faction’s leaders decided to oust Balliol militarily. Marching swiftly to Annan, on December 16, 1332, they surprised Balliol with a ruthless night attack. Most of Balliol’s men were killed, including his brother and heir Henry.
Roused from his bed, Balliol did not even have time to saddle his horse before fleeing to Carlisle. The story was told all over Scotland that Edward Balliol had only time to pull on a shirt – he may even have gone naked – for his journey into England.
The Bruce faction lost no time in spreading the tale that Balliol had forfeited any claim to the throne by his defection to England. Though the conflict was far from over, the Year of the Two Kings was finished.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here