People and Power in Scotland E-Book

• Herausgeber: John Donald
• Kategorie: Sachliteratur, Reportagen, Biografien
• Sprache: Englisch

Seitenzahl: 580

Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2001

Beschreibung

Few Scottish historians are better known than T. C. Smout and fewer still more deserving of the high esteem in which they are held. He has made an outstanding contribution to Scottish historical studies both as an academic discipline and as a subject of wide popular appeal. His retirement in 1991 after twelve years as Professor of Scottish History at the University of St Andrews diminished neither his interest not his output. It did, however, provide a fitting opportunity to honour his accomplishments. This collection of ten essays by his friends and colleagues at St Andrews is a measure of his enormous success in promoting Scottish history there and of their respect for his achievements. Ranging widely over the Scottish past – from the fifteenth to the nineteenth centuries, from high politics to popular protest, from shipwrecks to railway mania, form local social studies to the problem of national identity – the essays pay tribute to the depth of Smout's historical understanding by reflecting the breadth of research that he has done so much to encourage.

Leseprobe

PEOPLE AND POWER IN SCOTLAND

Prof. T. C. Smout, MA, PhD, FRSE, FBA.

PEOPLE AND POWER IN SCOTLAND

ESSAYS IN HONOUR OF T.C. SMOUT

edited by

Roger Mason and Norman Macdougall

This eBook was published in Great Britain in 2021 by John Donald, an imprint of Birlinn Ltd

Birlinn Ltd

West Newington House

10 Newington Road

Edinburgh

EH9 1QS

First published in Great Britain in 1992 by John Donald

Copyright © Copyright the Editors and Contributors severally, 1992

eBook ISBN 978 1 78885 414 6

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available on request from the British Library

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored, or transmitted in any form, or by any means electronic, mechanical or photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the express written permission of the publisher.

The right of the Editors and Contributors to be identified as the authors of this book has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Design and Patent Act 1988

Contents

Acknowledgements

T.C. Smout: An Appreciation

T.C. Smout: A List of Publications

1. The Man who would be King: The Lieutenancy and Death of David, Duke of Rothesay, 1399–1402

Stephen Boardman

2. ‘It is I, the Earle of Mar’: In Search of Thomas Cochrane

Norman Macdougall

3. Chivalry and Citizenship: Aspects of National Identity in Renaissance Scotland

Roger Mason

4. The Origins of the ‘Road to the Isles’: Trade, Communications and Campbell Power in Early Modern Scotland

Jane E. A. Dawson

5. The Laird, his Daughter, her Husband and the Minister: Unravelling a Popular Ballad

Keith M. Brown

6. The English Devil of Keeping State; Élite Manners and the Downfall of Charles I in Scotland

David Stevenson

7. The Wreck of the Dutch East-Indiaman “Adelaar” off Barra in 1728

Colin Martin

8. Royal Day, People’s Day: The Monarch’s Birthday in Scotland, c.1660–1860

Christopher A. Whatley

9. Railway Mania in the Highlands: The Marquis of Breadalbane and the Scottish Grand Junction Railway

C.J.A. Robertson

10. Whatever Happened to Radical Scotland?: The Economic and Social Origins of the Mid-Victorian Political Consensus in Scotland

William W. Knox

List of Contributors

Acknowledgements

The editors would like to thank the contributors for their enthusiasm and punctuality, and Mrs. Margaret Richards for her invaluable assistance in preparing some of the material for publication. Above all, we are grateful to Dr. Alexander Grant Gordon of William Grant and Sons Ltd. for a most generous contribution towards the costs of producing this volume.

St. Andrews, 1992 Roger MasonNorman Macdougall

Professor T.C. Smout: An Appreciation

In the early summer of 1979, after more than five-and-a-half centuries of existence, Scotland’s oldest university finally committed itself to the creation of a department of Scottish History. That it did so at all was due in no small measure to the remarkable individual appointed as professor of Scottish History in that year. The choice was in itself unusual, for Christopher Smout was not, in Pitscottie’s famous phrase about one of his Lindsay ancestors, ‘ane man of the auld world’, but a distinguished social historian of early modern and modern Scotland who had held a personal chair in Economic History at Edinburgh University for some nine years. Cynics were quick to prophesy that he would not stay long at St. Andrews, and various academic institutions in Britain and the United States were cited as his inevitable destination in a matter of months at most. Twelve years later Christopher Smout is leaving St. Andrews, but to retire, having tripled the number of staff in the department which he created—and that in a period of harsh university cutbacks — having introduced single honours degrees in Scottish History and Economic and Social History, taken a major role in the establishment of the Scottish Institute of Maritime Studies, and — perhaps most important of all — having consistently encouraged and stimulated historians working in areas of the subject which were not primarily his own.

Christopher Smout’s enthusiasm for Scottish History goes back more than thirty years to his student days at Clare College, Cambridge. Having graduated MA (1st class) in both parts of the tripos in 1956, he looked for an original research area and found it in a study of Scottish trade in the late seventeenth century. For this he received the degree of PhD in 1959, and in the same year was appointed assistant lecturer at Edinburgh University, the beginning of an association with Edinburgh which was to last for twenty years. A spate of publications on Scottish social and economic history – including a lively book, Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union 1660–1707 – throughout the 1960s paralleled rapid promotion at Edinburgh – to lecturer in 1962, reader in 1966, and professor, with a personal chair in Economic History, in 1970.

In 1969 he produced the book with which, perhaps more than any other, his name is still associated – A History of the Scottish People, 1560–1830 —one of the very few scholarly works to commend itself to a vast popular audience, awarded a Scottish Arts Council prize, and rightly described by one reviewer as ‘an unrivalled introduction to the life of the people of Scotland from the formation of the nation to the great flowering of Scottish intellect and technology in the decades around Waterloo’. The same writer, it is true, went on to complain that there was not enough in the book about prices, wages and the cost of living; yet it was perhaps the absence of endless forbidding tables and graphs which made A History of the Scottish People an immediately accessible and attractive book to so many people. Above all, it was, and is, a very good read. Those teaching or studying Scottish history in 1970, having been subjected to a decade during which economic and social historians vied with one another in their efforts to be dull or obscure, or both, fell upon Smout’s book with a mixture of gratitude, enthusiasm and excitement. Suddenly, the social history of Scotland seemed to make a new kind of sense.

A steady flow of articles – and five edited or co-edited books – appeared in the 1970s’ during which time Christopher Smout also held ESRC research grants for demographic and poor law history; and in 1978 he was made a Fellow of the Royal Society of Edinburgh. Then in 1979, the vacancy in the chair of Scottish History at St. Andrews, created by the appointment of Geoffrey Barrow to Edinburgh, offered him the chance to move to Fife. The job at St. Andrews was no safe haven, but rather a considerable challenge; for in 1979, although there were a number of scholars in the university with research interests in Scottish History, and a general goodwill towards the subject, there was no Scottish History department, and therefore no budget, no departmental library of any consequence, and of course no single honours degree. Before accepting the post, Christopher Smout insisted on the appointment of one other full-time lecturer in Scottish History; and William Grant & Sons Ltd., who two years before had endowed the Glenfiddich Research Fellowship in Scottish History at St. Andrews, generously renewed it for a further three years (and have indeed continued to do so ever since). So the department in 1979–80 numbered three — the new professor, a lecturer, and a research fellow. St. Andrews is a relatively small place; but even within it the fledgling Scottish History department had no geographical coherence, with the professor in one room close to St. Salvator’s Tower, the lecturer and research fellow in the Psychology department building on the other side of town, and the departmental secretary — without a phone — in the attic of the printing department in North Street.

Faced with these problems, a more cautious individual might have opted for a narrow coverage of parts of the subject, with a concentration on the period he knew best. From the start, however, Christopher Smout chose a bold course – the department would teach Scottish History from Roman times, through the medieval and early modern period, to the present day, and would offer as many honours courses in the subject as possible with a view to being able to introduce a single honours degree at the earliest possible opportunity. He pursued this aim with missionary zeal, forging alliances with other St. Andrews history departments, offering them service teaching and acquiring it in return, building a close relationship with the economic and social historians (and eventually producing the brainwave of a joint second year course which would make single honours degrees in both Scottish History and Economic and Social History possible), bringing into the department Dr. Colin Martin, a first-rate maritime archaeologist (with whom, together with Dr. Robert Prescott of the Psychology department, he would found the Scottish Institute of Maritime Studies at St. Andrews), and constantly haranguing the Faculty on its duty to support Scottish History in Scotland’s oldest university.

Underpinning this crusade was Chris Smout’s popularity with students, both undergraduates and postgraduates. His enthusiasm for his subject was infectious, and was reflected in the growing numbers of students who flocked to his classes as the department gained strength. Unlike some academics, who seem to believe that by some mysterious alchemy they confer lustre on the university which employs them by being there as seldom as possible, Chris Smout has been throughout a hard-working teacher who combined a hectic schedule of research, lectures in the USA, Canada and Europe, with teaching hours in St. Andrews which on their own would have exhausted many younger men. In lectures, tutorials and seminars, he preferred to dress casually, often in a tee-shirt and jeans, a habit which earned him the affectionate student nickname of ‘the Oxfam professor’. To his colleagues in Scottish History he was invariably ‘the Boss’, to those in other departments ‘the Hustler’.

Throughout his twelve years at St. Andrews, Chris Smout has been the ideal departmental head, leading from the front and trusting his staff to follow, supporting and encouraging, but not interfering with, their work. The result of this leadership has been the early attraction to the department of a third member of staff under the UGC’s ‘new blood’ scheme, a string of important publications, the largest research income of any department in the Faculty of Arts, lively programmes of research seminars, workshops and conferences, and the emergence of St. Andrews as an important centre – at least comparable with the other ancient Scottish universities — for academic Scottish History. The fact that all this has been achieved against a background of ever-deepening cuts in university funding since 1981 is a remarkable tribute to his qualities of leadership; indeed, he even turned the continuing crisis to St. Andrews’ advantage by securing the transfer of two more staff from Dundee and Heriot-Watt universities in 1988, and a third from Aberdeen in 1989. Thus the department of Scottish History at St. Andrews enters the 1990s immeasurably stronger than at the start of the 1980s.

Together with these successes within St. Andrews itself, Christopher Smout has further enhanced his reputation throughout the 1980s with many external achievements. His most important recent publication, the keenly awaited sequel to his 1969 History of the Scottish People, appeared in 1986. Entitled A Century of the Scottish People 1830–1950, it combines the same qualities of scholarship, clarity and readability, easily crossing the narrow frontiers of academia to embrace a wide reading public, and it was duly awarded the Agnes Mure MacKenzie Prize for Scottish Historical scholarship by the Saltire Society. Recognition of his growing reputation, in and out of Scotland, continued; he served as president of the Scottish History Society between 1984 and 1988, as chairman of the Scottish Economic and Social History Society from 1988; and in 1988 he was made a Fellow of the British Academy.

Chris Smout’s principal interest, apart from his family and his work, is bird-watching, which he pursues with a single-minded passion, and which probably explains his allegiance to Anstruther as a home throughout his years at St. Andrews. It is an interest happily shared by his wife, Anne-Marie, who has published a book on the birds of Fife. Both Smouts have taken part enthusiastically in Fife competitions to identify as many different species as possible in a single day, winning on at least one occasion with a total of 108; and the entire Scottish History department is unlikely to forget the occasion when, having for years searched in vain to identify a waxwing in Fife, Chris brought a departmental meeting to an abrupt end, rushed to his car, and disappeared, when a First Arts student reported sighting hundreds of wax- wings at Guardbridge. His priorities were undoubtedly correct; anyway, no-one can now remember what was on the agenda of the meeting.

Even given much more space than is available to us, it would be difficult to do proper justice to Christopher Smout’s scholarly achievements; however, the imposing list of his publications provides more eloquent testimony to these than mere words of praise. And the recipient of this festschrift would be – justifiably – indignant if we were to imply that retiral meant an end of historical writing or lecturing. Both show every sign of continuing apace; a book is expected this year on the history of prices, wages, food and living standards in Scotland 1580–1780, following years of work on the subject by Chris and his research assistant, Alexander Gibson; and the history of the Scottish environment since 1600, and of environmentalism in Scotland since 1750, already themes of his Raleigh Lectures in Glasgow and London in 1990, occupy more and more of his time. Since 1985, in fact, he has been a member of the Committee for Scotland of the Nature Conservancy Council, a post to which he was reappointed by the secretary of state in 1989.

In retirement, Chris Smout will never be idle, even though he may feel the occasional twinge of regret at having just missed the pleasures of academic audit. We are delighted that he will maintain his connection with St. Andrews as an honorary professor, and also, for the next few years, as director of St. John’s House, the university’s Centre for Advanced Historical Studies, his ‘contact with reality’, as he describes it himself. This volume is a modest tribute to the man, and to a part – we like to think an important part – of his career. We hope that it reflects at least some of his interests, and that it is also representative of the wide range of historical themes which he stimulated and supported throughout his years at St. Andrews.

T.C. SMOUT: A List of Publications

A Books

1. Scottish Trade on the Eve of Union 1660–1707 (Edinburgh and London, 1963).

2. A History of the Scottish People, 1560–1830 (London and New York, 1969; 2nd edn 1971; paperback edn 1972).

3. A Century of the Scottish People, 1830–1950 (London, 1986; paperback edn 1987).

4. (with Sydney Wood) Scottish Voices, 1745–1960 (London, 1990).

5. (with M. Flinn, J. Gillespie, N. Hill, A. Maxwell & R. Mitchison), Scottish Population History from the 17th Century to the 1930s (Cambridge, 1977).

6. (with Ian Levitt), The State of the Scottish Working Class in 1843: A Statistical and Spatial Inquiry based on Data from the Poor Law Commission Report of 1844 (Edinburgh, 1979).

B Edited volumes

7. (with M.W. Flinn), Essays in Social History (Oxford, 1974).

8. (with L.M. Cullen), Comparative Aspects of Scottish and Irish Economic and Social History 1600–1900 (Edinburgh, 1977).

9. The Search for Wealth and Stability: Essays in Economic and Social History Presented to M.W. Flinn (London, 1979).

10. Scotland and Europe, 1200–1850 (Edinburgh, 1986).

11. (with Antoni Maczak), Gründung und Bedeutung kleinerer Städte im nördlichen Europa der frühen Neuzeit, Wolfenbütteler Forschungen, Band 47 (Wiesbaden, 1991).

C Edited sources and archival lists

12. ‘Letters from Dumfries to a Scottish Factor at Rotterdam, 1676–1683’, Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 3rd series 38 (1960), 157–167.

13. ‘Report on the Lead-mining Papers at Hopetoun House, West Lothian, 1625–1799’, cyclostyled and deposited in National Library of Scotland, 1962.

14. ‘Sir John Clerk’s Observations on the Present Circumstances of Scotland, 1730’, Scottish History Society Miscellany X (Scottish History Society, 1965), 175–212.

15. ‘Customhouse Letters to the Officers at Dunbar, 1765’, Transactions of the East Lothian Antiquarians and Field Naturalists’ Society, 11 (1968), 17–36.

16. The Statistical Account of Scotland 1791–1799, ed. D.J. Withrington et al., vol. ii, The Lothians (Edinburgh, 1975).

17. ‘Journal of Henry Kalmeter’s Travels in Scotland, 1719–1720’, Scottish Industrial History: A Miscellany (Scottish History Society, 1978), 1–52.

18. ‘US Consular Reports: A Source for Scottish Economic Historians’, Scottish Historical Review, 58 (1979), 179–185.

19. ‘American Consular Reports on Scotland’, Business History, 23 (1982), 304–8.

20. Edwin Muir, Scottish Journey, ed. with an introduction (Edinburgh, 1979; paperback edn., London, 1985).

D Papers in books and periodicals

21. ‘Scottish Commercial Factors in the Baltic at the End of the 17th Century’, Scottish Historical Review, 39 (1960), 122–128.

22. ‘Some Problems of Timber Supply in later 17th-Century Scotland’, Scottish Forestry, 14 (1960), 3–13.

23. ‘The Development and Enterprise of Glasgow, 1556–1707’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 7 (1960), 194–212.

24. ‘The Overseas Trade of Ayrshire, 1660–1707’, Ayrshire Archaeological and Natural History Collections, 6 (1958–60), 56–80.

25. ‘The Early Scottish Sugar Houses, 1660–1720’, Economic History Review, 2nd series 14 (1961), 240–253.

26. ‘The Lead Mines at Wanlockhead’, Transactions of the Dumfriesshire and Galloway Natural History and Antiquarian Society, 3rd series 39 (1962), 144–58.

27. ‘The Trade of East Lothian at the End of the 17th Century’, Transactions of the East Lothian Antiquarian and Field Naturalists’ Society, 9 (1963), 67–78.

28. ‘The Erskines of Mar and the Development of Alloa, 1689–1825’, Scottish Studies, 7 (1963), 57–74.

29. ‘Scottish Landowners and Economic Growth, 1650–1850’, Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 11 (1964), 218–34.

30. ‘The Anglo-Scottish Union of 1707: 1. The Economic Background’, Economic History Review, 2nd series 16 (1964), 455–467.

31. (with Alexander Fenton), ‘Scottish Agriculture Before the Improvers – An Exploration’, Agricultural History Review, 13 (1965), 73–93.

32. ‘Lead Mining in Scotland, 1650–1850’, in P.L. Payne (ed.), Studies in Scottish Business History (London, 1967), 103–35.

33. ‘The Glasgow Merchant Community in the 17th Century’, Scottish Historical Review, 47 (1968), 53–71.

34. ‘The Road to Union’, in G. Holmes (ed.), Britain after the Glorious Revolution (London, 1969), 176–96.

35. ‘The Landowner and the Planned Village in Scotland, 1730–1830’, in N.T. Phillipson and R. Mitchison (ed.), Scotland in the Age of Improvement (Edinburgh, 1970), 73–106.

36. ‘Union of the Parliaments’, in G. Menzies (ed.), The Scottish Nation (London, 1972), 147–59.

37. ‘An Ideological Struggle: The Highland Clearances’, Scottish International (February, 1972), 13–16.

38. ‘The Lessons of Norwegian Agrarian History: A Review Article’, Scottish Historical Review, 53 (1974), 69–76.

39. ‘Rural Life and Famous Men’, in R. Prentice (ed.), The National Trust for Scotland Guide (London, 1976), 225–232.

40. ‘Aspects of Sexual Behaviour in 19th-Century Scotland’, in A.A. MacLaren (ed.), Social Class in Scotland: Past and Present (Edinburgh, 1976), 55–85; reprinted in P. Laslett, K. Oosterveen and R.M. Smith (ed.), Bastardy in its Comparative History (London 1980), 192–216.

41. ‘Famine and Famine-Relief in Scotland’, in Cullen and Smout (ed.), Comparative Aspects (item 8 above), 21–31.

42. ‘The Scottish Identity’, in R. Underwood (ed.), The Future of Scotland (London, 1977), 11–21.

43. ‘Illegitimacy – A Reply’, Scottish Journal of Sociology, 2 (1977), 97–104.

44. (with Ian Levitt), ‘Some Weights and Measures in Scotland, 1843’, Scottish Historical Review, 56 (1977), 146–52.

45. ‘Provost Drummond’, University of Edinburgh, Extra Mural Department Pamphlet, 1978.

46. ‘Problems of Modernisation: Non-Economic Factors in 18th-century Scotland’, in H. Van der Wee et al. (ed.), Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Economic History, Leningrad 1970 (The Hague, 1978), vii, 73–88.

47. ‘Coping with Plague in 16th and 17th Century Scotland’, Scotia, 2 (1978), 19–33.

48. ‘Scotland and England, 16th-18th Centuries: Is Dependency a Symptom or a Cause of Under-Development?’, Review, 3 (1980), 601–630.

49. ‘The Strange Intervention of Edward Twistleton: Paisley in Depression, 1841–43’, in Smout (ed.), The Search for Wealth and Stability (item 9 above), 218–42.

50. ‘Scotland in the 17th and 18th Centuries: A Satellite Economy?’, in S. Dyrvik, K. Mykland & J. Oldervoel (ed.), The Satellite State in the 17th and 18th Centuries (Bergen, 1979), 9–35.

51. ‘Centre and Periphery – Some Thoughts on Scotland as a Case Study’, Journal of Common Market Studies, 18 (1980), 256–271.

52. ‘Lifestyles in the Lowlands of Scotland: 17th to 19th Centuries’, and ‘Lifestyles in the Scottish Highlands: 17th to 19th Centuries’, World Conference on Records: Preserving Our Heritage (Salt Lake City, 1980), no. 426, 1–13, and no. 428, 1–14.

53. ‘The Social Condition of Scotland in the 1840s’, Dow Lecture, University of Dundee, 1981.

54. ‘Scottish Marriage, Regular and Irregular, 1500–1940’, in R.B. Outhwaite (ed.), Marriage and Society: Studies in the Social History of Marriage (London, 1981), 204–36.

55. ‘Born again at Cambuslang: New Evidence on Popular Religion and Literacy in 18th-Century Scotland’, Past and Present, 97 (1982), 114–127.

56. ‘Tours in the Scottish Highlands from the 18th to the 20th Centuries’, Northern Scotland, 5 (1983), 99–121.

57. ‘Where had the Scottish Economy got to by the third quarter of the 18th Century?’, in I. Hont & M. Ignatieff (ed.), Wealth and Virtue: The Shaping of Political Economy in the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge, 1983), 45–72.

58. (with I.Levitt), ‘Farm Workers’ Incomes in 1843’, in T.M. Devine (ed.), Farm Servants and Labour in Lowland Scotland, 1770–1914 (Edinburgh, 1984), 156–87.

59. ‘Landowners in Scotland, Ireland and Denmark in the Age of Improvement’, Scandinavian Journal of History, 12 (1987), 79–97.

60. ‘Peasant and Lord: The Institutions Controlling Scottish Rural Society, 1500–1800’, Recueil de la Societé Jean Bodin, 44 (1987), 499–524.

61. ‘The Burgh of Montrose and the Union of 1707 — a Document’, Scottish Historical Review, 66 (1987), 183–4.

62. (with A. Gibson), ‘Food and Hierarchy in Scotland, 1550–1650’, in L. Leneman (ed.), Perspectives in Scottish Social History: Essays in Honour of Rosalind Mitchison (Aberdeen, 1988), 33–52.

63. (with A. Gibson and L.M. Cullen), ‘Wages and Comparative Development in Ireland and Scotland, 1565–1780’, in R. Mitchison and P. Roebuck (ed.), Economy and Society in Scotland and Ireland 1500–1939 (Edinburgh 1988), 105–116.

64. (with A. Gibson), ‘Scottish Food and Scottish History’ 1500–1800’, in R. Houston and I.D. Whyte (ed.), Scottish Society 1500–1800 (Cambridge, 1989), 59–84.

65. ‘Problems of Nationalism, Identity and Improvement in Later 18th-Century Scotland’, in T.M. Devine (ed.), Improvement and Enlightenment (Edinburgh, 1989), 1–21.

66. ‘Scotland, 1850–1950’, in F.M.L. Thompson (ed.), Cambridge Social History of Britain (Cambridge, 1990), i, 209–280.

1

The Man who would be King: The Lieutenancy and Death of David, Duke of Rothesay, 1378–1402

STEPHEN BOARDMAN

The death in 1402 of David, duke of Rothesay, the eldest son, heir and lieutenant of Robert III, has remained a rather mysterious episode despite a detailed account of Rothesay’s “arrest” by the reliable contemporary chronicler Walter Bower, abbot of Inchcolm. Bower, revealing his clerical prejudices, judged that Rothesay’s death came about as the result of the young duke’s own moral failings, his dissolute, immoral and headstrong lifestyle.1 The political objectives of the chief protagonists in the events of 1402, Rothesay and his uncle Robert, duke of Albany, and Rothesay’s brother-in-law Archibald, 4th earl of Douglas, remain largely unexplored and unexplained.

Bower’s description of Rothesay’s arrest and death is a well-known and simple narrative. According to Bower, Rothesay was travelling to St. Andrews in order to occupy the episcopal castle when he was treacherously captured by members of his own retinue, namely Sir John Ramornie and Sir William Lindsay of Rossie, at Strathtyrum just outside St. Andrews city walls.2 After his arrest Rothesay was imprisoned for a short period in the episcopal castle while his uncle Robert, duke of Albany, and Archibald, 4th earl of Douglas, held a council at Culross to decide what should be done with the young heir to the throne. After their deliberations Rothesay was moved from St. Andrews, heavily disguised, to Albany’s own castle of Falkland where, on 25 or 26 March 1402, the young duke died of dysentery or starvation.3 The dramatic events in and around St. Andrews in early 1402 were, to some extent, a reflection of long-term political tensions between Rothesay and his uncle which can only be fully explained by an examination of the origins of Rothesay’s three year lieutenancy.

Rothesay’s lieutenancy began in January 1399, in the wake of a disastrous royal siege of Dumbarton Castle in the autumn of 1398. The aim of the siege had been to remove Walter Danielston, the militant and secularised cleric who had seized control of the royal castle in 1397/8.4 Walter Danielston was the younger brother of two prominent Renfrewshire lairds, Sir Robert and Sir William Danielston.5 Sir Robert Danielston had been the custodian of Dumbarton Castle and sheriff of Dumbarton/Lennox, dying on some date between 26 April 1396 and 8 May 1397.6 Sir Robert had succeeded his father Sir John Danielston as both sheriff of Dumbarton and custodian of the castle,7 so that by 1397 the Danielston family had occupied these offices for at least thirty-seven years and probably considered that they were heritable. After Sir Robert’s death Walter Danielston had forcibly occupied the royal castle in defence of his family’s heritage. Walter, as a cleric, had no heirs of his own; however, Sir Robert had died leaving two daughters, one married to Sir William Cunningham of Kilmaurs, and the other to Sir Robert Maxwell, who was associated with Walter Danielston in an indenture of 18 December 1400 issued at Dumbarton.8 In addition, Walter had a nephew, Patrick, who seems to have been a son of Sir William Danielston.9 The reaction of the royal government to Danielston’s occupation of Dumbarton had been to organise a huge siege of the fortress in 1398. For at least three months between early August and the end of October 1398, Robert III was at Dumbarton with a considerable army10 which required substantial supplies of iron, wood (presumably for siege operations) and foodstuffs.11 The intensity of the siege is shown by the fact that there was a three year hiatus in the rendering of accounts by the bailies of the burgh of Dumbarton between May 1397 and 13 May 1400,12 on which later date the burgh was allowed to give in a reduced burghal ferm because of “guerre de uno anno dictorum trium annorum”.

The ultimate failure of the royal siege to remove Danielston from Dumbarton seems to have seriously weakened the prestige of Robert III’s government in general, and Robert, duke of Albany, in particular. Wyntoun, commenting on Danielston’s occupation of Dumbarton, remarks that “Lithcow menyt in Louthiane, And syndry athir landis sare, Menyt, that evyr he gat in thare”.13 Linlithgow’s displeasure would seem to have been based on the fact that the keeper of Dumbarton Castle was due an eighty merk pension from the burghal fermes, although there is no evidence to suggest that Danielston ever received this payment.14 The discontent engendered by the collapse of the Dumbarton siege would seem to be reflected in the general council of January 1399, held in Perth, which appointed David, duke of Rothesay, as the king’s lieutenant.15 The council complained that “the mysgovernance of the reaulme and the defaut of the kepyng of the common law salde be imput to the kyng and his officeris”, and decided that the king, because of his personal infirmity, was incapable of governing the realm or restraining transgressors and rebels. Walter Danielston’s successful resistance to royal forces in late 1398 would have been uppermost in many men’s minds as an example of royal ineffectiveness in January 1399. Rothesay’s appointment as lieutenant may also have reflected a change in political influence within the government as a result of the confrontation with Danielston.

The political impetus behind the siege of Dumbarton came from the king’s brother Robert, duke of Albany, who had a considerable interest in the fate of Dumbarton Castle and the sheriffship of Lennox after the death of Sir Robert Danielston. By the terms of an indenture of February 139216 between Robert, then earl of Fife, and Duncan, earl of Lennox, Robert’s eldest son, Murdoch, was to marry Lennox’s eldest daughter, to whom the right to the entire earldom of Lennox was to descend. By the same agreement Robert’s son Murdoch and Lennox’s daughter were to be given the lands and barony of Redhall, in Lothian, in conjunctfeftment. On 8 November 139217 Robert III gave his consent to the entailing of the earldom of Lennox to Murdoch Stewart and his heirs. From 1392 onwards, then, Robert, earl of Fife (later Albany), had a vested interest in augmenting the territorial and jurisdictional power of the earl of Lennox in the expectation that the ultimate beneficiary of his patronage would be his own son Murdoch.

In the marriage contract of February 139218 Robert, earl of Fife, who at that stage was guardian of the kingdom, transferred half of the revenues produced by the justiciary courts of Dumbarton and Stirling from lands within the earldom of Lennox to Duncan, and in a charter which is probably misdated 6 March 140119 Robert granted Duncan and his heirs under the terms of the 1392 entail the office of coroner of all the earldom of Lennox. The most important royal officer operating within the bounds of the earldom of Lennox was the sheriff of Dumbarton or Lennox, who also acted as custodian of the royal castle of Dumbarton. Duncan, earl of Lennox, and his father, Walter of Faslane, had already restricted the sheriff’s influence within the earldom by obtaining formal royal grants of the ‘wapinschawings’ or ‘weaponshowings’ of the earldom, specifically exempting the earl, his men, tenants and vassals from the sheriff’s authority in this respect.20 Robert Danielston’s death in 1396–7 raised the possibility that the sheriffship of Dumbarton and the custody of the castle could also be transferred to the earl of Lennox or one of his vassals and thus, in the long term, to the control of Murdoch Stewart. On 8 December 1396,21 at Stirling, Robert III confirmed a resignation of the lands and barony of Redhall by his nephew Murdoch Stewart in favour of Sir William Cunningham, the younger, of Kilmaurs. Murdoch’s resignation and the regrant to Sir William Cunningham may well have been part of a deal over the sheriffship of Lennox and the keepership of Dumbarton between Cunningham, who was married to Sir Robert Danielston’s eldest daughter and heiress, and the earls of Fife and Lennox in the wake of Robert Danielston’s death in the winter of 1396. Redhall was the barony which had been given to Murdoch Stewart and the earl of Lennox’s daughter in conjunct fee by the indenture of February 1392, so that Duncan, earl of Lennox, must have given his approval to Murdoch’s resignation. The duke of Albany’s plans for Dumbarton Castle in 1397/8 can probably be discerned from the way in which he settled the Dumbarton issue after Rothesay’s death in 1402. Firstly, Albany immediately attempted to remove Danielston from Dumbarton by transferring the belligerent cleric to the bishopric of St. Andrews which had been vacant since Walter Trail’s death on some date between 5 March and 1 July 1401.22 Walter Danielston died around Christmas 140223 and by 15 May 140324 the keepership of Dumbarton Castle and the sheriffship of Lennox were given to Walter Buchanan of that ilk as the result of an agreement between Walter and Duncan, earl of Lennox. The Lennox/Buchanan settlement appears to have been made with little or no reference to Robert III’s right to appoint the constable of the royal castle and the sheriff, with the king, at Dumbarton, simply confirming arrangements already made between Lennox and Buchanan and “reservande till us and till our ayris sic as pertenys til our ryal Majeste”. By 2 February 140425 Buchanan was styled “our” sheriff of Dumbarton in a charter by Robert III granting him the ward of Adam Gordon’s lands and heirs. Walter Buchanan was a major tenant of the earls of Lennox and a frequent witness to Earl Duncan’s charters,26 and in 1392 had twice been associated with Robert, earl of Fife, and his son Murdoch, in charters issued at Stirling, the royal castle of which Fife was custodian.27 The exact text of the agreement between Lennox and Buchanan is unrecorded, but we can assume that the earl and his heir, Murdoch Stewart, would have ensured that the earls of Lennox would maintain a high degree of control over the actions of the new sheriff and constable. In any case, the absorption of Dumbarton Castle and its associated sheriffdom into the Lennox interest would be guaranteed by the tenurial and personal relationships between the Buchanans and Murdoch Stewart, as heir to the earldom of Lennox, Walter Buchanan seems to have taken part in the Humbleton campaign of September 1402, probably in the service of Murdoch Stewart, and to have been captured with Murdoch by the English on 14 September 1402.28 In addition, Buchanan’s son, also Walter, married Murdoch Stewart’s daughter Isobel.29

The extension of Lennox control in Dumbarton would thus seem to have been Robert, earl of Fife’s objective in 1396–7, an aim thwarted by the sudden seizure of the royal fortress by Walter Danielston. The collapse of the Albany-inspired siege of Dumbarton seems to have precipitated the transfer of royal authority to the duke of Rothesay in January 1399. Rothesay’s attitude towards Danielston’s occupation of Dumbarton appears to have been less hostile; certainly no new attempt was made during the three years of Rothesay’s lieutenancy to remove Danielston from the fortress.

Rothesay’s growing political influence in late 1398 was reflected in a charter of 6 September 1398,30 issued at Dumbarton during the siege of the castle, by which Robert III granted Rothesay the lands of the earldom of Atholl. Rothesay’s acquisition of a considerable territorial interest in northern Perthshire was not designed to improve the relationship between the young heir to the throne and his uncle. In the years after 1388, Albany had carved out a considerable territorial and jurisdictional power base in northern Perthshire at the expense of his brother Alexander Stewart, earl of Buchan, lord of Badenoch and Ross (better known as the Wolf of Badenoch).

During his period as guardian of the kingdom after December 1388,31 Robert, then earl of Fife, launched a comprehensive attack on the position of Alexander Stewart as a major landowner and the chief representative of royal power in northern Perthshire and the central Highlands. Firstly, Alexander was replaced by Albany’s son, Murdoch, as justiciar north of Forth.32 In addition, Murdoch began to use the title lord of the Appin of Dull.33 The Appin of Dull covered much of the western half of the earldom of Atholl and encompassed Strath Tay, Fortingall and Glen Lyon. Murdoch’s use of the title coincided with the resignation by Isabella, countess of Fife, of her claims to Loch Tay, the Isle of Loch Tay, Strath Tay, Strathbraan and the barony of Strathord in favour of Murdoch’s father Robert, earl of Fife, on 12 August 1389.34 At around the same time Fife was given possession of another element of the Appin of Dull with a grant of the lands and barony of Fortingall.35 Isabella’s resignation and the grant of Fortingall meant that the earl of Fife and his son now sought to exercise control over a block of territory in Atholl and northern Perthshire stretching north and east from the barony of Glen Dochart which Fife had had in his possession since 1375.36 After Fife’s agreement with Duncan, earl of Lennox, in February 1392, the likelihood was that Robert’s heir, Murdoch, would personally control a huge unified territorial lordship embracing the earldoms of Lennox and Menteith, Glen Dochart, Glen Lyon, Loch Tay, Fortingall, Strath Tay, Strathbraan and Strathord.

The co-ordinated territorial and jurisdictional expansion made into the Appin of Dull by the Albany Stewarts in 1389 directly supplanted Alexander Stewart. In 137237 Alexander had been styled lord of Badenoch and royal justiciar in the “Abthania” of Dull when he held a justiciar court at Dull, and in 1374 Stewart was said to be intromitting with the rents due to the crown from the Appin of Dull.38 In addition, Alexander Stewart had received possession of lands in Rannoch and Fortingall in October 1379.39

The earl of Fife’s assault on Alexander Stewart in 1389 may well have been complicated by the death, sometime in that year, of their younger brother David Stewart, earl of Strathearn and Caithness. David’s death left his young daughter, Euphemia, as heiress to the earldoms of Strathearn and Caithness and the barony and castle of Urquhart on the western shore of Loch Ness. On 19 June 137140 Robert II had granted David, earl of Strathearn, the barony of Urquhart with an entail, on the failure of David’s heirs, in favour of David’s elder brother Alexander, lord of Badenoch. Alexander’s position as heir by entail to the barony of Urquhart and his established powerbase in Badenoch no doubt explain why he was given an assedation of Urquhart by his younger brother. By the time of a general council of June 1385,41 however, the arrangement had broken down and David, earl of Strathearn, presented a complaint against Alexander, narrating that his brother was withholding the fermes of the barony and illegally occupying the lands and castle. The case was given over to the arbitration of Alexander and David’s brothers in the hope of finding an amicable settlement.

After David Stewart’s death the position of his daughter Euphemia as heiress to Urquhart must have been vulnerable to disruption by her uncle, Alexander Stewart, who was the heir by entail and probably in actual possession of the barony. From 1389 to 1392, however, Alexander Stewart’s hold on all his Highland territories was undermined by a series of campaigns led by Fife and his son Murdoch, in which men committed to the defence of the heritage of Euphemia Stewart played a prominent part. For example, Walter Stewart of Brechin (later earl of Atholl and Caithness), David’s younger brother, received payments for his expenses in remote parts in the exchequer sessions of March 1392 and February 1393.42 In addition, Walter collected the sums owed to his cousin Sir Walter Stewart of Railston, who was similarly employed in remote parts in 1391–3.43 Walter Stewart of Brechin, who was described as justiciar general in 1391,44 had been appointed as one of the tutors of his niece, Euphemia Stewart, countess of Strathearn, before 5 March 1390,45 while Sir Walter Stewart of Railston had been a feed retainer of David, earl of Strathearn, during the 1380s,46 and both men were identified as members of Earl David’s council in 1381,47 along with Robert, earl of Fife. David Lindsay, lord of Glenesk (the future earl of Crawford), was a brother-in-law of David, earl of Strathearn, and also became a tutor of Euphemia Stewart after Earl David’s death. It was no doubt these men who had supported David Stewart’s earlier complaint against Alexander Stewart’s occupation of Urquhart in 1385.

One of the targets of the campaigns in which Walter Stewart of Brechin and Sir Walter Stewart of Railston were involved is indicated by a payment, in the same section of the accounts, to Thomas Chisholm for four months’ custody and provisioning of the castle of Urquhart at a rate “pro mensem quator decim libriis de voluntate Regis”.48 This was obviously an emergency rate which would have resulted in a huge annual payment of £168, more than four times the pension given to Robert Chisholm for the keepership of Urquhart in the 1360s.49 Although Thomas Chisholm had some connections with Alexander Stewart,50 he was obviously regarded as a dependable custodian by 12 October 1391,51 when he was given possession of Urquhart.

The garrisoning of Urquhart was just one part of the wider military and political campaign unleashed by Fife against Alexander Stewart. In early 1392, two of Alexander’s sons, Duncan and Robert, and some of their beleaguered adherents from Atholl, Badenoch and Wester Ross launched a counter-attack into south-eastern Perthshire and Angus which resulted in a pitched battle at Glen Brerachan52 or Glasclune53 in which David Lindsay of Glenesk was wounded and Sir Walter Ogilvie, sheriff of Angus, killed. The Atholl kindreds involved in the foray, most notably the Clan Donnachaidh or Robertsons under Robert of Atholl and Patrick and Thomas Duncanson, were probably directly threatened by the earl of Fife’s encroachment into the Appin of Dull, Strathbraan and Loch Tay in 1389, as well as having their own territorial dispute with David Lindsay over the lands of Glenesk. Duncan Andrewson, head of the Clan Donnachaidh in the 1340s, was to be found concluding indentures at Dull in 134754 and acting as the chief forester of Braan in 1345.55 In 1358, Duncan Andrewson’s son, Robert, was identified as occupying various lands in Atholl and Fortingall.56 The wide geographical distribution of those accused of being involved in the death of Walter Ogilvie57 indicates that the expedition of 1392 was far more than a large scale cattle raid, rather it was a co-ordinated politico-military response to the earl of Fife’s attack on Alexander Stewart and kindreds associated with him in Atholl, Badenoch, Wester Ross and elsewhere.

Control of northern Perthshire and the defence of his recent territorial acquisitions in the Appin of Dull must have remained a vital consideration for the earl of Fife through the 1390s. Fife’s interests in territorial and jurisdictional terms were indicated by his creation as duke of Albany on 28 April 1398,58 a title which suggested and, indeed, reflected a dominant role in the Scottish kingdom north of the Forth. The Albany Stewarts’ control of crown resources and royal policy in the north was, however, increasingly threatened during the 1390s by David, earl of Carrick (the future Rothesay), who began to participate in campaigns in the Highlands from 1395–6 onwards.59 The Atholl grant of 6 September 1398 gave the young and vigorous heir to the throne a territorial foothold in a highly sensitive area. While the grant, in itself, was not necessarily a disturbing development for Albany, Rothesay seems to have made his uncle Alexander Stewart, lord of Badenoch, Albany’s arch-rival in northern Perthshire, bailie of the earldom at some point before the Martinmas term of 1401.60 Furthermore, in the general council of January 1399 which created Rothesay the king’s lieutenant, it was stipulated that the three sons of Sir Alexander Stewart “the qwylkis ar now in prison in the castle of Stryvelyng” should be handed over to the new lieutenant and that “he be obligitt to gerr thaim be kepit fermly and nocht be deliverit but consail general or parlement”.61 Alexander Stewart’s imprisoned sons (probably including Duncan and Robert Stewart who had been involved in the great raid of 1392), who had led the Atholl kindreds in resisting Albany’s occupation of the Appin of Dull in the early 1390s, were thus to be taken out of the custody of Albany, who was keeper of Stirling Castle, and handed over to Rothesay. Rothesay may already have indicated his own less hostile attitude towards Alexander Stewart by making him bailie of Atholl, and in these circumstances it was probably Albany and his Perthshire allies who insisted that Rothesay should be sworn not to release Alexander’s sons without the express consent of a general council or parliament.

By 1398/9 there were good strategic reasons for a revival in Alexander Stewart’s political fortunes, because the duke of Albany’s Highland policy had been reduced to tatters by Donald, lord of the Isles, and his brother Alexander, lord of Lochaber. Albany’s assault on Alexander Stewart’s personal lordship in 1389 had opened up areas which had previously been defended by the lord of Badenoch to encroachment by the MacDonalds and their client kindreds, who at that stage were probably regarded by Albany as useful allies in the attack on Alexander Stewart. From his stronghold in Lochaber, Alexander of the Isles pushed north and east into the Great Glen. By an indenture of 25 September 139462 Thomas, earl of Moray, and Alexander of the Isles agreed that the latter would defend the lands of the regality of Moray for a period of seven years. Alexander was to support the earl of Moray against all men except the king, the earl of Fife, and the lord of the Isles. In return for Alexander’s “protection”, the earl was to give Alexander eighty merks annually, sixty merks of which were to be raised from the lands of Bona (which had been held by Alexander Stewart since 1386) and Essich at the northern end of Loch Ness, with a further twenty merk payment to be arranged “cum consilio domini comitis de Fyffe”. Alexander of the Isles had thus gained control of the northern end of Loch Ness and the vital approaches to Inverness and the Moray coastal plain. The castle of Urquhart, on the western shore of Loch Ness, which Alexander Stewart had occupied and defended in the 1370s and 1380s seems to have fallen to Alexander of the Isles between 1395,63 when Thomas Chisholm received his last payment as custodian, and April 1398,64 when a parliament largely concerned with co-ordinating an expedition against Alexander of the Isles discussed the need to place a trustworthy constable in Urquhart until the kingdom was pacified. Traditional accounts of the Clan Maclean suggest that it was in the last decade of the fourteenth century that Charles Maclean, a younger son of the Duart family, followed Alexander’s advance into the Great Glen and established a cadet branch of the Macleans, known as the Clan Tearlach, in Urquhart and Glenmoriston, where they acted as hereditary custodians of Urquhart and Bona Castles, both formerly held by Alexander Stewart, for the MacDonalds.65 Certainly by 2 June 144066 Charles’ son Hector “Tarlackson” was described as “senescallum de Urchard”. In addition to these advances in the Great Glen, Donald of the Isles’ elder half-brother, Godfrey, is reputed to have launched a huge sea-borne campaign against Skye during the 1390s which was beaten off by the Clan Macleod.67 The lordship of Skye was held by the earls of Ross, and had been given over to Alexander Stewart on his marriage to Euphemia Stewart, countess of Ross, in 1382.68 Robert, earl of Fife, seems to have encouraged Euphemia’s divorce from Alexander Stewart in the period 1389–92,69 a policy which served Fife’s purpose of weakening Alexander Stewart’s position, but left Skye and Wester Ross vulnerable to incursions from the MacDonald lordship. The collapse of Albany’s Highland policy and of co-operation with Donald, lord of the Isles, was probably another element behind the complaints of January 1399 which justified the transfer of effective royal power to the duke of Rothesay.

In a sense, Albany’s success in the Lennox and Perthshire during the period 1389–1398 illustrates why political tension between Albany and Rothesay was inevitable. Albany’s territorial expansion had been built on his ability to control crown resources and patronage. In the Lennox in particular, Albany had used the gift of royal offices to augment, or attempt to augment, the inheritance of his own son, Murdoch Stewart. In order to preserve or build on these territorial gains, Albany needed to maintain a high degree of control over royal policies, a position which was increasingly threatened by Rothesay, the vigorous and assertive heir to the throne. At the outset of Rothesay’s lieutenancy, Albany’s position and interests were safeguarded, to some extent, by the special council assigned to govern and advise the lieutenant, a council which included several men, such as Thomas Dunbar, earl of Moray, and Alexander Leslie, earl of Ross (Albany’s son-in-law), who were closely associated with, and beneficiaries of, Albany’s policies in the early 1390s. In the autumn of 1401, shortly before his “arrest”, Rothesay seems to have rejected this Albany-dominated council.70

The seizure of Rothesay, undated in Bower’s account, must have occurred between 22 February and 18 March 1402 if Bower’s incidental observation that the duke was at liberty in Edinburgh when a strange and striking comet appeared, and that he had been made captive by the time the comet faded, is correct.71 The exact duration of the comet’s appearance in 1402 can be gleaned from highly accurate Chinese, Japanese and Korean observations, which show that the comet became visible in the far east on 20 February 1402 and faded from sight on 19 or 20 March.72 Given Scotland’s northerly latitude the comet probably became visible there a day or two later, and disappeared a day or two earlier, than in Japan and Korea. If we accept these terminal dates for Rothesay’s arrest, then Bower’s assertion that the duke was on his way to the castle of St. Andrews (which, in Bower’s phrase, was ready to surrender to him) becomes rather curious. The bishopric had been technically vacant since the death of Bishop Walter Trail before 1 July 1401.73 Bower suggests that Rothesay’s counsellors, including Sir John Ramornie and Sir William Lindsay of Rossie, had encouraged the duke to occupy the bishop’s castle on the king’s behalf until a new bishop was formally entered. This would leave an unexplained gap of at least eight months between Bishop Trail’s death and Rothesay’s attempt to occupy the episcopal castle in late February or early March 1402. Rothesay had, however, been active in the area around St. Andrews in the period between Trail’s death and his own arrest. At some point between 10 June 1401 and 20 February 1402 the duke had been involved in a siege of Reres Castle in Kilconquhar parish near Elie.74 The owner of the recently constructed castle was Sir John Wemyss of Reres.75 Aside from the attack on his castle, Sir John Wemyss’ lands were taken into royal control towards the end of the Martinmas term of 1401.76 Sir John Wemyss’ forfeiture and the besieging of his castle by Rothesay may have been related to the duke’s attempt to occupy St. Andrews, since Sir John had served as the constable of the episcopal castle from 18 June 138377 to 6 July 1400,78 when he granted his second son, Alexander, the lands of Kilmany, Lathocker, Muirston and others near St. Andrews, together with the constableship of the castle. That there had been some resistance to Rothesay is implied in Bower’s comment that the castle was ready to surrender to the duke in February/March 1402. As the siege machines which were eventually employed against Reres were actually constructed in St. Andrews, it is possible that the episcopal castle itself was under some form of siege in early 1402.79 Rothesay’s disagreement with Wemyss of Reres may well have increased the tension between the lieutenant and his uncle Robert, duke of Albany, during the winter of 1401-2. Albany, as royal chamberlain, ordered the payments for the siege of Reres and for Rothesay’s expenses in these operations,80 but his own relationship with Sir John Wemyss was far from hostile. As earl of Fife, Albany was Wemyss’ feudal superior (although in June 140081 this tenurial relationship had given rise to a serious disagreement between Albany and Wemyss), and in November 139982 Albany had acted as a surety for Wemyss’ future good behaviour towards Walter Lindsay, with whom Wemyss was in dispute, during a parliamentary lawsuit between Lindsay and Wemyss. Sir John was an occasional witness to charters issued by Albany,83 and the duke had witnessed the arrangements for the marriage of Sir John’s eldest son, Duncan, to a daughter of Sir Thomas Erskine.84 Moreover, Sir John Wemyss was speedily rehabilitated in the months after Rothesay’s death. By 24 May 140285 Sir John’s lands had been restored to him, and it seems likely that this arrangement was made in the general council of 16-20 May 1402, which confirmed the political ascendancy of Albany and the earl of Douglas after Rothesay’s death.

On 8 November 140286 Sir John Wemyss witnessed a great seal charter issued by Robert III at Southannan in northern Ayrshire, in favour of John Berclay of Kippo, the son of another prominent Albany adherent from the earldom of Fife.87 Sir John Wemyss’ appearance in Ayrshire confirmed not only his own remarkable political revival during 1402 but also the dominance established by the duke of Albany after Rothesay’s death. It seems probable that it was Sir John Wemyss or his son, Alexander, who had had custody of Rothesay for the few days that the duke was kept in St. Andrews Castle before his transfer to Falkland. The rather sudden change by which the constable of St. Andrews offered to surrender the castle to Rothesay in February/March 1402, and then became his gaoler after the duke had been captured on his way to St. Andrews, might suggest that Rothesay was the victim of a carefully co-ordinated trap in which most of the chief actors were strongly linked to Albany.

Rothesay’s determination to take control of the bishopric of St. Andrews seems to have been prompted by two issues. The first of these was what may have been a developing power struggle over who should succeed Walter Trail as bishop. Thomas Stewart, a half-brother of Robert III, was elected by the St. Andrews chapter as Trail’s successor on 1 July 1401,88 but papal confirmation of Stewart’s position was delayed by problems at the papal court. By early 1402, Robert, duke of Albany, may have been pressing the claims of Walter Danielston. Shortly after Rothesay’s death Albany met his half brother Thomas, the bishop elect, at Abernethy and persuaded him to resign his claims to the bishopric in favour of Danielston.89 Albany’s aim in obtaining the bishopric for Danielston was, of course, the removal of the troublesome cleric from Dumbarton Castle. Danielston’s insertion into St. Andrews was, we are told,

Agane conscience of mony men: Bot like it wes to

stanch then, Wykkit dedis, mony and fell, Be the stuff

oysit off that Castell [Dumbarton].90

When Danielston died around Christmas 1402 it was claimed that he had held the bishopric for little over half a year.91 This would suggest that Thomas Stewart’s resignation and Danielston’s disputed promotion to St. Andrews both occurred in May or June 1402, shortly after Rothesay’s death. Albany’s initial approach to Danielston with the offer of the bishopric may, however, have been made in February or March 1402 at a time when Rothesay’s relations with both Albany and Robert III were strained.92 If Albany was close to achieving a settlement favourable to his own interests in the Lennox, an issue which had been of great importance at the start of Rothesay’s lieutenancy, then the young heir to the throne’s attempt to secure control of the bishop’s castle would be an understandable response.

A second consideration which may have spurred Rothesay into action was the collection of the episcopal revenues during the vacancy of the see. St. Andrews was the richest bishopric in the kingdom with an annual income estimated, for taxation purposes, at £3,507 in 1366.93 The vacancy should have provided a huge fiscal windfall for the crown, and an attempt by Rothesay to occupy the bishop’s castle by force and personally supervise the episcopal finances would fit in well with the increasingly aggressive and independent position taken up by the young duke in the late autumn of 1401. Any such move would also have brought Rothesay into direct conflict with the crown’s principal financial officer Robert, duke of Albany, the chamberlain. Albany’s control of royal finances would also seem to have been threatened in late 1401 by Rothesay’s increased use of the right to uplift royal customs revenue directly, a power which had been granted to him as part of his commission of lieutenancy in January 1399.94 In the months after May-June 1401 Rothesay visited a number of east coast burghs – Edinburgh, Dundee, Montrose and Aberdeen – to take money directly from their custumars.95 In Montrose and Dundee the custumars had to be persuaded to hand over their money through the application of physical violence by Rothesay and his adherents. In Montrose, the custumar John Tyndale was abducted and imprisoned by Rothesay until he handed over twenty-four pounds, regardless of the fact that Tyndale and his fellow custumar Andrew Panter had already given over all the customs revenues they had received to Albany’s deputy chamberlain, Walter Tulloch.96

Rothesay’s increased assertiveness in late 1401 is presented by Walter Bower, who is highly sympathetic to Albany, in terms of the young duke’s return to unruly and frivolous behaviour after the death of his mother, Queen Annabella Drummond, in August/September 1401.97 Stripped of its anti- Rothesay bias, Bower’s account is a simple description of the rejection by Rothesay of the Albany dominated “special council” which had been appointed to supervise and regulate his lieutenancy in January 1399.98 Rothesay seems to have had little or no contact with his father’s court in the second half of 140199 and ceased to witness royal charters issued after 12 May 1401.100 Bower’s description of Rothesay’s behaviour shortly before his arrest as unruly and intemperate probably reflects the propaganda position established by Albany and Douglas in 1402 in order to justify Rothesay’s imprisonment and death. That this view of Rothesay was widely circulated is suggested by the fact that the contemporary English chronicler, John Shirley (1366–1456), who does not appear to have had access to Bower’s work, follows a strikingly similar line, talking of the “vicious living of that saide Duke of Rothsay . . .” and how the nobles of Scotland were

“. . . soare dreiding

if he hadde reynede afther hys fader that many . . .

misfortunes and vengeances might have followyd and

fallen uppon al that region by cause of his lyff soo

openly knowen vicious”.101

The notion underlying Shirley’s account, that the arrest and death of the twenty-four year old heir to the throne was a form of pre-emptive strike on the part of Albany, is perhaps given greater weight by Bower’s suggestion that Rothesay’s councillors were already encouraging the young duke to arrest his uncle.

The Bower/Shirley view of Rothesay’s intemperance was not, however, the only historical interpretation of the duke’s life. By the early sixteenth century there was, clearly, a distinct tradition which depicted Rothesay as a royal saint whose tomb at Lindores Abbey was the scene of miracles. William Stewart’s metrical version of Boece’s History of Scotland illustrated the clash between these two traditions. Although Stewart basically follows Boece and the narrative of Bower’s Scotichronicon in the discussion of Rothesay’s death, he self-consciously breaks away from Bower’s account to try to reconcile Bower’s critical description of Rothesay with an obviously widely-held belief that the duke was a saint.102 Especially significant is the assertion that Rothesay’s tomb at Lindores ceased to perform miracles after Rothesay’s younger brother James I had avenged his treasonable death.

An interesting feature of Bower’s account of Rothesay’s arrest is the prominence given to the actions of the two members of Rothesay’s retinue who actually seized the duke. One of the men, Sir John Ramornie, had acted as Rothesay’s chamberlain and received a retaining fee for his loyalty and service to the king and the duke of Rothesay.103 At the same time, however, Ramornie had been named as a member of the earl of Fife’s council in 1389104 and acted as a financial receiver for Murdoch Stewart, Albany’s son, in his capacity as justiciar north of Forth.105 Ramornie was thus ideally qualified to play the role of double agent assigned to him by Bower. Sir William Lindsay of Rossie, on the other hand, was said to have developed a grudge against Rothesay because the duke had been betrothed to Sir William’s sister, Euphemia, but had rejected her in order to marry Elizabeth Dunbar, a daughter of the earl of March.106 This would place Rothesay’s liaison with Euphemia Lindsay before 28 August 1395,107 when David, then earl of Carrick, received a papal dispensation to marry Elizabeth Dunbar with whom he had contracted marriage “per verba de futuro”.