The Law of the Throne: Tanistry and the Introduction of the Law of Primogeniture: A Note on
the Succession of the Kings of Scotland from Kenneth MacAlpin to Robert Bruce
Author(s): J. H. Stevenson
Source: The Scottish Historical Review, Vol. 25, No. 97 (Oct., 1927), pp. 1-12
Published by: Edinburgh University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/25525771
Accessed: 30-10-2015 20:57 UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Edinburgh University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Scottish Historical
Review.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
Vol.
The
Review
Historical
Scottish
No.
XXV.,
97
1927
October,
and the Intro
Law of the Throne?Tanistry
:
duction of the Law of Primogeniture
A Note
on the Succession
of the Kings of Scotland from
to Robert Bruce
Kenneth MacAlpin
system which governed the succession of the early Celtic
kings of Scotland was akin though perhaps not identical
THE
of neighbouring
nations
in Scotland
the normal
the
with
tanistry
Whether
times.
of the same or earlier
course of the magnates
there is no doubt
of the people who had enthroned a king?for
were
that they pro
enthroned?was
that the kings
formally
'
'
ceeded forthwith to appoint a tanist (a second man who should
with
does not appear
be the king's
; but the regularity
successor)
were members
who
the kings were
collaterals
succeeded
which
by
in
branches
of distinct
and representatives
of the kingly
house
an alternative
that
these
to
the
conclusion
leads
order,
kings
to die ;
not selected
were
their predecessors
just when
happened
and
had happened,
that event
selected
before
but had been
a
nature
extent
to
and
of
The
deliberately,
according
plan.
more
in
the
this alternating
appears
clearly
perhaps
appointment
chart than it does
in unaccompanied
letterpress.1
accompanying
(844-860), the first of
(i) Kenneth I., surnamed MacAlpin
the Scottish house which succeeded to the throne of the Picts,
1 It will
be observed
that
at the top;
prised begin
dexter
at
the
of
succession
S.H.R.
side
to the
of
in the arrangement
of
the
chart
com
the generations
and in each successive family the seeming elder is placed
the younger.
The
numbers
within
brackets
mark
the order
throne.
VOL. XXV.
A
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
2
two sons,
had
wards
kings;
Stevenson
J. H.
Constantine
both of
(I.) and Aed,
successor
was
but his
immediate
them
after
his brother
Donald
(I.).
(2) Donald
I. (860-864), whether he had a son or not?there
is no record that he had one?was
son Constantine.
succeeded
eldest
by Kenneth's
I. (864-877) had a son, Donald, but was
(3) Constantine
succeeded by his brother Aed.
(4) Aed (877-878) in likemanner had a son, Constantine (II.),
a
but was succeeded
So far as the succession
Eocha.
by
nephew,
case
a
to
the
there?in
of Eocha?was
in accord
it was
collateral,
ance with
the rule in tanistry.
But W.
F. Skene
{Celtic Scotland,
i. 329)
out that Eocha was the son of a sister, not a brothe
points
son
of the
that the preferring
of the sister's
king, and is of opinion
son was a reversion
to Constantine
to the Pictish
the brother's
are
not
for the female
line. We
preference
sufficiently
perhaps
case.
with
this
who
of
Dr.
has
the
facts
Skene,
acquainted
more
than one reason
the probability
adduces
for his surmise,
seems also to
was
that Constantine
then under
age, but Eocha
a
or
to
have been under
have
and
had
governor
age,
guardian
in the government.
This
with
him
associated
guardian,
Girig
a Briton,
or
there
like Eocha,
was,
paternally
Grig,
apparently,
was
reason
to think, Eocha's
He
is some
very
grand-uncle.
the real king during Eocha's
reign.
possibly
(5) Eocha and Girig (878-889), after a short reign, were
Of Eocha and his line
pupil and guardian.
expelled?both
more
nothing
previous
Donald
order
(II.),
(6) Donald
years,
colm,
Aed.
the
of
II. (8 89-900), after a very short reign of about two
was
slain in battle
but was succeeded
(7) Constantine
throne?not
of Malcolm
was
ended
his
reign
in the person
resumed,
is known
; and after
was
of the succession
son
the
of Constantine.
the Danes.
with
by his
cousin,
II. (900-942),
left a son, Mal
son of
Constantine
(II.),
He
after a long reign, resigned the
but in favour
son, however,
Donald
and predecessor,
II.
in favour of Indulf, his
son of his cousin
(I.), the
left two sons, Dubh and Ken
I. (942-954)
(8) Malcolm
their turn ; but his immediate
them
in
both
of
neth (IL),
kings
was
successor
Indulf,
his
second
cousin,
the
son
of
his
pre
decessor.
(9) Indulf
succeeded
(954-962),
by his predecessor
again,
left a son, Cuilean,
Malcolm's
eldest
but was
son, Dubh.
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Law of the Throne
The
1) Kenneth I. (MacAlpin), 844-860
I_
(3) Constantine I. 864-877
(2) Donald I. 860-864
(4) Aed, 877-878
(6) Donald II.
Daughter
(5) Eocha (withGirig, son of
(7) Constantine II.
900-942
889-900
(8)Malcolm I. 942-954
3
878-889
Dungaile),
(9) Indulf, 954-962
j_
j_
(12) Kenneth II.
971-995I
(10) Dubh
962-967
(11) Cuilean, 967-971
(15)Malcolm II.
(14)Kenneth III.
997-1005
I
(13) Constantine III. 995-997
1005-1034
k.
I
'-i-r
a daughter,
Bodhe,
Donada
1033 Bethoc
a daughter,
?
I
I
a daughter,
(16) Duncan I.
('The
Gruoch
Gracious
(17)Macbeth
1040-1057
*),
1034-1040
__J_
I
(18) Lulach
I
(19)Malcolm III. (Ceannmor),
(20) Donald III. (Bane),
1093-1094,
1058-1093
(The Simple),
1057-1058
1094-1097
I
I Bethoc
Malsnectan
(21) Duncan II.,
(23) Alexander I.,
(22) Edgar,
1094
1097-1107
x
I
William
Fitz-Duncan,
alive 9th June, 1138
Earl
died
1x24-1153
I
Henry,
1152
I
_I
(25)Malcolm IV.
William
The
(24) David I.,
1107-1124
x
Noble
(26)William
(The Maiden),
1153-1165
David, Earl of
(The Lion),
1165-1214
Huntingdon,
b. 1144, d.
1219
_*_I_I
(27) Alexander
II.
1214-1249
(28) Alexander
Isabella
Margaret
III.
Bruce
Devorgilla
I
III
Margaret
Alexander,
d. I 1284
II
David,
d.
x
(30) John Balliol,
1281
x
x
!
(29)Margaret (TheMaid of Norway),
I_
1292
(31)
(1290)-1296
of Annandale:
Competitor
Bruce, Earl
of Carrick
I
Robert
1286
1290
Bruce),
I. (The
1306-1329
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Stevenson
4 J. H.
(10) Dubh
name
fuller
afterwards
third cousin.
is some reason to think that his
(962-967)?there
a son, Kenneth,
who
succeeded
by Cuilean,
was
Dubh?had
Malcolm
but was
Kenneth
III.,
was
his
(11) Cuilean (967-971), who, according to the system, had been
was eligible to succeed Dubh.
For
ineligible to succeed Indulf,
father
line of succession
that rule of an oblique
a son
not succeed
his
in Scotland,
might
to prevent
in the system
there was nothing
or
in tanistry
followed
although,
was
which
immediately,
if he had the force or
him from succeeding almost immediately
to
fortune
What
father's
slay his
that
at that
time,
Cuilean was
king.
three
been
dethrone
least,
him.
is not clear ; but it
on
years
throne
the
he
in battle ; and that, though he defeated him
in two years more
yet
there waged
Cuilean
he had
berore
had to meet Cuilean
or,
successor,
in the case of Dubh
exactly happened
is known
at
F.
W.
he was
expelled
is inclined
Skene
as the son of his
war
and dead
and
to think
that
and an asserter
father,
of the principle of lineal rights ; but it is doubtful if there is any
the
evidence that he did not fight merely as the tanist?which
Ulster
man
in
succession
the
after
Certain it is that he, in his turn, was followed by Dubh's
Dubh.
Kenneth
brother
Constantine,
(15) Malcolm
No.
Kenneth,
Of these
of Malcolm
son Constantine
was
:
8.
No.
12, and
No.
thus
cousin of his predecessor
III. (995-997),
(13) Constantine
(14) Kenneth
own
his
II. (971-995)5 cousin of his predecessor Cuilean,
son of Malcolm,
No.
was
after Dubh
(12) Kenneth
Kenneth
t0 whom
(II.)>
postponed.
The
succession
and
next
him?the
call
Annals
III.
son of Cuilean,
(997-1005),
13, and
No.
son of Dubh,
II. (1005-1034)
14, and son of Kenneth,
III. was
last, Constantine
11.
of his
cousin
10.
No.
of his predecessor
cousin
12.
No.
slain
predecessor
by Kenneth,
the
as Kenneth
(Dubh ?),who then succeeded him
son
III.
who
succeeded
slain in his turn by Malcolm,
III. was
Kenneth
same Malcolm
II. achieved
This
also the
II.
him as Malcolm
was
son
Whether
Kenneth.
of
Bodhe
the
of
Bodhe,
slaughter
III. as is generally
II. or of Kenneth
the son of Kenneth
thought,
II. was left the sole male
it appears that by his death Malcolm
the first of the house.
survivor of the line of Kenneth MacAlpin,
Malcolm on dying left two
Bodhe had left a daughter, Gruoch.
daughters
at the
least;
but
there was
no son.
The
death,
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
then,
Law of the Throne
The
II. was
of Malcolm
suc
in the normal
a break for which Malcolm
cession of Kings,
fact,
of a break
the occasion
5
himself had,
in
the way.
paved
The heirs male of the house having thus died out, the throne fell
naturally to be filled by an heir female, whether by an avowed
recourse
to the former Pictish
rule or not.
the daughter
Gruoch,
of Bodhe,
the Mormaer
had married
and
of Moray,
Gillacomgan,
had a son, Lulach.
the eldest daughter
of Malcolm,
had
Bethoc,
married Crinan
the Thane,
a son, Duncan.
and had
that Malcolm
the hereditary Abbot
is a certain
There
of Dunkeld,2
body
of
testimony
had another daughter, perhaps Donada
who
married
Macbeth.3
If the
principle
in observation
of Moray,
Mormaer
Finlaec,
of an alternative
at that
succession
the
Lulach,
juncture,
by name,
son was
and whose
would have been made king before Duncan
had
son of
continued
the collateral,
or Macbeth,
the last
But
descendants.
have been young.
Lulach
His
may
Macbeth.
Her
influence
Gruoch,
also, had married
have
been Lulach's
after Macbeth's
but
may
death,
scarcely
it.
before
Both Duncan
and Macbeth
to an earlier
belonged
and Duncan
with
the power
of the house
of Crinan
generation,
c
him was a
behind
came
candidate':
Macbeth
strong
probably
next and was
of himself,
not Lulach.
It may
be sur
thinking
at any rate, that the influence
of Macbeth,
who was himself
mised,
was not cast into the scale for his
in the succession,
He
stepson.
to Duncan's
is said to have been a general
in his
party;
belonged
in Duncan's
army, and was very possibly,
time, the tanist.
relates that Malcolm
Fordoun
II. enacted
the abolition
of the
in the succession
to the throne
law by which
the collateral
could
to the
be preferred
or female
either male
descendant,
(Bk. iv.
king's
mother
2
To
apparently,
preserve,
the
of
legitimacy
the
princess's
Dr. Skene and, following him, Sir Archibald Dunbar,
*
Thane
as a
lay abbot.'
Scottish Kings,
the marriage
IOoo?the
(Skene,
12, 18.)
of Bethoc
status
Celtic
Scotland,
union
and
progeny,
are at pains to describe the
i. 390-392
; 401,
406.
Dunbar,
But it has to be remembered that in these
early times?for
and Crinan
was
of an abbot
must
have
taken
a
essentially
place
lay status.
somewhere
The
about
marriage
the year
of an abbot
may have led to abuse, in so far as, if he had a family, he might have been beguiled
into endowing his children with portions of the abbey property; but it was not
uncanonical
then,
for
abbots
or even
for
the
clergy,
to be married
men
and
to have
It was not till about the beginning of the twelfth
families.
century that the
ecclesiastical law declaring the marriage of the clergy to be unlawful and invalid
began to be brought in.
*
3The Chronicle
of Huntingdon styles Macbeth
grandson of Malcolm
II./
anno
1040,
210.
2
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
6
J. H.
Stevenson
cap. i.). The events which followed the close ofMalcolm's
reign
so far as we know
bear out the story.
them,
however,
his
it
his
is
true, to have become
Duncan,
descendant,
appears,
successor
after
But
six
immediate
without
when,
opposition.
was
not
was
he
succeeded
Duncan
murdered
years,
by Macbeth,
do
not,
in his turn by his son, but by a collateral, actually by his own mur
derer.
throne
And
when
that collateral
another
collateral,
by yet
was
slain,
Lulach.
on the
he was followed
It was only after re
one after the
moving both of these kings, Macbeth and Lulach,
son
held
the
reached
Duncan's
that
other,
by his father*
position
The succession after Malcolm IL was thus :
('The Gracious'), grandson of
(16) Duncan I. (1034-1040)
his
predecessor.
cousin at most of his predecessor.
(17) Macbeth (1040-1057),
Lulach
cousin, but not the nearest heir of
(18)
(1057-1058),
his
predecessor.
(19) Malcolm
III. (Ceannmor) (1058-1093),
and
his
predecessor,
Ceannmor
Malcolm
at present concerned:
(i) Duncan
with Ingibiorg, and (ii) Edgar;
David
distant cousin of
son of Duncan,
16.
No.
left several
sons, with five of whom
are
(iii) Alexander L; and (iv)
L, sons of their father's second marriage with
Margaret.
Edward
Annandale's
we
IL, son of his first marriage
the Saxon
meant
as asserted,
that Malcolm
is quite
likely,
*
Bruce
of
If the
his successor.4
competitor'
is to be credited,
to
afterwards
be
noticed,
story,
It
to be
II. and Alexander
III. believed
to nominate
their successor.
entitled
at Alnwick
son Edward,
wounded
But Mal
on the
day
as it probably is, both Alexander
that they were
colm Ceannmor's
on which his father was killed, did not live to reach the throne.
Malcolm was succeeded by none of his sons, but, according to
the custom in tanistry, by his brother Donald Bane. There can
be little doubt that, before that time, the question whether the
succession to the throne according to the system of tanistry
should be adhered to had been much canvassed; but itwas then,
in the reign of Donald III., that the system was first formally
son is nearer to the
challenged on the principle that the king's
throne than the king's brother is. For his nephew, Duncan,
eldest son of Malcolm, on his way to attack him, which he made
in granting a charter in favour of
haste to do, designed himself,
*
son of King Malcolm,
the monks of Durham,
Duncan,
by
*
4 But he could
scarcely be called his tanist.'
E. W. Robertson, Early Kings, i. 154.
SaXon Chronicle ad ann. 1093 ;
2
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
Law of the Throne
Before Donald had occupied
hereditary right king of Scotland.'
the
more
throne
than
about
7
six months,
Duncan
in
succeeded
deposing him and becoming king in his stead. Before Duncan,
in his turn, had reigned for more than about six months Donald
had put him to death, and was king of Scotland again.
It is evident in all this that there existed still in the country
a
in favour of the system
of tanistry,
or,
strong body of opinion
was the
at least, a
that
it
of
guardian
feeling
prevalent
something
in common
of the nature of rights which were
possessed
by the
several lines of the kingly house.
When Donald was again deposed,
son
another
by Edgar,
was Malcolm's
he
though
of Malcolm.
eldest
that time finally,
it was
however,
so to
even
Edgar,
surviving?or,
speak,
eldest surviving and eligible?son
of his marriage with the Saxon
not
to
his father's heir male by any
could
claim
be
Margaret,
of
For
it
is
right
sufficiently established that
primogeniture.
Duncan
also,
a
II. was
Duncan
at one
The
son
legitimate
of Malcolm;
and
by that time was dead, he had left a son,William.
time,
question
at least,
had
had
of the principle
a brother,
though
He
Malcolm.
of succession
had thus been
the dynasty
of the house
under
the son of
of Duncan,
custom
but
the
of
the
of
succession
collaterals
continued.
Crinan,
on
was
not
final
his
Donald
in
succeeded
Bane,
1097,
deposition
raised
by his daughter Bethoc, who was his heir of line, nor by his
grand-nephew William, who was his heir male and the heir male
of his
house,
but
by his
nephew
Edgar.
It
is, of course,
true
that it was by Edgar's power that Donald was deposed, but in
judging of Edgar's success both in obtaining and retaining the
not be
it must
of
that, on the principles
forgotten
tanistry,
not of
was
a
he
and
though
primogeniture,
apparently
right
on his death, without
In the same way,
of it.
occupant
proper
Alexander
issue, his next brother,
L, was his natural
successor;
on
Alexander's
without
and
lawful
their brother
death,
issue,
I. succeeded.
David
throne
The succession of the kings during that last period can
hardly
It began in violent con
be said to have followed any principle.
tention, and ended with a time of some duration in which, for
want
of descendants
versus
descendant
of
two
collateral
successive
the question
kings,
did not arise.
The
sequence
the kings had been as follows :
(20) Donald III. (Bane) (1093-1094),
of
of
brother of his prede
cessor.
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
8
as son of his
claiming
(20) Donald
a
H.
Stevenson
II. (1094),
(21) Duncan
been
J.
nephew
father Malcolm,
III. (1094-1097),
(22) Edgar
(1097-1107),
(23) Alexander
predecessor
with
certainly
I. (1124-1153),
certainly the right, if any, of
claiming
I. (1107-1124),
Edgar.
(24) David
but
19.
resuming his reign which had
that of a collateral.
as
but
collateral,
No.
19.
Malcolm,
of his predecessor,
No.
as
son
of
his
father
heir on both theories, of his
heir on both
theories, of his
Alexander.
predecessor
came
in the family
of brothers
But
succession
the possible
was the youngest
The
of them.
then to an end, for David
posi
was
had
tion during David's
that, on the one hand, David
reign
the Royal
house had
male
descendants
; and, on the other hand,
as the successor
to be
son who was
at least one other
preferred
one who also,
to the custom
of tanistry,
and
of David,
according
the
had been recognized
if the law of primogeniture
earlier, was
son of
to the throne
in existence?William,
heir
only
rightful
Duncan
elder brother,
David's
deceased
IL, already mentioned.
a man
a leader of
was
of courage,
FitzDuncan
This William
a person
of consequence
also in counsel,
and
and forward
armies,
a witness
to a charter
he was
When
by
position.
recognized
as he was on many
he was usually
occasions,5
David,
designated
in a
as David's
and was always
appro
placed
position
nephew,
a
was
a
of
the Royal
member
to
who
witness
house,
priate
own son or wife,
if either of these
after David's
happened
namely,
all the others
of the
in any case, before
to be present,
and,
laity
rank.
their
however
William
of the realm who were
there,
high
no
under David
there is no doubt,
; but that constituted
served,
was not himself of the blood.
In spite
acknowledgment that he
was
still
the
law
father
effort
the
of
his
of
; and
Duncan, tanistry
tanistry did not consider that any member of the Royal house
deserted any pretensions which he might have to succeed to the
throne, by serving the de facto king. David's tenure of the
throne
was
no
challenge
the use he was making
to the
principles
of
of his position might
tanistry,
be.
whatever
In any case,
8Grateful
acknowledgment is due from every enquirer into the historical facts
of those times to the late Sir Archibald Lawrie's valuable collection of Early Scottish
Charters (Glasgow : JamesMacLehose Sc Sons, 1905), and his Annals of the Reigns
(published by the same house, 1910), and his very valuable
ofMalcolm andWilliam
Notes in both works.
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
Law of the Throne
9
did or did not do precluded a serious
nothing thatWilliam
from
bid for the throne
being made by him or his line in
subsequent
Save the
reigns.
short
test, nothing
question
before
II. and his
of Duncan
episode
ineffectual
pro
had been done to call the system of tanistry
David
ascended
the
throne.
So
far,
in
however,
as anything of the kind is clear now, it is clear that to put an end
to the system,
the throne for his own
and to secure
issue in the
was
one of the constant
concerns
order of lineal succession,
of
as he lived.
as
He
for
to
mind
David's
appears,
example,
long
his son, and after his son's
have
of putting
lost no opportunity
to himself.
of next man
in the position
In
death his grandson,
at
to
the abbey
his charter,
about
the year
Selkirk?after
1120,
at Kelso?a
he reached
charter
before
the throne
wards
granted
and while he was still Earl of Cumbria, his son Henry
the witnesses,
although
old.
order
The
years
the boy
in which
is among
than six
been more
are
is as
the witnesses
placed
cannot
have
the Countess?
follows : John, bishop of Glasgow; Matilda,
that is, Earl David's wife ;Henry, his son (Henricofilio comitis) ;
the rest of the clergy; William,
the Earl's nephew (Willelmo
of other great
de Bruis,
and a number
; Robert
nepote comitis)6
same
lords.
in
of
in a
the
witness
reappears
Henry
capacity
of charters
to
number
his
elevation
David
the
after
granted
by
the
throne.
In these
the boy's
witnesses
is
among
position
so far that, even when
advanced
he is only eleven or twelve years
of age, he is named, not only before all the dignified
clergy and
the earls, but even before his own mother
the queen.7
a number
From
charters
of his father's
with
various
dealing
of the south-east
of Scotland
it appears
that
parts of the lowlands
a
had been
at an
Henry
large part of that district
age,
given
early
are
of appanage.
These
charters
presumably
by way
granted
'
a consent'
with Henry's
in some
consent,
by King David
given
cases before he was fourteen.
In the year 1144, or shortly before it, David had
seemingly
obtained a recognition of his son's right of inheritance by a
national council such as might have appointed a tanist, or had
found himself in a position strong enough to name him his heir
on his own authority. The principal evidence of this 8 is to be
6This was William
FitzDuncan, forWilliam the Lion was not bora till 1143.
7
e.g., Confirmation by Robert Bishop of St. Andrews, c. 1128, to Kelso Abbey.
Liber de Calchou, No. 443 ; Lawrie, Early Charters, lxxxii.
8 See article
pp.
by
the present
writer
on
'The
Prince
of Scotland,*
S.H.R.
vol.
83-84.
2 *
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
xxi.
io
Stevenson
J. H.
found in a small group of three charters in favour of the Priory
All
of St. Andrews.
to the same matter,
relate
three
namely,
an
endowment of the Priory by Robert, the bishop of the diocese,
In the first of
or, as he styles himself, the bishop of the Scots.
them
the
bishop,
rather doubtful
narrates
as we
feeling,
it was made
that
know
from
other
of the legality of the grant he was
by
the
counsel
and
concession
(consilio
and also of his
simul et concessione)of the most pious King David,
son
sources,
to make,
comes et rex
the Earl
and King
(Henricis
Designate
assurance
The
every
received,
certainly,
bishop
Henry,
designates)*
and support that the king and his son could give him, for the
one charter of confirmation and Earl Henry gave
king gave him
his son as,
him another. The king in his charter speaks of
'
'
God granting it, my heir, and King Designate
{Deo donante
et rex
meus
heres
\ and
designates)
confirmation
in Henry's
et rex designates.
styles himself Deo propitio, heres
Whether
he
rex
more
to the general
meant
eye at the time than tanist
designates
no more
even
than
if itmeant
but
a
matter
discussion
of
be
;
may
to be the king's
eldest
that the tanist was
son, David's
object
was
achieved.
practically
But in this matter David left nothing to chance which vigilance
securer. When Earl Henry died, as he did nearly
might make
a year
his
before
father,
leaving
behind
him
an eldest
son, Mal
colm, the king had the boy proclaimed forthwith throughout the
can be no doubt but that,
There
land as the heir to the throne.10
in the reign of
it was settled
could be settled,
as far as anything
of any collateral
tanist was
I. that the election
David
King
of Scotland,
and that the kings
to be contemplated,
never
again
to law of
were
to be succeeded
on
the contrary,
according
primogeniture.
But
it was
primogeniture
to be
king
a
also
in possession
in his
9
may
Regist.
have
L,
Prior.
been
its start
to take
issue.
that
as from
the
law of
of was not
himself,
the
For
as
long
as FitzDuncan's
race
branch was not the eldest line of the house
according
to any
S. Andreae;
earl merely
Lawrie,
as the
styled
achievement
the establishment
of the throne, and that his office should be
own
should last David's
of Duncan
of David's
but was
retrospective,
continued
part
which he procured
law of primogeniture.
Scot. Charters,
clxii.-clxiv.
Early
Henry
son of a king ; but, apart from that, he was
that time Earl of Northumberland by a grant of Stephen of England.
by 10
Authorities collected by Lawrie, Annals of the Reigns ofMalcolm andWilliam,
pp.
1-2.
2 *
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
The
11
Law of the Throne
of the descendants
for recurring
It is easy to account
uprisings
of
Malcolm
of Duncan
II. in the subsequent
IV., William
reigns
were
not denials
of
of the principle
II.
and Alexander
They
assertions
that the right
but reiterated
the law of primogeniture,
the law resided in the family of Ceannmor's first wife,
But
Ingibiorg, and not in that of his second wife, Margaret.
the law of primogeniture had not been the law of the throne of
under
in the time of Duncan
Scotland
II., and
the
law obtained
or made
by David was only for his own line.
to his
of the
bear witness
David's
knowledge
precautions
to his schemes
which
of opposition
existence
of the element
successors.
so active
immediate
of his
became
in the reigns
to be
the
he sent his grandson
When
throughout
proclaimed
care of Duncan,
sent
with
of
Earl
he
the
him
under
Fife,
country,
an army?com
there was now no party
exercitu copioso.1 Though
in Scotland ready to take the field on behalf of tanistry, or the
of the ruling
branches
rule of the several
house,
a contest
of the Royal
families
between
the two
be exclusive.
each
for a supremacy
should
which
house,
fighting
a
eleven
The
accession
of Malcolm
of
IV.,
years of age,
boy
seven
not
been
earls were
have
The
may
universally
popular.
so.
of the
in
and
died
But
said
Malcolm
it,
against
possession
of issue, was
throne
in
default
and,
years
afterwards,
thirty-five
succeeded
in his turn was succeeded
who
by his brother William,
an accession
was
son Alexander
of a
II.
There
by his
again
seven
was
earls
under
age (sixteen
years old), but the
king who
were
to the dynasty.
by that time reconciled
I. of England
In the competition
for the crown before Edward
to
no compearance
was made
the
represent
claiming
by anyone
or
to
found
in the male
ancient kings
their
of Scotland
line,
upon
in his
ancient
It is true that Brus,
the lord of Annandale,
law.
a
use
to
make
of
argument
against John Balliol,
attempted
theory
was
he alleged
times
in ancient
which
the
accepted
regarding
to the throne.
and succession
His
order of kindred
argument
was
from the younger
he was descended
that, though
daughter
alternative
there was
of Earl David, while Balliol represented the eldest daughter, he
the nearer
he was
was
because
heir, and
a
grandson
to the succession,
the nearer
therefore
Balliol was a great
of the earl, while
grandson.2
1
Fordoun,
2The
of
v.
34.
only copy of Bruce's pleading known to exist is sadly decayed.
it remains,
however,
to show
that his advisers
had
ransacked
such
Enough
records
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
as were
12
Law of the Throne
The
had another
which
Bruce
the super
argument,
presupposed
a
of the tanist
and
establishment
session
the
of
system
system
such as was already
in other feudal
countries,
by which,
accepted
although the law of primogeniture might be common law, itmight
be broken through by the king as the supreme power. William
the Conqueror had given his kingdom of England to his younger
son, William Rufus.
Stephen was crowned by the Archbishop
on
of Canterbury
as successor
sworn
Empress
that he had
information
to the throne
succeeded
Maud,
by Henry
as the
I.; Henry
of
nominee
ascended the throne, asserting himself
been
11.,
adopted
son of the
Stephen
; John
to be the nominee of his
So Brus averred
that he had been nominated
as heir
III. successively
II. and Alexander
brother Richard.
by both Alexander
to the throne of Scotland in the event of their dying without
issue. Balliol certainly did not say that the story was impossible.
But he did not require to contradict it: he had a sufficient re
joinder in the fact that neither of the kings had, in fact, died
issue.
without
leaving
to the throne
succession
introduced
of
The
by David
system
was
and solemn,
albeit well-staged,
of the unique
the subject
inquest held at the instance of the competitors by King Edward
of
in
England
1291-1292,
when
it was
very
authoritatively
settled by the whole 104 Auditors that the kingdom of Scotland
descended to the Scottish king's heir of line ; that when that line
went
un
came
the kingdom
to be represented
by daughters,
and that, in the event of her predecease,
to the eldest;
divided
to what would
have been
her heir had a right, jure representationis,
to these findings, the
if she had survived. According
to John Balliol and his heirs.
had
descended
of
Scotland
kingdom
That, after John Balliol had resigned the crown, and Edward of
England had seized the government for himself, the Scots called
hers
the next
of Bruce,
in the house
in order
of succession,
and
refused
to return to its allegiance to the Balliols, will probably be con
sidered to have been no denial of the principles laid down with
the acquiescence of all parties in 1292.
TH S
available
to them.
It may
be assumed
that his case was
constructed
before
the
execu
tion of King Edward's measures for the collection of all writings which might bear
on
the case
other
records
of the Crown
seen
were
and
during
the claims
of
its preparation
the competitors,
which
have
and
since
that
been
chronicles
lost.
and
It would
be interesting, therefore, to know whether more could be deciphered of the pleading
than
has been
yet.
This content downloaded from 68.59.48.84 on Fri, 30 Oct 2015 20:57:03 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions