"TREACHERY IN THE REMOTEST TERRITORIES OF
SCOTLAND:"
NORTHERN RESISTANCE TO THE CANMORE DYNASTY, 1130-1230
By
R. Andrew McDonald
University College of Cape Breton(1)
The Annals of Ulster, a rich source of information for events in medieval Scotland, note in laconic style tinder the year 1130, "a battle between the men of Scotland and the men of Moray, and in it four thousand of the men of Moray fell, including their king, Angus . . . ."(2) One hundred years later, a gruesome scene was played out at Forfar, where an infant girl, the last member of a family that had opposed the Scottish kings for over fifty years, was killed by having her head smashed on the market cross.(3) These events frame a century during which the kings of Scots descended from Malcolm III "Canmore" and his second wife, Queen Margaret (both d. 1093), faced persistent opposition from the remote and unassimilated northern fringes of their kingdom, especially the regions of Moray (a large and ill-defined area encompassing the lands around the Moray Firth, stretching from the Grampians to the western seaboard) and Ross (the province north of Moray, bounded by the River Oykel and the Dornoch Firth to the north and the shore of the Cromarty Firth to the south).(4) This paper deals with a hitherto largely neglected facet of medieval Scottish history: resistance to the so-called "Canmore dynasty" (Malcolm III and his descendants) from Moray and Ross between the early twelfth century and 1230. It begins by outlining the incidents of insurrection faced by the Scottish kings in this period, and then proceeds to analyze this resistance, paying particular attention to the leaders, timing, military aspects, and geographical context of opposition. The paper concludes by examining questions of regional identity in twelfth-century Scotland and reflects upon whether a strong sense of Moravian identity might have contributed to the tenacity of resistance.
Given the frequency, tenacity, and often bloody nature of the
twelfth- and thirteenth-century insurrections, serious consideration
of them remains surprisingly limited in recent scholarly work. The reasons for
this are not far to seek. First, the evidence itself is scattered among a
variety of English, Scottish, and Irish sources, which are often difficult to
interpret and provide little in the way of either context or explanation.
Second, the focus of modem scholarship on themes of medieval
kingdom-building, the Europeanization of Scotland in the twelfth and
thirteenth centuries, and the relatively early emergence of Scotland as a
unified kingdom under the Canmore kings, have tended to overshadow or obscure
questions of resistance, alienation, and dissent.(5) To take but one example from a work concerned
The long and eventful reign of Malcolm III "Canmore" ["Great
Chief"] (1058-93), which established the so-called "Canmore
dynasty" that would rule Scotland until the death of Alexander III in 1286,
brooked little opposition. This was due, in large measure, to the fact that
Malcolm's path to the kingship had been a bloody one, during which he had taken
care to eliminate any potential rivals. Within eight months of killing his
predecessor, Macbeth (1040-57), at Lumphanan in August of 1057, Malcolm
eliminated Macbeth's stepson and successor, Lulach (1057-58), in March of
1058.(8) Nonetheless, there are hints
in Irish sources of unrest in Moray during the reign of Malcolm III. In 1085,
"Donald, Malcolm's son, king of Scotland . . . ended his life unhappily.''(9) Both the identity and status of this individual are open to question, but
it is possible that he was an otherwise unknown son of Malcolm III by his first
wife, Ingibjorg of Orkney, or else a member of Malcolm's kin who may have had
some role in governing or administering the north.(10) Similarly, the circumstances of his death are not clear, but mishap or
violence seem to have played a role. This makes it tempting to link the death of
this Donald with another event of 1085: a raid of Malcolm III in which Lulach's
widow and large amounts of booty were taken, and from which Lulach's son, Mael
Snechta, narrowly escaped. Mael Snechta himself lived until 1085, when his obit
appeared in the Irish Annals along with other churchmen who ended their lives
"happily" [i.e. in religion].(11) What cannot be ascertained is whether
the death of Donald precipitated Malcolm's raid or vice versa, or, indeed,
whether the two events are related at all, but it might well be that one
represented vengeance for the other.
Although there was internal
strife and political instability in Scotland for several years following the
death of Malcolm III in 1093, it was not, apparently, until the second decade of
the twelfth century that the descendants of Malcolm III were again faced with
resistance from the north.(12)
In 1116, Irish annals note that "Lodmund, Donald's son, the king of Scotland's
grandson, was killed by the men of Moray."(13) It has been suggested that this Lodmund was a son of the
Donald who perished in 1085; this is not beyond doubt but is convincing.(14)
Unfortunately, this brief and isolated mention in an Irish source leaves
many questions unanswered, although it certainly points to a feud - possibly an ongoing one if the events of 1085 are related to it
- between
the family of Malcohn III and tile "men of Moray," who, it is worth
noting, had been defeated three times by King Malcolm between 1057 and 1085.
In the context of the events
of 1116, it is also interesting to note that the late medieval chroniclers
Walter Bower and Andrew Wyntoun recorded an attack on King Alexander I
(1107-24), a son of Malcolm III and a brother of his predecessor, King
Edgar (1097-1107). These chroniclers give slightly differing accounts of
what seems to be the same event, where King Alexander was attacked at
Invergowrie by what Bower calls "ruffians of the Mearns and Moray." In
Bower's account, Alexander escaped, gathered a large army in southern Scotland,
and campaigned against his opponents; Wyntoun has Alexander chase his foes
"owre the Stokfttrd into Ros" (perhaps a ford of the Beauly river)
with cavalry, where they were overtaken and slain. In both accounts the defeat
of his opponents is used to explain the epithet of "the Fers" [Fierce]
accorded to Alexander, and Scone priory is said to have been founded in
thanksgiving for the victory.(15)
It is
the link between the victory over the rebels and the foundation of the priory at
Scone in the later chroniclers that opens up the prospect that the event they
describe might be somehow connected with the killing of Lodmund in 1116: Scone
was founded by Alexander I between 1114 and 1120.(16)
As with the events of 1085, we can do no more than speculate; it is not
at all clear who Lodmund was, or how he might fit into the scenario described by
Wyntoun and Bower. Taken altogether, though, the evidence hints at a strong
undercurrent of animosity toward Malcolm III and his sons on the part of the
inhabitants of Moray and Ross. Nonetheless, it hardly seems possible to speak of
much tangible or persistent opposition to the Canmore dynasty before the long
and eventful reign of David I (1124-53), the youngest son of Malcolm III
and Queen Margaret.
Shortly after the death of
Alexander and the accession of David I in 1124, the Norman chronicler Orderic
Vitalis (whose reliability for Scottish affairs is uneven), recorded that
"Malcolm, a bastard son of Alexander, made a bid for his father's kingdom,
and instigated two bitter wars against him."(17) This Malcolm is usually identified as Malcolm
"MacHeth," and his identity is considered at length below.
Orderic relates how David's forces successfully defeated Malcolm and his
supporters, but the timing of the insurrection, following as it did so closely
upon David's succession to the kingship, is surely significant. Only six years
later, David faced another uprising, this time from the combined forces of
Angus, styled comes Morafiae [earl of Moray], and Malcolm, numbering five
thousand men if Orderic's numbers can be trusted.(18)
The king was absent in England and the task of meeting the invasion fell
upon the shoulders of Edward, the son of Siward (possibly tile constable of
Kings Alexander and David), who killed Angus and routed his army. The fugitives
were pursued into Moray, which was then conquered and annexed to the Crown.(19)
The death of Angus and the defeat of the Moravians were, as we have seen,
noticed by Irish sources, with the Annals of lnisfallen noting the
"slaughter of the men of Moray in Alba."(20)
These entries make it clear
that the defeat and slaughter of the Moray forces was an event which was
considered of more than local importance, and impressed itself firmly upon the
minds of contemporaries from Ireland to the continent. In fact, the words of
these chronicles foreshadow a recurrent theme in the history of northern
Scotland in the twelfth century.
In 1134 Malcolm MacHeth, who
had been associated with Angus in the 1130 rising but had escaped the carnage at
Stracathro, was captured and imprisoned at Roxburgh after what seems to have
been a major campaign against him.(21)
But,
despite his incarceration, and although the decades between 1130 and about 1160
appear devoid of northern opposition, there was no shortage of challenges to the
Scottish kings from other peripheral regions. Thus, near the end of his reign, David I was beset by the
enigmatic Wimund, bishop of the Isles, who claimed to be the son of the earl of
Moray, and who caused considerable disruption in Cumbria. The 1150s were also
turbulent; after the death of David I in 1153, the mighty Somerled of Argyll (d.
1164) joined forces with the sons of the imprisoned Malcolm MacHeth, and their
uprising dragged on until 1157. Then, in 1160, there was the so-called
"revolt of the earls" against David's successor, his grandson Malcolm
IV (1153-65), at Perth, in which Fergus, Lord of Galloway (d. 1161), may
or may not have played a role.(22)
These
uprisings are important events in the history of twelfth century Scotland and,
as will be demonstrated later, are not always easy to disentangle from tile
uprisings in tile north under consideration here.
In 1163 the Moravians again
appear in the record. In that year, the Holyrood chronicle cryptically recorded
that rex Malcolmus Murevienses transtulit
["King Malcolm moved the men of Moray"].(23)
This statement was expanded upon by the fourteenth-century
chronicler John of Fordun, who described at length how Malcolm raised an army
and removed the inhabitants of Moray from that province, "so that not even
one native of that land abode there; and he installed therein his own peaceful
people."(24) This episode remains enigmatic, and scholars have long
searched for the means to explain it. It has been argued that Fordun was merely
embellishing the account which he found in the
Chronicle of Holyrood, as he did on other occasions;(25)
if so, Fordun's words
can only be taken as an expansion upon the earlier source, not independent
corroboration of it. The vagueness of the terminology also raises problems,
since it is not entirely clear who was being moved: the passage might refer to a
transferal of the bishopric of Moray, a translation of martyrs' relics, or else
(more likely) a relocation of the natives of the region.(26)
Although it need not be agreed that the passage necessarily describes a
twelfth-century highland clearance,(27)
Fordun's statement should not be
dismissed out of hand, either. Indeed, the episode may well be related to the
ongoing colonization of Moray by King Malcolm IV, in which case opposition
remains a possibility. It may be no coincidence that the king gifted Innes and
Nether Urquhart (near Elgin in Moray) to Berowald, a Fleming colonist, around
Christmas 1160, part of the long and drawn-out process whereby royal
authority was consolidated in the north, and it may well be significant that
John of Fordun also mentioned an otherwise unrecorded ravaging of the land by
the Moravians in 1161.(28)
Whether
these two events from 1160 and 1161 have any connection with the mysterious
episode of 1163 cannot be determined with certainty, but taken altogether the
indications are that the far north remained unsettled and turbulent in the
middle of the twelfth century.
King Malcolm IV died in 1165
and was succeeded by his brother, William I (1165-1214). Yet,
paradoxically, the more established the dynasty became, the greater the
resistance to it also became, and the reign of William saw a welter of new
uprisings centred in the north. Indeed, the extension of royal authority in the
north has been regarded as "the major domestic concern" of William's
administration.(29)
In 1179, King
William and his brother, Earl David (d. 1219), took a large army into Ross,
presumably as a response to some threat. In conjunction with this campaign, the
king built two new castles, at Redcastle, on the north shore of the Beauly
Firth, and at Dunskeath, at the mouth of the Cromarty Firth.(30)
In 1181, a well-informed English chronicle recorded the arrival of
Donald MacWilliam, "with a numerous armed host," adding that he
"had many a time made insidious incursions into that kingdom."(31) While it is unclear whether the events of 1179 and 1181
should be regarded as separate incidents, the chronicler's comment that
MacWilliam had made many incursions into Scotland is a strong indicator that the
1181 uprising was not the first, and that there had been trouble from this
quarter for some time. The second insurrection was serious enough that King
William, who was absent in England, was forced to return to Scotland in order to
deal with it. Yet it is clear that tile royal expeditions off 1179 and/or 1181
had done little to eliminate disaffection in the north, and MacWilliam remained
at large.
It was not until 1187 that Donald MacWilliam was finally hunted down and killed. A royal army, led by some of the earls and utilizing Inverness as a base, set off in search of MacWilliam.(32) The chronicle once attributed to "Benedict of Peterborough" (now known to be the work of Roger of Howden),(33) which gave a detailed account of the expedition, related how, following some bickering among the earls, a large contingent of the army fell upon MacWilliam on a moor at the unknown site called Mam Garvia (possibly Strath Garve, west of Dingwall), where Roland, Lord of Galloway (d.1200), with a force of three thousand warriors, slew Donald and brought his head to the king.(34) Earlier, in December 1186, but possibly connected with the events of 1187, a band of some sixty men, led by Adam, son of Donald - possibly one of Donald MacWilliam's sons called uthlagus regis, the king's outlaw, was pursued by Earl Malcolm of Atholl into Coupar Angus abbey and slain there despite having apparently claimed sanctuary.(35) The massacre at Coupar Angus and the battle at Mam Garvia combined to reduce the threat from the north for nearly twenty-five years. During that time, an intensive process of internal colonization was undertaken in Moray through the settlement of new families, the growth of existing and new urban communities, the advance of ecclesiastical and secular administrative structures, and the development of forest and wasteland.(36) But, despite the vigorous extension of royal authority in the north, the descendants of Donald Mac William and Malcolm MacHeth, as well as Earl Harald Maddadson of Orkney (1139-1206), proved intransigent into the first third of the thirteenth century.(37)
One of the
best-documented, though not best-known, incidents of opposition to
the Canmore kings took place in 1211-12, when Guthred (Godfrey), the son
of Donald MacWilliam, came from Ireland, landed in the far north, and caused
considerable devastation: "he trod underfoot everything he encountered and
plagued many parts of the kingdom of Scotland."(38)
The invasion and the measures to suppress it are recorded by the
fifteenth-century chronicler Walter Bower (who was relying, for these
passages, on a now lost thirteenth-century account), and also in
contemporary English annals.(39) Bower details the royal campaigns against Guthred, which
scattered his army in 1211 but failed to apprehend Guthred himself until he was
betrayed by his own men a year later. English sources add the important
information that King John of England (1199-1216) provided military
assistance in the form of Brabantine mercenaries, and also that King William's
son, the future King Alexander II (1214-49), was in charge of the 1211
campaign.(40) Following Guthred's betrayal he was taken into custody by Walter Comyn,
the earl of Buchan and the king's representative in the north, who set out with
his captive to meet the king; but when Comyn "learned the king's will,
which was that he did not want to see him [Guthred] alive, they beheaded Guthred,
dragged him along by the feet and hung him up."(41)
Guthred's invasion was not
quite the last incident of northern resistance, but it was probably the last
really serious threat to the Scottish kings; subsequent MacHeth and MacWilliam
invasions and uprisings have an air of desperation and futility about them.
Despite the messy ends of both Donald MacWilliam and
Guthred, undercurrents of dissent clearly remained strong. In 1215 Donald Ban,
the son of Mac William (Donald or Guthred is not clear), and Kenneth MacHeth (a
descendant of Malcolm MacHeth), as well as the son of an Irish prince, joined
forces and invaded Moray. Perhaps the most significant aspect to this uprising
was that, for the first time, the MacHeths and MacWilliams seem to have united
in their opposition to the kings of Scots. Nevertheless, they were met and
single-handedly defeated, apparently without assistance from a royal army,
by a native dignitary of Ross named Farquhar MacTaggart. He cut off their heads,
presented them as gifts to the new king (Alexander II, 1214-49), and was
rewarded with knighthood and later an earldom.(42) This episode is interesting on a number of levels. First and foremost,
"it shows a Celtic leader in the north now on the side of the royal house
descended from Malcolm and Margaret; and, because of his services, the Celtic
leader is made a feudal knight."(43) This
incident also reveals just how hopeless opposition to the Canmore kings had
become by the early thirteenth century: when northern magnates like Farquhar
were supporting the royal house instead of resisting it, it could only be a
matter of time before the resistance faltered completely. By the early decades
of the thirteenth century, twilight was slowly falling on the MacHeth and
MacWilliarn resistance as a new order, loyal to the Scottish kings, took root in
the north.
The closing scenes of the
MacWilliam drama were played out in the 1220s, although ail exact sequence of
events proves difficult to reconstruct because of the nature of the evidence.
Bower says that "some wicked men of the race of MacWilliam, namely
Gillescop and his sons and Roderick, appeared in the furthest limits of
Scotland" in 1223 and were subsequently brought to justice.(44)
This passage sounds remarkably similar to what the contemporary Chronicle
of Lanercost says happened in 1230,(45)
and it is possible that either Bower has
misplaced tile event by several years or else the chronicler has compressed the
events of the earlier 1220s into its entry for that one year.
Bower later records that, in 1228, Thomas of Thirlestane, lord of
Abertarff (a northern landholder), was attacked in his castle and killed, part
of Inverness burnt, and some of the king's lands plundered, by Gillescop.(46)
After journeying to the north himself, the king allotted a force of
footmen to William Comyn, earl of Buchan, to deal with the situation,
suggesting, perhaps, a lack of confidence in the feudal magnates already
established in Moray.(47)
Since Comyn's
son Walter appears shortly thereafter as lord of Badenoch, this may represent
the victory of the Comyns and the defeat of Gillescop, who perished in 1229.(48) It is no doubt against the backdrop of these disturbances in
the late 1220s that we must set the events of 1230, which saw the end of the
MacWilliams and were recorded by the Chronicle
of Lanercost:
the same MacWilliam's
daughter, who had not long left her mother's womb,
innocent as she was, was put
to death, in the burgh of Forfar, in view of the
market-place, after a
proclamation by the public crier: her head was struck
against the column of the
[market] cross, and her brains dashed out.
And so, with the death of an infant girl at Forfar
exactly a century after the demise of Angus of Moray at Stracathro, what
Professor Duncan called the "pacification of the north" was completed.
Resistance to the Scottish
kings descended from King Malcolm III and Queen Margaret runs like a strong but
deep undercurrent through the history of the twelfth and early thirteenth
centuries: it is almost always present, though often hard to pick out of the
various sources from which it has to be reconstructed. Without doubt, the most
pressing questions surrounding this resistance focus upon its leaders and their
motivations for hostility toward the Canmore kings. Various chroniclers, as we
have seen, consistently associated the northern opposition with Malcolm MacHeth,
Donald MacWilliam, and their respective kindreds. The origins and ancestry of
these families have long puzzled historians and the basis for their opposition
has also proven elusive. Given the fractured nature of the evidence and the
major problems that exist in interpreting it, this is hardly surprising. Yet
there remain many unanswered questions about these two enigmatic kindreds, not
the least of which revolves around the identities of Malcolm MacHeth and Donald
MacWilliam, the nature of their claims, and the basis for the considerable
support that they garnered in the north.
The identity of Malcolm MacHeth has been called "one of the important unsolved problems of early Scottish history."(51) Orderic Vitalis referred to Malcolm as an illegitimate son of King Alexander I, who made a bid for the kingdom in 1124 and who joined Angus in the 1130 insurrection, but did not call him "MacHeth."(52) In fact, it was the Holyrood chronicler who first gave Malcolm the (apparent) patronymic "MacHeth" when it described his reconciliation with the king in 1157; the same designation was used (in different forms) in several charters as well.(53) The name "MacHeth" represents the Gaelic "son of Aed," mace Aeda, and it is the best evidence with which to refute Orderic's identification of him as an illegitimate son of Alexander I.(54) Several attempts have been made to explain this patronymic (which seems to have been used as a surname by 1215), and they may be divided into two main groups: those which would trace MacHeth's descent from a member of the Cenel Loairn dynasty of Moray, and those which would associate him with an important family from Ross. While the former is more commonly expressed than tile latter, it is perhaps less accepted in recent scholarly circles. Its explanation would run something along these lines: when Lulach, Macbeth's stepson, was killed by Malcolm Canmore in 1058, the royal line of Moray did not die out but was represented by Lulach's son, Mael Snechta. He died in 1085, and since he left no children his heir was his sister, Lulach's daughter. In the 1130 record of the death of Angus in the Annals of Ulster, he was styled "the son of Lulach's daughter,"(55) making him a nephew of Mael Snechta and a grandson of King Lulach. Neither Lulach's daughter (Mael Snechta's sister) nor her husband is anywhere named, but a reasonable conjecture would be that her husband's name was Aed (Aodh), and indeed a "Beth" comes and a "Head" comite appeared in several early charters of Alexander I and David I;(56) these names probably represent scribal errors or Latinizations of Aed. Malcolm MacHeth would then have been either a son or a brother of Angus, obtaining his claims in direct descent from the Cenel Loairn Moray dynasty.(57) W.F. Skene, a pioneer in the study of Celtic Scotland, postulated that Aed (Meth) may himself have been of a family closely associated with the dynasty of Moray. He argued that Heth should be identified with Teadh, a grandson of Gillechattan, founder of the clan Chattan, who was descended from the rulers of Moray.(58) Unfortunately, however, Aed cannot be definitely identified on the basis of the present evidence. No positive connection between the Aed of the charters and the Teadh of the Clan Chattan genealogy can be proven; and as Aed was given no title in the three charters he witnessed, the matter cannot satisfactorily be resolved. Nevertheless, the suggestion that Malcolm MacHeth was descended from the line of Moray is an attractive one.(59)
Another argument would follow some aspects of this
pedigree while rejecting others. The meaning of the patronymic MacHeth as
"son of Aed" is accepted, and consequently the relationship of Malcolm
to tile earl Aed of the charters is also accepted.
It is at this point, however, that the two arguments diverge. By a second
line of thought, Aed would not be identified as the earl of Moray but rather as
an otherwise unknown earl of Ross. This argument would thus separate the MacHeth
claims from descent from the Moray dynasty, but would regard them instead as
agitating for the restoration of the earldom of Ross.(60)
Whichever view is correct,
one thing seems certain: MacHeth enjoyed a high status in contemporary society.
This is most evident from the matrimonial alliance he forged: he married a
sister of Somerled, the king of Argyll and the Isles, probably before 1130,
proving his standing in society.(61)
Much obviously hinges on the
date at which the earldom of Ross was created.(62) Since there is no earl of Ross
on the record until Malcolm MacHeth himself, and since the earl Aed of the early
charters cannot firmly be linked with any particular earldom, it seems most
unlikely that the province of Ross was in existence in the early twelfth
century. This would raise the problem of when and under what circumstances it
emerged. The Holyrood chronicler recorded that Malcolm MacHeth, whose sons had
been locked in conflict with Malcolm IV since 1153, was reconciled with the king
of Scots in 1157.(63)
This brief
mention must, in fact, represent an oversimplification of a very important
matter, which can only be glimpsed imperfectly. Since he was styled earl of Ross
at his death in 1168,(64) it does not require a great leap of the imagination to
conclude that Malcolm MacHeth was, in fact, granted the earldom of Ross in 1157
as part of his reconciliation, perhaps in exchange for an agreement to terminate
his opposition to the Scottish kings. However, it may also be that MacHeth was
not merely installed in an existing office, but that this action represented the
creation of the earldom of Ross, which was in effect severed from the larger
region of Moray, thus truncating that province. But would such an arrangement
have proved advantageous to both parties concerned, and would it not appear odd
that the king would allow an erstwhile rival to hold a newly created earldom?
From the perspective of the
king of Scots, the erection of Ross into an earldom would be tantamount to the
creation of a frontier zone. Not only would a buffer-zone be created
between the province of Moray and the expansionist earl of Orkney, Harald
Maddadson, who was often hostile to Scottish authority, but the fact that its
holder was of native stock and presumably well-known in the region would
enhance his authority and might also have facilitated administration of an
otherwise ungovernable and troublesome province (not unlike Farquhar MacTaggart
half a century later). While the nature of the grant is unknown, it must have
been similar in nature to that bestowing Fife upon the native earls of that
province c. 1140, and was no doubt based upon dependent tenure. If this were the
case, then the king would also have succeeded in binding a potentially
troublesome magnate to his cause and, not unlike the earls of the east,
entrapping him in obligations. If the king's aim was to reduce trouble in the
north by binding MacHeth to his cause, then subsequent events must suggest that
lie was successful. It is a curious and overlooked fact that there was no
further resistance from the MacHeths until 1186 (possibly) and 1215
(certainly), and it must be significant that nothing more is heard of MacHeth's
descendants for at least thirty years after his accommodation. From the MacHeth
perspective such a settlement also had much to commend it. While it might seem
odd, at first glance, that a rival to the throne would come to terms with the
king, the earldom of Ross and the title that accompanied it was perhaps as
reasonable a reward as MacHeth could expect under the circumstances.(65)
With the
kingship monopolized by a dynasty that had proven its ability to protect itself
against rival claimants, the move by MacHeth must be regarded as extremely
adroit: Ire may well have sensed which way the winds of change were blowing and
decided to trim his sails accordingly. Such a situation is not without parallel
in the Scottish kingdom: the earls of Fife, the premier native magnates, were
likely descended from King Dub (d. 966), and may have obtained their status as
inaugural officials by abandoning the claims of their kin to the kingship.
If little is known of Malcolm
MacHeth, his descendants are cloaked in even deeper veils of mystery. Of his
sons who joined forces with Somerled in 1153, Donald was imprisoned with his
father in 1156. From this point on, his fate is unknown: was he, too, released
in 1157, or did he remain in confinement? A reasonable suggestion which would accord well with what we
know in such circumstances would be that he was held as a hostage for his
father's good behaviour. The fate of Malcolm's other son, or even his name, is
unknown; it is a point of some contention whether the Adam son of Donald who was
killed at Coupar Angus in 1186 was a son of Donald MacHeth.(67) From 1186 to 1215 there are no more references to the
MacHeths. In 1215, however, Kenneth MacHeth appeared upon the stage, apparently
allied with a son of Donald MacWilliam. His parentage is uncertain,
although it seems likely he was a son of Donald: if he had been horn in the year
of his father's death (1187), lie would have been in the prime of life in 1215;
other historians have regarded him as a son of the Adam mentioned above,
although this naturally hinges upon an acceptance of Adam as a son of Donald
MacHeth.(68)
With the death of Kenneth
in 1215, it seems that tile last of the MacHeths had played their final hour
upon the stage, and the remainder of the northern uprisings were associated with
tile MacWilliams.
Donald MacWilliam was first
mentioned by name in 1181, although it is quite possible that lie was the
target of a campaign launched by King William and his brother, Earl David, in 1179. Roger of Howden, an important source for the MacWilliam uprisings, who
possessed first-hand knowledge, gave his descent as Duvenaldus filius
Willelmi filii Dunecan,(69)
and an annalist at St. Edmund's described one of
Donald's descendants as a "certain relative of the king of Scots," (quidam
cognalus regis Scoliae).(70)
Donald's
identity as a son of William, the son of King Duncan II (reigned briefly in
1094), the son of Malcolm Canmore and his first wife, Ingibjorg, is therefore
fairly well established and not seriously in doubt.(71) It is known that William
fitz Duncan was a close companion of King David I, whose charters he frequently
witnessed and who was addressed as Willelmus nepos Regis or simply
Willelmus filius Duncani.(72)
His Norman affiliations are clearly evident in
the form of his name, although it should also be noted that the form of his
son's name, Donald MacWilliam, is a Gaelic one, betraying, perhaps, an
upbringing in a foster-home.(73)
William
had married Alice de Rumilly, the daughter of William Meschin, a prominent
landholder in Cumbria.(74)
Although the
couple had one son, William (commonly known as the Boy of Egremont) and three
daughters, Donald was not a son of William by Alice de Rumilly, but rather, if
he was not simply illegitimate, perhaps the result of an earlier marriage.
The issue is complicated by a
reference in a thirteenth-century Cumbrian genealogy to William fitz
Duncan as comes de Murray (earl of Moray), a title which, as we have seen, is
not used in any of the charters.(76)
Professor
Barrow has used this reference to construct an explanation for not only the
MacWilliam claims to the Scottish kingship, but also the close association of
the kindred with the northern regions of Moray and Ross:
If William had made a previous marriage with a cousin
or sister of Angus
a claimant to the Scots throne in 1130,
this would give Donald
whom he would inherit a claim
to the throne probably more cogent than that derived from
his father. Moreover,
Donald would have had an obvious claim to the earldom of Moray,
which was held
by the Crown in the time of Malcolm IV and William I and was not granted
out
again until the fourteenth century.
It has to be admitted that the reference to William fitz Duncan as
"earl of Moray" in the Cumbrian genealogy is indeed difficult to
explain. While this document was apparently intended to provide claims to stand
up to an inquiry in a court of law in the period 1275-1316,(78)
not all
historians have shared Barrow's confidence in the genealogy as a source. Some
have proven sceptical of the significance of the genealogies and placed little
value upon their reliability without external corroboration.(79) Unfortunately, such documentation is not to be found. In all
of his charter attestations William was styled simply Willelmus nepos Regis or
Willelmuss filius Duncani, and it is surely odd that he would not have been
styled "earl of Moray" in the charters if there had been cause to so
designate him.
Yet despite this puzzling
reference, and the persuasive explanation of MacWilliam claims set out by
Professor Barrow, it remains difficult to discard the notion that Donald
MacWilliam's claims to the kingship must have conic from his royal grandfather,
Duncan II, who ruled briefly in 1094. The vexing question here is, as Professor
Barrow has rightly pointed out, explaining why Donald MacWilliam, in the 1180s,
"pressed a claim to the Scots throne which . . . had lain dormant for over
sixty years."(80)
Indeed, there is
no evidence that either William Fitz Duncan or William of Egremont ever put
forward a claim to the kingship,(81)
so the emergence of MacWilliarn opposition to
the Canmore kings in the 1180s proves even more baffling. We can perhaps best
begin with the nature of the claim: the first wife of Malcolm Canmore was
Ingibjorg, a widow or daughter of Thorfinn, earl of Orkney: his second wife was
Margaret, a Saxon princess, the sister of Edgar Ætheling who had fled north
following the Norman conquest of England in 1066. By his first marriage Malcolm
had at least one son, Duncan (the Donald who died in 1085 might have been
another), and by his second marriage six sons: Edward, Edmund, Æthelred, Edgar,
Alexander, and David. Following the deaths of Malcolm, Edward, and Margaret
within a few days of one another in 1093, Malcolm's brother, Donald Ban, seized
the kingship in what looks like a reaction against the increased southern
influence promoted by Malcolm's marriage to the Anglo-Saxon princess
Margaret. Donald Ban's reign was short-lived, however, with the end result
that, in 1097, he was ousted by Malcolm and Margaret's son, Edgar. From then
until the death of David I in 1153 Malcolm and Margaret's three sons, Edgar,
Alexander, and David, ruled in uninterrupted succession, consolidating the
kingship in this line.
At this point the difficult
subject of Scottish succession practices must be raised. From the ninth to the
eleventh century there operated in Scotland a system of alternating succession.
By such a system, two rival but related segments took turns in the kingship so
that each held power in alternating reigns. In the later tenth century this
largely inclusive system broke down as Kenneth II (971-95) and Malcolm II (1005-34) attempted to restrict the kingship to their nearer
descendants. This led in turn to the accession of Macbeth, a representative of
the Cenel Loairn line of Moray - proving that exclusion from the succession
was worthy of a fight.(82)
But the
restoration of a rival segment was short lived, and the descendants of Malcolm
III and Margaret were responsible for transforming the structures of the royal
kin so that the dynasty acquired the attributes of a lineage: from 1097 to 1286
the kingship passed smoothly through this line, and Scottish kingship
"parted company with one aspect of its Gaelic past.”(83)
It is true, of course, that this happened, in the beginning, as much
through accident as through careful planning, but by the mid-1140s David I
seems to have intended that his son should succeed him directly.(84)
The claims of rival segments, including the descendants of Duncan II, had
been pushed aside - thus setting the stage for segmentary strife and
resistance to the descendants of Malcolm III and Margaret into the early
thirteenth century. As D. O Corrain has noted in the Irish context, "The
passing of tile kingship from one segment to another, from one dynastic power
base to another, upset as many as it satisfied."(85) In assessing the northern opposition to the Canmore dynasty,
then, we cannot overlook the profound transformation of Scottish kingship taking
place in the twelfth century.
If it is hard to deny that
MacWilliam claims seem to have been genuine, it is more difficult to say why
Donald's father, William fitz Duncan, apparently made no effort to wrest the
throne from the MacMalcolms, when, tinder a system of primogeniture, he had the
better claim.(86)
In this matter,
however, several often overlooked facts are crucial. First, William must have
been very young, if indeed he had even been born, when his father was killed in
1094, and he was also probably in England.(87)
This, combined with the ensuing environment of claimants taking the
Scottish kingship with military assistance from the Anglo-Norman kings of
England, makes it highly unlikely that William would have been able to set forth
his own claim. Second, there remains the clouded issue of legitimacy. It is
tempting to suppose that the various opinions voiced by contemporaries about the
illegitimacy of William's father, Duncan II, were part of a propaganda campaign
by the sons of Malcolm and Margaret to deliberately discredit any claims to the
throne from that quarter.(88) This would also have had the effect of casting
aspersions on any claim of William to the throne. However, "irregular"
marriages - irregular from the perspective of members of the
contemporary reform movement taking place in the church did not debar a
candidate from seeking the kingship in Ireland and Wales.(89)
Indeed, they often led to exactly the sort of process that I am
suggesting was taking place in Scotland in the twelfth century. Third, it also
appears that William achieved an honourable and prominent position within the
new order of Scottish society. He married a wealthy heiress, acquired
significant landholdings in Cumbria, and was a frequent companion of the king.
Given the entrenchment of the sons of Malcolm and Margaret by the time of David
I, he may have been quite comfortable with these honours and happy to let his
claim lapse. Indeed, when the Norman form of his name, as well as what is known
about his later career, when he was one of David's foremost military leaders,
are considered, it would appear that William fitz Duncan achieved accommodation
within the new type of society being introduced to Scotland, not unlike that of
the contemporary earls of Fife.(90)
If
his son, Donald, as his name suggests ("MacWilliam" rather than "fitz
William"), had grown up in a Gaelic environment, possibly a
foster-home, then his assimilation becomes less likely. The most plausible
explanation for the various uprisings against the Canmore dynasty by the
MacWilliams, then, is that they were based upon the descent of William Fitz
Duncan from King Duncan II, and there are also some compelling reasons why the
claim to the throne put forth by Donald MacWilliarn in the second half of the
twelfth century may have lain dormant in the person of his father.
While much is known or can be
deduced about Donald MacWilliam himself, little is known of his descendants. In
1211 or 1212 his son Guthred, stated to have been "of the ancient line of
Scottish kings," crossed from Ireland and ravaged the north of Scotland,
only to be captured and killed.(91)
In
1215 another son, Donald Ban, accompanied by Kenneth MacHeth and the son of an
Irish king, met the same fate. Finally, in the 1220s, Gillescop, stated to have
been of the "race of MacWilliarn" by Bower, caused trouble in the
north. Little is known of him, although he seems to have been active in at least
1228-29. As for the daughter of MacWilliam who had her head smashed at
Forfar, since she is described as having been out of her mother's womb for but a
short time, it seems unlikely, if not impossible, that she was the daughter of
Donald Ban, killed in 1215. Could she have been Gillescop's daughter instead? In
short, while MacWilliam's descendants remain obscure, there can be no question
that Duncan II's descendants were even less successful than their forbear in
pressing their claims to the Scottish kingship.
Thus far, it has been argued
that when viewing the uprisings centred predominantly in the north of Scotland,
two distinct claims to the kingship must be recognized: those of MacHeth, likely
transmitted from the house of Moray, and MacWilliam claims, based upon descent
from King Duncan II. In this respect the uprisings display a strongly dynastic
element. Further, these claims must be taken seriously. Whoever they were, and
however they are regarded by modern historians, both MacHeth and MacWilliam had
some justice on their side. If their claims did not rest upon a sound
genealogical basis, men of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries would scarcely
have paid them any heed.(93)
It is also
significant to note the treatment accorded to Malcolm MacHeth after his capture
in 1134: he was neither executed nor mutilated, but was imprisoned. Surely if
MacHeth's cause lacked a sound basis, David I would have taken steps to ensure
that his rival would cause no more trouble. This is what apparently happened
with the enigmatic Wimund in the late 1140s: he was blinded and castrated, and
sent to Byland abbey to live out his last days as a monk there.(94)
That David did not follow this route strongly suggests that MacHeth had
some justice on his side, as does the 1157 accommodation and the grant of the
earldom of Ross. In this context it is interesting to note that Donald
MacWilliam and his descendants received much harsher treatment at the hands of
the royal line they opposed. This could mean that, in the eyes of the Scottish
kings, their claims were invalidated based upon the supposed illegitimacy of
Duncan II.
In assessing the problem of
the northern resistance to the Canmore dynasty, it may also be of some
significance to return to the question of the name MacHeth. It has already been
noted that this probably means macc Aeda, "son of Aed." Aed or
Aodh, meaning "fire," was a fairly common name,(95)
but it also appears to
have carried very strong prophetic connotations in the context of contemporary
Gaeldom. One version of Berchan's Prophecy, for instance, alluded
to an "Aodh Eanghach" from Cruachan who would win victories and
inflict slaughter on both Irish and foreigners, while the Annals of Loch Ce preserve
an enigmatic entry under the year 1214 about the appearance of a "false
Aedh, who was called 'the Aider'.”(96) In the Irish context, then, there was a
"popular expectation of a messianic king called Aodh, who would deliver his
country from the Norman invaders . . . .”(97)
Other prophecies also circulated in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries
which promised the expulsion of the Anglo-Normans from Ireland and Wales.
Gerald of Wales recorded a tradition that "almost all the English will be
dislodged from Ireland by a king who will come from the lonely mountains of
Patrick, and on the night of Our Lord's day will overrun a castle in the wooded
region of Ui Fhaelain."(98) In Wales, prophecies of Myrddin were also circulated which
foretold that the Welsh would be rid of the Normans and English.(99)
There seems no reason why prophecies like these, obviously widely known
in the twelfth century, could not have become current in Scotland, especially
given the close contacts that existed between northern and western Scotland and
Gaelic Ireland in this period. In fact, it is interesting to note that lines
from Berchan and attributed to him by name survive in a Scottish manuscript of
fifteenth/sixteenth-century date.(100)
Traditions
like these could well have added strength and support to the MacHeth cause
against the Canmore monarchs, closely allied as these kings were with European
trends.
Implicit in the foregoing
discussion is the thesis that the northern resistance to the Canmores was
essentially dynastically driven; that is to say, MacHeths and MacWilliams were
excluded from competing for the kingship, succession to which had traditionally
operated through an alternating system, by the descendants of Malcolm III and
Margaret as they organized themselves into a lineage which monopolized the royal
office. But underlying these changes in the succession was an increased southern
influence, first English and then Anglo-Norman, promoted by the union of
Malcolm Canmore and Margaret in c. 1070. Although superficially dynastic in
nature, at a deeper level the northern opposition must also be regarded as
directed against fundamental cultural changes which affected succession
practices. It is significant in this context that a contemporary English
chronicle, recording the MacWilliam rising of 1211-12, went on to say
that, "more recent kings of Scots profess themselves to be rather
Frenchmen, both in race and in manners, language, and culture: and after
reducing the Scots to utter servitude, they admit only Frenchmen to their
friendship and service."(101)
This
link between the Europeanizing policies of the kings of Scots and the MacWilliam
rising must therefore be regarded as more than just coincidence, and is, in
fact, indicative of resentment and reaction against such policies. These
uprisings, then, may be seen not only as attempting to restore the form of
succession which gave collateral branches of the royal line access to the
kingship, but also as resisting the Anglo-Norman penetration of Scotland from
within. Perhaps, then, if the Norman infiltration of Scotland is often regarded
as a "peaceful Norman conquest" it can no longer be held to have been
exclusively so, as demonstrated by the military actions of the Scottish kings
against their northern foes. Moreover, one of the valuable lessons to be learned
from closer study of this northern resistance is that, despite the current
characterization of the twelfth- and thirteenth-century kingdom as a
balance of "old" and "new,"(102) the incidents of resistance to
the Canmore kings show that there existed within this kingdom elements that were
clearly alienated and disaffected.
If MacHeth and MacWilliam are
seen as agitating for the same prize, namely, the kingship of Scotland, then the
problem does arise of the apparent cooperation of the counter-claimants in
seeking the same objective. In some interpretations this provides an important
stumbling block for the acceptance of the genealogies outlined above.(103)
A careful reading of the evidence, however, will not allow the conclusion
that MacHeths and MacWilliams were cooperating continuously throughout the
twelfth century. It is striking that for nearly thirty years, from the time of
Malcolm MacHeth's reconciliation in 1157 to the events of 1186, there is no
mention of the sons of Malcolm MacHeth being involved in any insurrections - and the identification of Adam, son of Donald, who was killed in 1186,
with a son of Malcolm MacHeth is contentious. Indeed, it is not until the
uprising of 1215 - and apparently only then - that there is any hint
of collaboration between MacHeths and MacWilliams, this might well be the first
cooperative effort, perhaps born of desperation. Fordun recorded how "the
king of Scotland's enemies namely, Donald Ban, son of MacWilliam, Kenneth
MacHeth, and the son of a certain king of Ireland –entered Moray with a
numerous crowd of miscreants."(104)
This
does seem to suggest a common cause, but can hardly be taken to indicate
collaboration and cooperation over the previous eighty years. In fact, the issue
of counter-claimants competing for the same prize can be better understood
by turning to contemporary Irish and Welsh society, where it was by no means
unusual to find two or more segments of the royal lineage competing for the
kingship; indeed, in Ireland, the dispossessed segments might unite in common
opposition to that in possession of the kingship.
Much of the foregoing
discussion has been, of necessity, speculative; the identities and motivations
of Malcolm MacHeth and Donald MacWilliam remain murky and contentious.
Fortunately, however, other aspects of the northern opposition to the Canmore
kings can be elucidated with much greater certainty, and firmer conclusions can
be drawn. In the first instance, there is the chronological framework. While it
would be easy to dismiss individual uprisings as isolated occurrences, taken
cumulatively the frequency and persistence with which they unfolded is truly
staggering: nearly every decade of the twelfth century, as well as the first
third of the thirteenth, witnessed uprisings of some sort against the kings of
Scots, with many of these challenges originating in the northern regions of
Moray and Ross. Moreover, it is pertinent to note that the timing of many, if
not most, of these insurrections coincided with moments of weakness in the
kingdom and monarchy. Several uprisings, including those of 1124, 1153-57,
and 1215, occurred on the death of a monarch, while others unfolded at times
when the king was absent from the kingdom, as in 1130 and 1181, or else was
ageing and feeble, as in 1211-12. Indeed, one English chronicler made a direct
link between William's age and his inability to pacify "the interior
districts of his kingdom, disturbed by revolt" in 1212.(106) Here, then, were no random events, but carefully timed, and
presumably orchestrated, predatory strikes against the Canmore kings in their
weakest moments. Further, the serious nature of the threat was recognized and
underlined by contemporaries. The Holyrood chronicler, for instance, wrote in
the wake of the death of Donald MacWilliam in 1187 that "peace long
disturbed was given again to the king and the kingdom through God's mercy and
strength," while Walter Bower, after describing the demise of Gillescop and
his followers, remarked that "the land was no longer troubled by their
wickedness."(107)
Internal
stability, long regarded as one of the characteristics of the twelfth century
kingdom of Scots, should not, perhaps, be overestimated; it might even be
concluded from the tenacity and timing of the uprisings against the kings of
Scots that there was a deeply rooted "resistance movement" afoot in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
It could, of course, be
argued that the comments made by various chroniclers about the restoration of
internal peace following the suppression of these insurrections are simply
hyperbole. This raises the important question of just how much of a threat the
MacWilliam and MacHeth uprisings actually posed to the Scottish kings. Here,
several points stand out. The first is that the chroniclers repeatedly
emphasized the destructive nature of the MacHeth and MacWilliam insurrections;
the descriptions of Roger of Howden for the events of 1181 and Walter Bower for
those of 1211-1212 are particularly vivid.
Howden described how MacWilliam landed in Scotland "with a numerous
armed host, wasting and burning as much of the land as he reached; and he put
the folk to flight, and slew all of those whom he could take."(108)
Bower, describing Guthred's incursion in 1211, relates how MacWilliarn
avoided battle with the royal army, "meanwhile laying ambushes for it
wherever he could by night or day, and driving off booty from the lord king's
land;" by avoiding direct confrontation with what must have been vastly
superior royal forces and opting instead for guerilla-style warfare,
Guthred foreshadowed a strategy that Robert Bruce would find particularly
successful against the English a century later!
It is hard to say much about
the composition or nature of the armies led by MacHeths and MacWilliams. If the
chroniclers can be believed, they were both large and, as we have seen,
destructive. But several other facets also stand out. The first is that they
could be well-equipped. Walter Bower, describing Guthred's invasion in
1211, makes specific reference to the fact that his army possessed siege
machines with which a royal stronghold was successfully reduced.(109)
The second is that Irish involvement is particularly noticeable. As Sean
Duffy has pointed out, "there were always men in Ireland willing to throw
their muscle about in Scotland and in the islands . . . The underdog, the
pretender, and the malcontent in Scotland all found Irish support."(110)
Thus, Donald MacWilliam is said to have landed in Scotland with an armed
host in 1181; he must have launched his invasion from outside the kingdom and
recruited at least part of his forces from the Irish Sea region. In
1211-12 it is explicitly stated that Godfrey, MacWilliam's son, arrived in
Scotland from Ireland, while the 1215 uprising involved an unnamed Irish prince
and presumably Irish and Hebridean forces as well. Finally, the insurgents of
the 1220s are also said to have arrived in the furthest limits of Scotland and,
given the precedents of at least 1211 and 1215, it is likely that they too
launched their invasion from a staging point beyond the kingdom. Considering the
connections to Gaelic Ireland possessed by the MacHeths and MacWilliams, it is
hardly surprising that one avenue pursued by the Scottish kings to shut down
their insurrections was to campaign against their Irish bases. Keith Stringer
has argued that a series of combined Anglo-Scottish campaigns in northern
Ireland in 1212 look like "determined efforts to strike out bases of
MacWilliam support" in the aftermath of Guthred's uprising.(111)
Their success may be adjudged by the fact that Farquhar MacTaggart was
able to single-handedly suppress the insurrection of 1215, and subsequent
uprisings seem much less threatening than those between 1181 and 1212.
Apart from the connection
with Gaelic Ireland, the links of the MacWilliams and MacHeths to the Hebrides
should also be noted; indeed, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that mercenary
troops from Argyll and the Isles, the infamous galloclaig or
galloglasses, made up at least part of the northern armies that faced the royal
forces. Although the galloglasses do not appear on the record until the middle
of the thirteenth century,(112)
given the close connections of the MacHeths and
MacWilliams with the Hebrides, it would have been natural for them to use these
areas as recruiting grounds. Indeed, the "Roderic" mentioned in
relation to the insurrections of the 1220s is usually identified with Ruairi,
the son of Ranald, one of the Hebridean chieftains descended from Somerled
(d.1164).(113) The connection between the north of Scotland, the Hebrides, and Gaelic
Ireland would seem to bear out Keith Stringer's assertion that, "ambitious
leaders could maximize their strength by drawing warriors from one part of the
closely- knit Gaelic-Norse world to fight in another."(114) In this context, one of the more significant aspects of the
creation of Farquhar MacTaggart as earl of Ross (by 1226) was that it placed a
loyal supporter of the Scots king in direct control of a strategic block of
territory that included Easter Ross, while his sphere of influence stretched all
the way to the western seaboard ("North Argyll" or Wester Ross was a
later thirteenth-century acquisition of the earls of Ross). Along with
other recent grants of Badenoch to the Comyns, this effectively choked off the
MacHeth-MacWilliam lifeline to Ireland, and must have driven the final
nail into the coffin of northern resistance.(115)
Additionally, there is the
question of who supported the MacHeths and MacWilliams in their endeavours
against the Scottish kings. It is not an easy one to answer, though there are
some tantalizing hints in the sources that these individuals enjoyed
considerable support. Roger of Howden alleged that Donald MacWilliarn had made
his incursion in 1181 with the "mandate of certain powerful men of the
kingdom"; he also stated in his discussion of the events of 1187 that Mac
William's actions had been undertaken "through the consent and council of
the earls and barons of the kingdom."(116)
This
last remark is particularly interesting, because Howden, who described the
campaign against Mac William, noted how the royal army sent against him was
divided within its own ranks: "and when they set out, treason arose among
the chiefs; for certain of them loved the king not at all, and certain of them
loved him."(117)
It would certainly be instructive to have further details,
which are known to have existed: there was once a roll which contained
"recognitions and old charters of the time of King William and King
Alexander his son [concerning] those to whom the said kings formerly gave their
peace, and those who stood with MacWilliam."(118)
Frustratingly, it was lost in England after 1296 along with the rest of
the Scottish muniments which Edward I sent south to London in the aftermath of
his conquest of Scotland.(119)
Notwithstanding the loss of
these tantalizing records, it seems probable that one of those whose name might
have been included among MacWilliam's supporters was Harald Maddadson, the
powerful and expansionist earl of Orkney and Caithness, who has already made a
brief appearance in this narrative as an antagonist of the Scottish kings in the
late twelfth century. Although Earl Harald had his own axe to grind with the
Scottish monarchs, his military activities against them cannot be entirely
dissociated from the resistance offered by the MacHeths and MacWilliams. Earl
Harald was locked in conflict with King William I in 1196, 1197, and again in
1201-2, and although these uprisings are well-known,(120)
the
Orkney earl's potential role in the MacHeth and MacWilliam opposition remains
unexplored. It is well-known that Earl Harald was related by blood to the
MacHeths: sometime after 1168, Earl Harald put away his wife, the daughter of
Earl Duncan of Fife, and married instead the daughter of Malcolm MacHeth.(121) This act probably represents a conscious association on his
part with the faction represented by MacHeth, and it may have motivated his
disturbances in the north in the 1190s since Fordun related that he had been
"until then a good and trusty man - but at that time, goaded on by
his wife . . . he had risen against [the king]."(122) This contention would be strengthened by the fact that a
condition of peace with the king in 1196 was that Earl Harald should dismiss
MacHeth's daughter as his wife; this he refused to do.(123)
It is thus possible that Maddadsson's invasion of Moray in 1196
originated in this marriage alliance, and that the powerful Orkney earl was
staking a claim to the earldom of Ross. It has also been suggested, however,
that Maddadson's involvement in these northern disturbances stemmed less from
his wife's association with Ross than from an aversion to the extensive
expansion, particularly that of the de Moravia family, taking place in Moray
following the defeat of MacWilliam in 1187.(124) This would make his uprisings akin to those of Fergus
and Somerled in the 1160s, in that he was "not very enthusiastic about the
policy of spreading Scottish influence in Caithness."(125) Whatever the case may have been, the importance of the
involvement of the earl of Orkney and Caithness in northern affairs in this
period cannot denied, just as it cannot be denied that his position in Caithness
would have been strengthened by attacks which undermined the power and authority
of the kings of Scots.(126)
It is not
inconceivable, therefore, that Maddadson provided covert assistance for several
northern uprisings, and he may have been one of those anonymous but
"powerful men" who are said to have supported the MacHeth and
MacWilliam causes.
Finally, it remains to
consider the specific geographical context of this opposition. The 1130 uprising
was orchestrated by Angus, the ruler of Moray, and the sources speak of a
slaughter of the Moraymen, although the battle which brought about its
conclusion was fought at Stracathro, in Angus. In 1153, Malcolm Maclleth's sons
made common cause with Somerled against Malcolm IV, presumably drawing support
from the Western Isles, and a Hebridean connection is again apparent in tile
uprisings of the 1220s. By 1179 there was enough dissent, or at least threatened
dissent, to warrant the construction of two castles at strategic northern
locations. In the expedition of 1187 which hunted down Donald MacWilliam was
centred on Inverness, with Donald's death occurring, in all probability, at a
site near Dingwall in Ross. In 1215, when both the MacHeths and MacWilliams rose
again, they entered Moray, according to Bower, the rising of 1223 was centred
"in the furthest limits of Scotland." The rising of c.1228-30
saw the killing of a northern magnate in his castle and the burning of
Inverness, while the Lanercost chronicler recorded that the "remotest
territories of Scotland" were involved in the last MacWilliam disturbance.
From Stracathro to Inverness to the "remotest territories of
Scotland:" we can almost see the nexus of resistance being thrust further
and further back into the rugged, mountainous territory beyond the Great Glen
and into Wester Ross, no doubt the result of the settlement of newcomers and the
consolidation of royal authority that had progressed hand in hand in the north
in tile last quarter of the twelfth and first third of the thirteenth centuries.
Geographically, this makes
sense. The northern highlands of Scotland, with their steep, tugged mountains,
heavy forest, and peat bogs, were probably the least accessible part of the
country throughout the entire medieval period:
In the absence of roads and
hostelries the great extent of these
areas was sufficient to sever
the daily lives of their inhabitants
from contact with the Lowland
peoples and . . . mountain ridges
often prevented regular
contact between groups in neighbouring
glens.
These physical characteristics made the highland
regions an ideal base from which dissenting factions could operate, giving them
the ability to disappear into the wilderness - or even, via the
Great Glen, to the Isles or Ireland - in the event of pursuit.
Moreover, the landscape of northern Scotland, like that of Ireland and Wales,
had the added advantage of making it difficult for large groups of mounted
horsemen to operate in preferred Norman or Anglo-French style, which had
devastated the Moravians at Stracathro in 1130.(128) A corollary to the physical environment which set these regions apart was
their distance from the centres of royal authority. Under David I and Malcolm
IV, in the middle of the twelfth century, the king's control was limited, with
most of the headway being made south of the Forth. It was not until the reign of
William I, in the later twelfth and early thirteenth century, that royal
authority began to extend steadily northwards, as grants were made to newcomers,
royal burghs established, and sheriffdoms created.
But even so, as late as the middle of the thirteenth century Scottish
royal authority can be regarded as of very uneven quality depending upon which
part of the kingdom is considered, and in the margins it consisted of a loose
overlordship over local rulers whose powers and status varied.(129) For the inhabitants of Moray and Ross, not to mention the Hebrides,
Argyll, and Galloway, the king of Scots must have seemed a distant figure whose
authority was more illusory than real before the thirteenth century.
Analysis of the resistance
faced by the Canmore kings in the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries leads
continually back to the large and remote northern territories of Moray and Ross.
Recent work on questions of identity in medieval Scotland has demonstrated that
regional identities persisted into the twelfth century and beyond. The term
Scotia, for instance, long referred only to the region north of the Firth of
Forth and east of the River Spey, and even thirteenth-century writers
differed as to the geographical area encompassed by the term. One of the regions
which seems to have possessed a distinct identity was Moray, regarded as
separate from Scotia by eleventh and twelfth-century sources. This is
obvious from the Irish Annals cited above, which referred to the 1130 conflict
between the "men of Moray" and the "men of Scotia." But we
need not rely solely on outside sources for this Moravian identity: in c.1136,
King David I addressed a charter to omnibus probis hominihus totius Muref et
Scoliae; that is, to all the "worthy men of Moray and Scotia."(130)
That situation would change, of course, as the century progressed, but
there is good evidence that from at least the tenth to the twelfth century Moray
ought to be regarded as "a distinct identity, on a par with and opposed to
Scotland."(131)
Moreover, recent
inquiries into early Scottish kingship have shown that Moray possessed a history
and a royal dynasty stretching back to the kingdom of Dalriada. It has been
suggested that the Cenel Loairn, one of the three major kindreds of Scottish
Dalriada (founded c. 500), migrated up the Great Glen and established themselves
in Moray, perhaps in the face of Viking incursion into Dalriada, in the ninth
century. Macbeth's genealogy, the earliest extant version of which,
significantly, dates from the 1130s, traces his pedigree back patrilineally to
Ferchar Foda, a Dalriadic king of the Cenel Loairn who died c.696 or 697.(132)
The Cenel Loairn thus probably took over the northern Pictish province or
provinces which were referred to by Bede as being separated from the southern
ones by a line of "steep and desolate" mountains, the Grampians.(133)
It was, perhaps, this division between northern and southern Pictish
provinces or kingdoms which endured long after the union of Picts and Scots by
Kenneth MacAlpin in c.848, and which in turn led to the emergence of two
"important and opposing kingdoms" among the Scots: Moray and Scotia.(134) Evidence for this bipartite kingship may be adduced from a
number of places. It is not just that Irish sources more or less consistently
styled the rulers of Moray as "kings," especially in the period
between about 1020 and 1130; Angus was so identified on his death at Stracathro,
and the terminology represents more than just the Irish nature of the source.(135)
The activities and itineraries of the MacAlpin kings are also persuasive:
they were confined to the region south of the Dee, and were unable to make any
headway against their northern neighbours until the second half of the eleventh
century. Moreover, several kings of the line of Kenneth MacAlpin were slain in
Moray, and these ongoing struggles should perhaps be viewed as reflecting not
only the animosity between the house of MacAlpin and the house of Moray, but
also traditional animosity between the descendants of Loairn and Gabrain and the
perpetuation of the divisions between northern and southern Pictland.(136)
As Benjamin Hudson has suggested, the death of Angus at Stracathro in
1130 was especially significant because it marked the effective end of a
bipartite kingship within North Britain, and meant that henceforth there would
be only one king among the Scots.(137)
But
old memories died slowly, and Moray seems to have preserved both its own
identity and a distinct hostility towards the kings of Scots well into the
twelfth century.
The nature of the
Moray-Scotia polarity in the tenth and eleventh centuries has great
ramifications for a study of the insurrections originating in Moray and Ross in
the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. More than anything else, the nature of the
source material means that the MacHeth and MacWilliam uprisings can only be
viewed through the eyes of those who opposed them, and who espoused the cause of
tile Canmore kings of Scots. Sources like the chronicles of Holyrood and
Melrose, as well as English writers like Roger of Howden and later authors like
Bower, all of whom clearly admired the Canmore kings (especially David I),
betrayed their affinities both blatantly, with phraseology describing the
"wicked men of the race of MacWilliam," and more subtly, by
downgrading tile kings of Moray to the status of earls.(138)
This is hardly surprising: the Holyrood and the Melrose chronicles, our
only "indigenous" Scottish chronicles for the period in question, were
composed in monasteries founded and patronized by the kings descended from
Malcolm Canmore and Margaret, and English and later Scottish writers relied
heavily upon these chronicles for their knowledge of events in Scotland in this
period.(139)
Yet the view of Moray and
its rulers, as well as other native princes like Fergus and Somerled, presented
in these sources is plainly one sided, since the chroniclers were, as one
historian has put it, "the devoted partisans of the kings of
Scotland."(140)
Since these kings
were the descendants of Malcolm Canmore's second marriage to Margaret, nothing
could better illustrate the maxim that "history is written by the
victors," and in the case of twelfth-century Scotland, the victors
were without question the Canmore kings. In support of the observation that
twelfth-century Scottish history displays a decidedly pro-Canmorian
bias, it could be noted that the contemporary estimation of Macbeth in the Prophecy
of Berchan - written before the reign of Malcolm III - was very
favourable indeed.(141)
Precedents for
such re-writing of history by the victors are close at hand: within five
years of the Norman conquest of England, the Norman chroniclers had created
their story of King Harold's treachery, and his nine months' rule was
effectively nullified.
While the Irish sources and Macbeth's pedigree help to redress this imbalance by noting the royal status of the rulers of Moray and their descendants, they provide little indication of how these uprisings and the resistance movement of which they were part and parcel were perceived by the inhabitants (or at least the elite) of the north. Some hint may be provided by the Annals of Inisfallen, which described the "slaughter" of the Moravians at Stracathro and clearly regarded Moray as distinct from Scotia.(143) In a similar vein, it has recently been suggested that the epithet Canmore (ceann mor), commonly applied to Malcolm III, is better rendered as "Great Chief' rather than "Big Head" - and constituted part of an attempt at inventing a pseudo-Gaelic praise name for a king not held in the highest regard by the Gael!(144) On a more speculative note, it is worthwhile reflecting upon how an hypothetical "Moray Chronicle" might have regarded the events of the late eleventh to early thirteenth centuries. The kings of Moray might be portrayed as defending their rightful inheritance against the "wicked men of the race of Canmore." And Malcolm Canmore, his sons, and grandsons, might well be the ones regarded as treacherous and deceitful: Malcolm's path to the throne was, after all, bloodier than Macbeth's. Even the verse addition to the Melrose chronicle had to admit that Lulach, killed in 1058 by Malcolm III, was "unfortunate" and a "hapless king," while Irish sources were more impartial: Tigernach says laconically that Lulach was slain "by treachery."(145)
On a less speculative basis, it must also be significant in this context
that the first extant genealogy of Macbeth dates from precisely the time when
the claims of the house of Moray had reached their low ebb, in c.1130. This
cannot be coincidence, and should be regarded as a political statement of the
greatest importance, made to counter the ascendancy of the Canmore dynasty. It
shows that, contrary to the common assertion that with the overthrow of Lulach
his line's regal claims disappeared, the house of Loairn and its kings were not
forgotten in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, and "there was political
advantage to be gained in claiming descent from them."(146) While this document may be as close as it is possible to come to the
views of the resistance movement in the twelfth century, it must be agreed that
"it is one of the misfortunes of early Scottish history that much less is
known about the kings of Moray than about the MacAlpin kings of the south."(147)
Although this is not due entirely to accident - indeed, it is due to a
deliberate re-shaping of the past by the kings descended from Malcolm III
and Margaret, a process that is seldom acknowledged and certainly not well
understood - a better understanding of the relationship between the
large northern region of Moray and the centre of the Scottish kingdom could
fundamentally alter our conception of both Scottish kingship and political
culture in the twelfth century.
Chronicles and annals,
contemporary and otherwise, of Norman, English, Scottish, and Irish provenance,
hint at a persistent and tenacious opposition to the Canmore kings of Scots from
the death of Angus of Moray at Stracathro in 1130 (if not earlier) until the
murder of an infant MacWilliam at Forfar a century later. It seems clear that
there existed in twelfth- and early thirteenth-century Scotland a
resistance movement, rooted in the forces of reaction,(148)
based in the rugged and
remote far north and west, and led at various times by either or both Maclleths
and MacWilliams. Resistance against what? One of the most profound changes
taking place within twelfth-century Scottish society was the gradual
organization (partly accidental, partly through design) of the descendants of
Malcolm Ill and Margaret into a lineage through which the kingship descended in
an orderly fashion. The flip side of this development, however, is seldom
appreciated: the squeezing out and eventual extinction of other royal dynasties
on the periphery of the kingdom, in Galloway, Argyll and the Isles, and
especially Moray. Although usually weaker than the Canmore kings, the rulers in
these regions were semi-autonomous, and, in the case of Moray, had
attained the zenith of power only recently, in the middle of the eleventh
century, under Macbeth and Lulach. Despite the best efforts of the Canmore kings
to obliterate them, memory of some, at least, of these dynasties remained strong
through the twelfth and early thirteenth centuries, which goes a long way toward
explaining why the MacWilliams and MacHeths found so much support in the north.
So perhaps, for some segments of Scottish society, the consolidation of the
Canmore dynasty, going hand-in-hand as it did with the
Europeanization of Scottish society, was a much more disruptive and potentially
destructive experience than is usually allowed.
Professor Barrow, with the
MacWilliams firmly in mind, has contended that the Canmore dynasty can hardly be
regarded as firmly established much before the 1180s.(149)
Herein lies one facet of
the significance of the resistance movement: it acts as a convenient gauge for
the limits of the consolidation of the Canmore dynasty and its accompanying
phenomenon, Scottish regnal solidarity. The survival of the Canmore kings, their
monopoly on the kingship, Scottish unity under these kings, and even the
inclusion of Moray within the emerging community of the realm - these were
all more closely-run things than is often admitted, and certainly should
not be regarded as foregone conclusions much before the death of William I in
1214. In the final analysis, consideration of the MacHeths and MacWilliams and
their resistance movement is a potent reminder, if one is needed, that in
dealing with the Canmore dynasty we are, in one respect, dealing with
"winners" in history. Or, the other hand, the recurrent uprisings
launched by the MacHeths and MacWilliams might also be viewed as the ultimate
tribute to the power and endurance of the Canmore kings: the ending of the
crises in the north, the defeat of the MacHeths and MacWilliams, and the
suppression of Moravian identity mark the triumph of these rulers once and for
all. As Professor Robin Frame so aptly summed it up, "The weight of the
house of Canmore was irresistible, and its brand of kingship inimitable.”
This article originally appeared in the Canadian Journal of History, vol. 33 (August 1999), pp. 161-192. We thank them for allowing us to reproduce it.
