Rating the Monarchs of Britain: Now Disc. George III

Next: Mary I

Mary when young: [image=http://www.jack-of-all-trades.ca/meandmine/ab18.jpg]

Mary when not so young: [image=http://englishhistory.net/tudor/monarchs/elizsister.jpg]

Reign 19 July 1553 ? 17 November 1558

Coronation 1 October 1553

Predecessor Jane (disputed) or Edward VI

Successor Elizabeth I

Co-monarch Philip

Queen consort of Spain

Tenure 16 January 1556 - 17 November 1558

Spouse Philip II of Spain

House House of Tudor

Father Henry VIII of England

Mother Catherine of Aragon

Born 18 February 1516(1516-02-18) Palace of Placentia, Greenwich

Died 17 November 1558 (aged 42) Saint James's Palace, London

Burial 14 December 1558 Westminster Abbey, London

Description: Contemporary description of Mary I

The Situation:

Descent: She was descended from John of Gaunt on her father's side (and twice on her mother's)

Character: It's impossible to understand Mary Tudor unless you understand the circumstances of her childhood. It was a happy one until about age 12, when her father started looking for a divorce. Mary was forced by him to forswear her parent's marriage, something that caused her enormous guilt, since she loved her mother deeply. She was also very religious. Her sudden ascension to the throne seemed to her an example of God's grace; she felt he was elevating her to restore Catholicism.

Her Marriage: Mary was 37 when she ascended the throne. She needed to marry immediately and get an heir to cut out her half-sister Elizabeth out of the succession. Her cousin Charles V of Spain (once engaged to her himself), offered her his son Philip, then aged 26, and already a widower with a son. He was eleven years younger, and Mary should have known better (her mother was 6 years older than her father). The marriage was extremely unpopular; the country felt they would become a dependency of Spain. A rebellion was put down, and the marriage went forward.

[image=http://www.wga.hu/art/t/tiziano/10/22/10philip.jpg]

Pregnancy: "Mary, thinking she was pregnant, had thanksgiving services at the diocese of London in November 1554. This turned out to be the first of two phantom pregnancies. Various theories, such as cysts, have been put forward to explain her condition, but it was likely psychological in nature.[citation needed] Philip persuaded his wife to permit Elizabeth's release from house arrest, probably so that he would be viewed favourably by her in case Mary died in childbirth.[citation needed] Soon after the disgrace of the false pregnancy, Philip headed off to Flanders to command his armies against France. Mary was heartbroken and soon fell into deep depression."

Religion:

"As Queen, Mary was very concerned about heresy and the English church. She had always rejected the break with Rome instituted by her father and the establishment of Protestantism by Edward VI. She had England reconcile with Rome and Reginald Cardinal Pole, the son of her governess the Countess of Salisbury (who was beheaded for treason by Mary's father Henry VIII) and once considered a suitor, became Archbishop of Canterbury; Mary had his predecessor Thomas Cranmer burned at the stake. Mary came to rely greatly on Pole for advice.

Edward's religious laws were abolished by Mary's first Parliament in the Statute of Repeal Act (1553). Church doctrine was restored to the form it had taken in the 1547 Six Articles.

Mary also persuaded Parliament to repeal the Protestant religious laws passed by Henry VIII. Getting their agreement took several years, and she had to make a major concession: tens of thousands of acres of monastery lands confiscated under Henry were not to be returned because the new landowners created by this distribution were very influential. This was approved by the Papacy in 1554. The Revival of the Heresy Acts were also passed in 1554."

Reginald Pole was an unfortunate choice as Archbishop; like Mary he was burdened with guilt over the fate of his mother, whom Henry VIII executed for his opinions. A fanatic, he

 

Mary likely had a chronic insecurity in her position. Like many rulers who took the religious divide too seriously, she turned it into a major internal issue. France had similar (in fact larger) concerns with the Hugenots.

Mary wasn't particularly heartless though: there's a fair indication that she actually had the intention of sparing Lady Jane's life until additional rebellions made that course of action apparently untenable. She also could have gone the extra mile and had Elizabeth executed, but refrained.

Of course the lack of doing something isn't as much an indication of character as opposed to what someone actually DID do -- like execute 200+ people -- but it's worth mentioning.

 

'Tis true that she didn't want to execute Jane Grey at first; but she did do it eventually, though Jane was 17 and guiltless, essentially.

She was determined to execute Elizabeth, too; but Philip made the save in that case. The reason was political. The next blood heir was Mary, Queen of Scots, who was then married to the Dauphin of France. Thus England would fall out of the sphere of Spain and into that of France, Philip's enemy. So he forbade Mary's plan to chop her sister, which frustrated Mary no end; by this time she loathed Elizabeth. He felt he could arrange a Hapsburg marriage for Elizabeth--to himself or someone else, and keep England in the Spanish Empire.

Don't misunderstand, Mary was a pious 'good' woman and all that. She should have been a decent Queen of England, but she wasn't mainly because of religious fanaticism. Elizabeth took note of this when she came to the throne.

 

She did refuse, but was beaten for it. And Jane Grey was just 16, not 17 when she was executed/murdered.

 

There are varying accounts. And judicial murder was a Tudor specialty.

 

Next: Elizabeth I

Reign 17 November 1558 ? 24 March 1603

Coronation 15 January 1559

Predecessor Mary I

Successor James I

House House of Tudor

Father Henry VIII

Mother Anne Boleyn

Born 7 September 1533

Greenwich, England

Died 24 March 1603 (aged 69)

Richmond, England

Burial Westminster Abbey

Husband: N/A

Children: N/A

Description: About 5'3", sharp featured, thin, red-headed, dark-eyed, pale with long fingers, she resembled her grandfather, Henry VII more than her father.

At 14: [image=http://www.jack-of-all-trades.ca/meandmine/ab15.jpg]

At 25: [image=http://www.elizabethan-portraits.com/Elizabeth114.jpg]

At 40: [image=http://www.blackworkarchives.com/art/pelican-clean.jpg]

Descent: Descended from Edward I on both sides.

Character: Very intelligent and acutely neurotic, a feature of her troubled youth. Elizabeth simply could not make up her mind about anything. Because she was so intelligent, she was able to transform her indecisiveness into a viable ruling style, combined with her shrewdness and generally good judgment of character (it would fail her only in men she was sexually attracted to--and they were all of one style and completely worthless (they were: Thomas Seymour; Robert Dudley; and the Earl of Essex). Volatile, temperamental and tough, her counselors were afraid of her and exasperated by her.

The Situation: When Mary I died, Elizabeth was proclaimed Queen, and she had to settle the vexed question of religion. Having seen her siblings err on both ends of the spectrum, she settled in the middle, staking our moderate Protestantism and sticking with it. She was a religious conservative, but not a fanatic about anything. If anyone was executed in her reign, it was for treason, not religion, and she could be heard muttering that it didn't matter how one worshiped, as long as one did. This settlement held throughout her reign.

The Succession: Her counselors urged Elizabeth to marry, but she did not do so. Historians speculated (stupidly) that she knew she was sterile (how the hell would she know that?) or that she had been put off marriage by her mother's fate. The latter issue was undoubtedly a feature of her eventual non-marriage, but the real problem was her chronic indecisiveness. The contrasting fates of her sister, Mary I, and her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, showed her the difficulties involved. Mary I had married a foreign King, and her subjects feared his religion, and being subsumed into his Empire. Her cousin, Mary, Queen of Scots, married a subject, who incessantly plotted against her in order to become king in his own right. Both marriages were utter failures. This is not to say Elizabeth could not have married, but she needed someone like William Cecil, and was attracted to lightweights like Robert Dudley. In the end, fearful of making a reign-ending mistake, like Mary Stuart, she simply put it off until the point was moot.

Achievements: "Elizabeth was lamented, but many people were relieved at her death.[189] Expectations of King James were high, and at first they were met, with the ending of the war against Spain in 1604 and lower taxes. Until the death of Robert Cecil in 1612, the government ran along much the same lines as before.[190] James's rule, however, became unpopular when he turned state affairs over to court favourites, and in the 1620s there was a nostalgic revival of the cult of Elizabeth.[191] Elizabeth was praised as a heroine of the Protestant cause and the ruler of a golden age. James was depicted as a Catholic sympathiser, presiding over a corrupt court.[192] The triumphalist image that Elizabeth had cultivated towards the end of her reign, against a background of factionalism and military and economic difficulties,[193] was taken at face value and her reputation inflated. Godfrey Goodman, Bishop of Gloucester, recalled: "When we had experience of a Scottish government, the Queen did seem to revive. Then was her memory much magnified."[194]

Elizabeth's reign became idealised as a time when crown, church and parliament had

 

Elizabeth was not very popular when she died, but then she was followed by the Stuarts, the most egregiously incompetent dynasty ever to rule in England.

Sounds in some ways like England's version of President Truman. Not much loved when they went, but afterwards everyone was feeling the love.

I agree about the Stewarts and thier incompetence being extremely bad and perhaps the worst consecutive reigns since 1066, but I'll say again as I've said before: if your most incompetent dynasty and kings are considered to be the Stuarts, you can consider your nation fortunate indeed. I might be mistaken but I'm sure a lot of fellows in other nations might trade a Charles for a Louis XV or Nicholas II.

Of course, one might say that it's to the credit of the English as a country that they were able to put the brakes on thier own monarch. Without, you know, a Committee of Public Safety and all.

 

Some of her success has to be attributed the straightforward benefits of a long reign. If there was a failing of Elizabeth's reign it was the lack of focus on establishing a colonial presence in the new world. True, Elizabeth built up England as a naval power, but its focus was largely conducting piracy operations against the Spanish. When James became king he ended the Spanish conflict, but St. Kitts was the only successful British colony in the new world established during his reign.

It was really the Dutch, riding a wave of wealth built first on herring and then later on the spice trade, who rose to dominate international commerce during and immediately after his reign. Elizabeth's death coincides with the founding and rise of the Dutch East India company. But then again to some extent it was probably the hegemony of the Dutch in Southeast Asian trade that encouraged England to focus on North America. A half century after Elizabeth's death the English would have to fight a seemingly endless series of wars with the Dutch to establish naval and colonial dominance in the Caribbean and North American east coast. And it took Oliver Cromwell to make that happen.

 

I would trade Charles I for a plugged nickel. A complete and absolute moron. But we'll get to that.

You're right about Oliver Cromwell.

 

Sidebar: The Scottish Succession: When Elizabeth died, no successor had been named (she refused to do so). She had no children, nieces, or nephews. That left cousins, the descendants of Henry VIII's two sisters, Margaret, Queen of Scotland, and Mary, Duchess of Suffolk.

The Will of her father, Henry VIII, specifically cut out the descendants of his sister, Margaret, possibly because he disliked her, possibly because he disliked the Scots. Margaret had two surviving children, James V of Scotland, and Lady Margaret Douglas. James had one surviving child, Mary, Queen of Scots, who married the elder of Lady Margaret Douglas' two sons, Henry, Lord Darnley. They had one child, James VI. Darnley's younger brother, Charles, had one daughter, Lady Arbella Stuart.

Henry VIII preferred the descendants of his younger sister, Mary. She had two surviving daughters, the eldest being Frances, the mother of Lady Jane Grey. Frances had three daughters, only one of which, Katherine Grey, had children; the Dukes of Somerset were descended from her. Mary Tudor's younger daughter, Eleanor, had one daughter, Margaret Clifford. Margaret Clifford had two daughters and two sons.

Elizabeth's main advisers had decided however, that her heir would be James VI of Scotland. He was the heir general (the senior claimant), a male, an experienced King, a Protestant, and had children of his own. Robert Cecil, for example, was in contact with James for years before Elizabeth died, and carefully worked for a seamless succession.

But James had problems: he was a Scot, for one, and a Stuart, for another.

The Scots were unpopular with the English for reasons good. If the English exploited troubles in Scotland, the Scots did exactly the same thing in England. Any civil unrest in England was not complete without a Scottish invasion. These were seldom successful, but they caused dreadful suffering in Northern England.

The Stuarts had been Kings of Scotland for two hundred years, and they were a remarkably untalented dynasty. They became Kings of Scotland in the same way they became Kings of England: they inherited it from tougher and more talented relatives. To understand the Stuarts, who are the pivotal dynasty in English history, we will have to go back to the old Kings of Scotland.

 

The Scottish monarchy was founded by one Alpin, in the 9th century, so that the first identifiable dynasty was that of MacAlpin. This dynasty was succeeded by that of Dunkeld in 1034 via a daughter of Malcolm II, and continued until 1290, when it ended with the Maid of Norway.

We'll start with the first ruler of the House of Dunkeld, which you will recognize if you've read "MacBeth" by Wm. Shakespeare: Duncan I.

At this point, Scotland practiced tanistry, which meant the succession switched between two branches of the same family. The idea was that the fittest male would succeed when a proper war leader was necessary for survival. Duncan was a member of one branch of the Scottish royal family, and MacBeth was a member of another. And MacBeth certainly killed Duncan, but it seems to have been in battle. Nobody thought anything about that; it was common practice. MacBeth ruled 17 years, 1040 to 1057, about the same time as Edward the Confessor in England; and there were no complaints about tyranny; he was quite popular.

MacBeth was married to a lady rejoicing (or not) in the name of Gruoch, a granddaughter of a former King of Scotland. They had no children, but she had a son by a previous marriage, Lulach, who briefly succeeded MacBeth, after Malcolm III killed him in battle.

 

And then:

Malcolm III (aka 'Canmore' or 'Big Head')(1031-1993), son of MacBeth's predecessor, Duncan, ruled Scotland for 35 years after MacBeth's death. He married twice; the second wife was the Margaret, granddaughter of Edmund Ironside of England. She is currently unpopular in Scottish historical circles because of her Anglicizing ways. Their two daughters became Henry I's Queen and the mother of Stephen I's wife, respectively.

With Malcolm's death, tanistry reared its head yet again, and Malcolm's brother Donaldbane and Malcolm's 9 sons fought it out for the throne.

First up was:
Donaldbane: 1093-94
Duncan II: 1094 (killed in battle)
Donaldbane: 1094-97 jointly with his nephew Edmund I
Edgar I: (1097-1107)
Alexander I: (1107-1124)
David I: (1124-53)

Thereafter, Scotland practiced primogeniture.

 

David I's son Henry predeceased him, but from him are descended all the serious claimants in the Competition for the Throne that developed after his line died out in the male line. David was succeeded by his grandson Malcolm IV, who died unmarried, aged 23. He was succeeded by his brother, William I (1165-1214). William had one son, Alexander II (1214-49). Alexander II had one son, Alexander III, who had two surviving children: Margaret (the mother of the Maid of Norway) and Alexander, who died at the age of 20. Alexander had married again in the hope of more children, when one stormy night, he rode his horse over a cliff. He was 36 years old, and when his six year old granddaughter, the Maid of Norway died on her way to Scotland, the line of Dunkeld was extinct in the main line, and there was a Competition for the Throne between various claimants. Yes, this is where "Braveheart" starts.

 

I love this thread!! Good stuff!! Are you going to continue the Chaos in Scotland for awhile or is it back to England?

 

Hey Zaz, got a question.

Can you come and teach my Brit history class? So far you're making it a lot more interesting than my history professor is.

Kir

 

We are going to cover the "Braveheart" period, the Bruces and the Stewarts down to James VI, and we will rejoin the English succession at the point he inherits the English throne in 1603. The Stuarts then proceed to make a terrific cock-up of everything, but there were two highly competent rulers in England during the 17th century: namely, Oliver Cromwell and William of Orange. Neither were Stuarts, big surprise.

I'm glad (and surprised) that someone is actually reading this thread.

 

I'm reading this thread.

I just haven't been posting much (no, scratch that, make it hardly at all) due to the reasons I listed earlier in the thread - namely shiftwork plus lack of knowledge of a number of these sovereigns. The only times I feel really compelled to post anything is if I feel I can add something somewhat useful to the discussion (such as clarifying Henry VIII's 'divorces').

But I agree with the others - your presentation so far has been excellent Zaz.

 

I think the following is the best summary of the "Braveheart" era I could find on the 'net:

"The Throne of Scotland and the First Interregnum"

A Brief Summary by
Stephen B. Walter, 2004

"Toward the end of his reign (1249-1286) Alexander III, king of Scots, suffered the death of all three of his children within a few years, making the question of his succession one of pressing importance. In 1284, upon the death of his eldest son Alexander, Alexander III induced the Estates to recognize as his heir-presumptive his granddaughter, Margaret, the ?Maid of Norway,? daughter of Eric II of Norway and his wife Margaret, daughter of Alexander III, who had died in childbirth.

Though the need for a male heir caused Alexander to marry a second time, to Yolande (or
Joletta) of Dreux, in 1285, his sudden death from a fall from his horse in March, 1286 set three-year-old Margaret on a path to become ruler of Scotland, and ushered in a time of political upheaval.

As the only surviving descendant of Alexander III, it was decided that Margaret would ascend to the throne under a regency of six nobles. Fearing that a young and powerless queen would incite civil war between rival claimants to the throne, the Scottish nobles appealed to Edward I of England to intervene. Eager to extend his own influence in Scotland, Edward arranged the Treaty of Birgham in 1290, by which Margaret was betrothed to his son the Prince of Wales (later Edward II of England), in return for an assurance of Scottish independence (though Edward I would serve as the young queen?s guardian.) Margaret was then about seven years old, and Edward about six.

Margaret set sail from Norway to her new realm in the late summer of 1290 and was expected to arrive in Orkney (at the time, still a Norwegian province) in the fall, and then travel to Scone to be inaugurated as queen, after which she would be married to Edward II in Perth. However, Margaret became ill during the sea voyage and died in September, soon after reaching the Orkney Islands.

In the two years that followed, Scotland was left with many claimants to the throne. Once again, Edward I was asked to intercede, and he spent a great deal of time between May 1291 and November 1292 dealing with the problem of the succession to the throne of the kingdom of
Scotland. Determination of the right to a crown conducted in the court of another king is
extraordinary in medieval history, and only King Edward?s desire to place the proceedings on
record allows us to understand the events.

On May 10, 1291 English and Scottish nobles, presided over by Edward, gathered in the parish
church at Norham, on the river Tweed. The proceedings were conducted in French, though most
of the surviving texts are in an elaborately formal Latin. An Englishman, Sir Roger Barbazon, one of Edward?s most capable justices, urged the Scots to recognize Edward as overlord of Scotland so the case could proceed with Edward acting as judge. Acknowledging Edward in that role was difficult for the Scots and caused a three-week adjournment.

When the proceedings resumed on June 2, 1291, they moved to the north bank of the Tweed
opposite Norham castle, in an open field called Holywell Haugh. At this point, Edward?s
spokesman was Robert Burnell, Bishop of Bath and Wells, chancellor of England, and a thirty year friend of Edward?s.

Burnell asked the eight claimants present to accept Edward?s judgment in his capacity as
overlord of Scotland, and they agreed. The following day, John Balliol and John Comyn made
their first appearance, put in their claims, and agreed to accept Edward?s judgment, bringing the total number of claimants to ten. There is some confusion about the order of events after this, but it is certain that nine competitors issued letters by which they accepted Edward as judge, and agreed that he should have possession of the lands of Scotland, on the condition that when the case was settled, Edward would restore the realm of Scotland to the successful candidate. This transaction is referred to as ?The Award of Norham.? (Edward?s position was th

 

Thanks, Zaz, that is really interesting history, new for me. Scotland remains, to this day, a fascinating place politically. I still don´t entirely understand how Great Britain fits together or how what political autonomy Scotland has is managed, but the history helps put it all into context.

 

Scottish history can be very confusing, especially as tanistry was not yet dead. Balliol may have been the proper candidate in primogeniture; but there was one problem: he wasn't strong enough to hold the throne.

Chaos ensues, with two real candidates emerging: Robert the Bruce and Edward I of England. Edward may or may not have been serious about conquering Scotland; he had managed Wales, but Scotland was larger, and presented far greater logistical problems. He may have been prepared to bite pieces off it, in exchange for going away.

Edward I was the better general, and as hard as nails, but Bruce had this advantage: he was younger. Bruce was no choirboy, either; he was perfidious in the extreme about oaths, and when required, he murdered one of the other candidates for the throne, John Comyn--he did it in person, too. He was excommunicated for that, but that didn't much bother him. When Edward died, in 1307, Bruce faced Edward II. He must have thought all his birthdays had come at once.

Anyway, a full assessment of him will be up tonight.

 

Next: Robert I aka "Robert the Bruce"

[image=http://www.englishmonarchs.co.uk/images/macalpin/robert_the_bruce.jpg]

Reign 1306?1329

Coronation 25 March, 1306

Full name Robert de Brus

Gaelic Roibert a Briuis

Middle English Robert the Bruys

Titles Earl of Carrick (ca 1292?1314), Lord of Annandale (1304?1312)

Born 11 July 1274(1274-07-11)

Birthplace Turnberry, Ayrshire, Scotland, [1][2]

Died 7 June 1329 (aged 54)

Place of death Cardross

Buried Dunfermline Abbey (Body) -- Melrose Abbey (Heart)

Predecessor John Balliol

Successor David II

Consorts:

1) Isabella of Mar

2) Elizabeth de Burgh

Children: (1)Marjorie Bruce, (2) David, John, Matilda and Margaret

Illegitimate children: 3 sons, 3 daughters

Royal House Bruce

Father Robert de Brus, 6th Lord of Annandale

Mother Marjorie of Carrick

The Situation: When John Balliol was selected King of Scotland by Edward I of England, Robert was, as the Scots says, cheesed. When Balliol and Edward fell out, he supported Edward and received plenty of favours from him. However, he defected back to the Scots after William Wallace won the Battle Stirling Bridge, in 1297, and stuck with the Scottish side for five years. He submitted to Edward in 1302.

In 1305, Wallace was caught and executed. Around this time, Bruce and Comyn supposedly (the source is Bruce, so beware) made a deal saying that Comyn would get Bruce's lands if Bruce became King and Comyn gave up his claim. Bruce accused Comyn of betraying this deal to Edward, and murdered Comyn (in a church, no less) during a quarrel (again, Bruce's version. I suspect this murder was entirely calculated). In any case, the die was now cast, Bruce had to become either king or a fugitive, especially as the he was excommunicated by the Church as a murderer.

Bruce was crowned King of Scotland seven weeks later, and for the next eight years ran a guerrilla campaign (mainly because the English tended to beat him in open battle, though not always). In 1314, his winning of the Battle of Bannockburn against the hapless Edward II confirmed his status. The English sued for peace, offering Edward's infant daughter as bride for Robert's son David, which was accepted.

Character: As noted Bruce was no choirboy, but given the temper of the times, he would not have lived long if he had been.

Achievements: The Kingdom of Scotland would remain independent for another three hundred years.

Rating: 8/10

 

The Kingdom of Scotland would remain independent for another three hundred years.

But this was not a settled thing at Bruce's death, and the issue would be tested in battle, repeatedly.

 

True. But as horribly contentious as the Scottish nobles were as a rule, once the Stewarts inherited they never quite pushed it to the point of open civil war over the monarchy despite the Stewarts' weakness, and for a reason; they were afraid the the English would then intervene. This, of course, did not stop the Stewarts from warring among themselves.

Bruce started a painful tradition; his surviving son, David II, was a child, and trouble, as they say, ensued.

 

robert the bruce and no mention of spiders ?

 

I'm arachnophobic.

Next: David II the Bruce

Reign 7 June 1329 ? 22 February 1371

Full name David Bruce

Titles Earl of Carrick

Born 5 March 1324(1324-03-05)

Birthplace Dunfermline

Died 22 February 1371 (aged 46)

Place of death Dundonald

Buried Holyrood Abbey

Predecessor Robert I

Successor Robert II

Consorts:

i) Joan of England
ii) Margaret Drummond

Children: None

Illegitimate Children: None

Dynasty Bruce

Father Robert I

Mother Elizabeth de Burgh

The Situation:

David was five years old when he succeeded his father. He was immediately dethroned by Edward Balliol, son of John, in the best traditions of tanistry. "Meanwhile, on 24 September 1332, following the Scots' defeat at Dupplin, Edward Balliol a protégé of Edward III of England, was crowned King of the Scots at Scone by the English and his Scots adherents. By December, however, Balliol was forced to flee to England but returned the following year as part of an invasion force led by the English king.[7] Following the victory of this force at the Battle of Halidon Hill in July 1333, David and his Queen were sent for safety into France, reaching Boulogne on 14 May 1334,[8] and being received very graciously by the French king, Philip VI. Little is known about the life of the Scottish king in France, except that Château-Gaillard was given to him for a residence, and that he was present at the bloodless meeting of the English and French armies in October 1339 at Vironfosse, now known as Buironfosse, in the Arrondissement of Vervins.
Joan & David II with Philip VI of France.

Meanwhile David's representatives had once again obtained the upper hand in Scotland, and the king was able to return to his kingdom, landing at Inverbervie in Kincardineshire on 2 June 1341, when he took the reins of government into his own hands.

In 1346 under the terms of the Auld Alliance, he invaded England in the interests of France, but was defeated and taken prisoner by John Coupeland at the Battle of Neville's Cross on 17 October 1346,[9] and remained in England for eleven years, living principally in London, at Odiham Castle in Hampshire and Windsor Castle in Berkshire. His imprisonment was not a rigorous one, and negotiations for his release were soon begun.

Eventually, on 3 October 1357, after several interruptions, a treaty was signed at Berwick-upon-Tweed by which the Scottish estates undertook to pay 100,000 marks as a ransom for their king. This was ratified by parliament at Scone on 6 November 1357.

David returned at once to Scotland; but owing to the poverty of the kingdom it was found impossible to raise the ransom. A few instalments were paid, but the king sought to get rid of the liability by offering to make Edward III, or one of his sons, his successor in Scotland. In 1364 the Scottish parliament indignantly rejected a proposal to make Lionel, Duke of Clarence, the next king; but David negotiated secretly with Edward III over this matter, after he had suppressed a rising of some of his unruly nobles."

The Succession: "After the death of Joan of England, David remarried about 20 February 1364, Margaret Drummond, widow of Sir John Logie, Knt., and daughter of Sir Malcolm Drummond, Knt." This time, to be sure he had an heir, he married a widow who had bourne a son. But they had no children, nor did David have any illegitimate children. He divorced his second wife and was contemplating a third marriage when he died. He was succeeded by his nephew Robert Stewart, son of his half-sister, Marjorie Bruce Stewart.

He hated Robert Stewart, and had wanted to cut him out of the succession. Unfortunately, no such luck.

Rating: 3/10