Divine Right of Kings

scottishstuart · Divine Right of Kings

After reading up on this ancient doctrine, I have come to ask myself if the people of Scotland and England did not perform contradictory acts to the will of God, for a King/Queen Regnent is King/Queen ordained by God, as stated on Wikipedia

mairead

History shows that religion was ever used as a means to an end in endless power struggles. Hence I am not religious. Mankind invented Gods.

Babygael

Hi Scottishstuart, I don't know what I'm talking about either! So don't worry as someone is sure to "enlighten" you/us at some point! Laughing

Here's what I think,as Miread said

wisnaeme

Chookie

Divine Right?

Read this and tell where the so-called divine right comes into it:-

But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like another Macabaeus or Joshua and bore them cheerfully. Him, too, divine providence, his right of succession according to or laws and customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all have made our Prince and King. To him, as to the man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by law and by his merits that our freedom may be still maintained, and by him, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King; for, as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we on any conditions be brought under English rule. It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom -- for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

mairead

In the Scottish Declaration of Independence signed at Arbroath in April 1320, it states, in effect, that the people of Scotland have the right to remove any king who does not have the welfare of the people at heart. That King can be removed and replaced by another who will defend the rights of the Scots and defend Scotland.
The Scots opposed regicide unlike the English who not only killed their own monarchs, but Mary, Queen of Scots as well.

scottishstuart · I apologise

After catching up on my history, sumthing i've unfortunately not been able to do in a little while I have come to realise that ur rite - The devine right of Kings - Was upheld by the Scottish people, and as u said it was the English who killed HG Mary I and I have reently discovered that the Pope Sixtus V renewed the solemn bull of excommunication against Elizabeth I of England for executing Mary I. Also after reading up on it - I found that Charles I was found guilty on an English law technicality (no-plead then being treated as a guilty plead). The final fact that I apologise for being too ignorant to research before posting was that James VII was deposed within the realm of England, and still had many Scottish followers and supporters and was not formally deposed in Scotland until some months later. So I apologise for gettin my facts mixed up Smile

A rather interesting fact in the so called Glorious Revelution which saw th deposing of James VII in favor of Mary II & William II is the bill of rights, which states that no English monarch could marry a catholic and no catholic could ascend to the English throne - No mention of a Scottish monarch - Rather insulting ? lol

Anthropos · Re: I apologise

RFM

It is probably the unspoken story behind William Wallace; but the doctrine of divine right was started with the coronation of King Charles the Great (Charlemagne) in the year 800 AD. Pope Leo essentially cut a deal that went briefly as: Charlemagne was crowned king by God's representative on earth (the Pope), it was therefore by divine right and grace that he ruled. That was a new doctrine, completely unknown up to that time, and since the church was selling religion to the illiterate masses, it helped immensely to have God on your side. Particularly when the King's tax collectors came around. It also gave the church a big say in who could be king, which translated into donations. Since a number of the wars and fighting within nations concerned the question of who would be king, divine right was a handy way to settle that question.
The Scandinavians, that is the Vikings and Norwegians and Icelanders on the other hand elected their kings from the best and strongest among them.
When David became king of Scotland, he decided the Frankish (Divine right) system was what was needed in Scotland. Just to make certain there was no opposition he brought a number of Norman nobility with him to help establish the new world order he intended to impose. Scotland before that time still had the Scandinavian tradition of electing its Kings. Wallace was a commoner in the sense he was not of the Norman nobility, but he was a warrior, a leader, and was able to inspire others to his cause. De Brys, or Bruce as his anglicized name has it, was a Norman and other than the devine right of the nobility to rule, had really nothing going for him as a leader compared to Wallace. Wallace was delivered to King Edward, Scots history tells us, but that history also is strangely silent about who it was that delivered him to Edward. Since Edward (a Norman himself) had already taken the position that he would decide who should be king of Scotland, and thereby owe loyalty to him, it is certainly not to difficult to guess who it might well have been who betrayed Wallace. After all, if the insurgency that Wallace was so successfully leading came to a successful completion, he, Wallace would probably have been elected king. Better to be a contender in a system that says once you are appointed king, you rule by God's grace and so do all of your male children than a system which required demonstrated ability.
So right down to the present day, all of the Kings and Queens of England, Great Britain, the British Isles or whatever they call it these days, still rule by divine right, and so will their children.

Highlander

SLG

Why does your signature say 'British to the end' - should it not say 'UKish to the end'?

RFM

It is difficult when they are not certain what name they call themselves; Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the British Isles, England and its dominions,the British Commonwealth or the British Empire.
Anyway whatever they call themselves, the English that is, has little to do with the topic of this thread.

RFM

Bravo SLG!

RFM

To Anthropos;
Actually the Claim of Right of 1689, the Scots legislation to complement the English Bill of Rights, same year, finessed hat problem by offering the Crown of Scotland to William and Mary. It is fairly clear from a reading of the two statutes that the Scots Bill of Rights was intended as "follow-on legislation" rather than as a separate enactment.

Highlander

mairead

Och, the chappie is just one of these deluded and ill educated folk who don't know their geography. None of his teachers ever taught him the difference between the countries. His user name amuses me more than his daft comments. His is typical of the attitudes which have given a reason for the Scots to go for independence.
Prosperity to Scotland and NAE union.

SLG

RFM

The truth is Highlander in many respects Scotland is an independent country. For example if you read the Act of Union 1706/07 it merges the two countries, Scotland and England into a country known as Great Britain, it does not abolish or eliminate Scotland a political or legal entity. Further Scotland retains it own banking system, its own legal system, and to some extent its own educational system, but I am not too certain how its educational system differs. Reading the Act of Union gives the clear impression that it was only the executive and legislative branches of the governments of two independent countries that were merged, in all other regards to remain the same. For instance the English maintained until 1999 a "Scottish Affairs" office at Westminister, subsequently transferred to the English Executive authority ( the Queen). The mere existence of such an office is the clear acknowledgment of a separate country whose governance is assumed by the Act of Union.
As another example, when American began expanding from its original 13 colonies, it required each independent colony to renounce and relinquish any other political existance other than to the Confederation and subsequently to the Union. That policy was continued after the American civil war with the doctrine that succession being illegal there was no succession of the southern states.
If the Act of Union intended the political abolition of Scotland and its merger into Great Britain as a county or territory of Great Britain it could have so stated. It did not

Highlander

RFM

No Highlander, you are simply unwilling to accept the fact that the English are much smarter and cleverer. The Act of Union openly acknowledges and states that the two independent countries of Scotland and England are united. You for reasons I can only guess choose to think that meant the end of Scotland as a country rather than as a single independent country. The English far more clear-eyed about the existence of their country, it is and will always be England. You on the other hand go about like a person who is afraid to speak of the existence of illegitimate offspring rather than admit the Act of Union was an act of political expediency which has probably outlived its usefulness.

Anthropos

Highlander

RFM

To Highlander;
Which one?
To Anthropos;
Thank-you for the references; it is extremely difficult to find references to works like Stevenson's, The Foriegner at Home, in America.
My observation about the cleverness of the English was simply that they understood the Act of Union did not eliminate or abolish England as an independent political or legal entity, yet so many individuals seem to assume that it did for Scotland.

Highlander

My country is Scotland and the rest of the U.K.

Babygael

Scotland is a country seperate and distinct from england.

Was the concept of the union between Scotland/england a Scots Idea?? Humnnnnn??

And if not, whose was it??

And if it was englands,Why do you suppose they came up with it?? Humnnnnnn???
Cool

Why do you think england wanted a union with us???

1) Because they loved us??

2) Because they wanted to make our lives better?

3) Because they were big brother and had an overwhelming need to protect us?

YEAH RIGHT!

Scots enjoyed what crumbs might have fallen off their (the engerlish) table these past 300 years, but we will no longer settle for crumbs,we want to sit at OUR own table and choose OUR own destiny.

To me the UK stands for Scotland/Wales/ireland/cornwall/england and IOM and so on.

The word Britain to me stands for the same except for Ireland,IOM

But it does not TELL US WHICH COUNTRY each individual comes from!

I do not support the union anymore than I support the EU.

In fact, the saying "trust the devil you know" keeps ringing in my ears!

Alba Gu Brath

RFM

Highlander;
Go back and read your previous postings in "Scots National Anthem" where you deny there is a country known as England.
California is an independent state, one of which comprise the USA. Nobody goes around saying there is no California, only USA.
The point is that there certainly is a country known as England just as there is a country known as Scotland. The collective association of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland may be whatever you want to call it, but Scotland still exists. So does England, ask any Englishman.
You want to be an Englishman, don't be embarrassed to say so.

Highlander

RFM

I have never heard anybody from Scotland or Wales or Ireland, north or south, ever admit or claim to be "British", only those people who live south of the Tweed. Oh, and you, but you want to keep a foot on both sides of the fence, so I guess we can call you the British Scotsman. What will you call yourself if Scots independence comes to be?
Odd that you should choose Bavaria as an example. Germans certainly think it is a different place than the rest of Germany, and the Bavarians do also. In fact the Bavarians call themselves "Freistaat Bayern".

Highlander

Highlander

Anthropos

RFM

You know Highlander, it is very boring exchanging remarks with you. Why don't you look at the official web site for Bavaria, www.bayern.de, down on the left side, the third entry and see what is written; who in the hell do you think they are referring to, Grossdeutchland?

RFM

To Anthropos;
Yes both nations are composed of a very great people who have made several noteworthy contributions to the world. It will be interesting to see how the independence movement plays itself out.

scottishstuart

I luv how i posted about The Divine Right of Kings and the effects it had on the Scottish monarchs and now ur discussing, Germany and Bavaria - These threads are very strange that way.

I feel that, (and not to sound bitter towards England and it's people because I honestly have little animosity towards them) when I have been abroad, and been asked where I come from the people outside of the UK actually do believe the UK to be another name for England, in the US, in parts of Canada, my own cousin - who is canadian, but my uncle is from Glasgow, has asked if Scotland is in England,. In Australia and even Japan when I have stated I am from Scotland they have asked if thats in England. However I can understand that this is due to England being the Largest of the 4 states and the capital of GB being Englands capital London. Also that England has much more political power than the other four states - NI, Wales and Scotland have to answer to westminster regarding specific political issues.

As for the topic of wot nationality u will be when Independence occurs - Well the same option applies as it does in NI - U can be Scottish, British or have a dual nationality of Scottish/British.

Highlander

One O'Clock Gun

RFM

I wonder how many different "Highlanders" are writing under this name? Kindly refer back to your post of Feb. 12, wherein I write "In fact the Bavarians call themselves Freistaat Bayern".
Your reply: "No they do not".
Have you ever considered having a quiet little talk with your family doctor? You might want to ask him what the word schizophrenia means; or maybe all of you could have a talk with him.

If and when all of you do, maybe we can resume our little discussion of German history and what "Freistaat" means to the Germans.

One O'Clock Gun

haven't bothered to read the previous posts of this stimulating argument, buy i had a look on

http://dict.leo.org

and the adjective for Bavarian in German is Bairisch, or bayerisch.

anyway, carry on!

Highlander

[quote="RFM"]I wonder how many different "Highlanders" are writing under this name? Kindly refer back to your post of Feb. 12, wherein I write "In fact the Bavarians call themselves Freistaat Bayern".
Your reply: "No they do not". [quote]

Yes, you said Bavrians call themselves Freistaat Bayern which is the name of the country and not the name of the people from that country. Again what I said was and is 100% right. Bavarians do not call themselves Freistaat Bayern and thanks to One O'Clock Gun we have been shown what they are called Bairisch or bayerisch. So again Bavarians do not call themselves Freistaat Bayern. It just goes to show how much difficulty you have in getting the correct noun, such as British/English/Scottish/Bavarian.

RFM

It is funny that you purport to know the distinction between noun and adjective but you serve up as an example a noun which you now argue is really an adjective. Translating directly from English, excuse me British, to a foreign language is always misleading.
Bayern is a noun as much as California; to say Freistaat Bayern is to say 'the Free State of Bavaria". When I wrote that the Bavarians call themselves "Freistaat Bayern" I took it for granted that only an illiterate or a person who does not speak German would not recognize the noun form. Since it was you who offered Bavaria as an example, see your post of Feb. 12, I thought you might know a little about what you were talking about. Foolish me!

But since you seem to have some recurrent memory lapses, for want of a better term, it was you who said "Next you will tell me that Bavaria is an independent country separate from Germany". My reply was then, is now, look at the name the Bavarians call themselves. I really did not think anybody would be so obtuse as to think I was referring to the appellation Bavarians use for themselves. Particularly as Freistaat Bayern is quite well known and has been since 1918.

John Kennedy in 1963 in a visit to Berlin said in a speech, "Ich bin ein Berliner". As a direct translation of English, excuse me British, he was correct. However in the German language he was saying that he was a custard filled pastry of the type found in coffee shops in Germany known as a "Berliner". A German who lived in Berlin would say "Ich bin Berliner". So no, a Bavarian does not call himself by the adjectival form.

Blackleaf

Highlander

RFM

By the bye; Wikepedia, that great universal source of the general and the particular has an interesting discussion in English, pardon me, British, about Bavaria.

You Mr. Highlander, British-type, may want to read the subtitles, "Bavarian Citizenship" and "Relations between Germany and Bavaria".(Rather all of you may want to read it.)Try to pay particular attention to the discussion about the fact that Bavarians do not consider themselves to be a part of Germany.

RFM

Well Mr. Highlander, I am delighted to hear you have studied German, hopefully with somewhat more diligence than you have studied the history of Scotland or the grammar of the British (English) language.
In any case I see that you obtained your "urban myth" version from the English, pardon me British, version of Wikapedia. Why don't you read the German language Wikapedia version of that speech; they even have a recording of the simultaneous translation at the time the speech was made. Start at "Misverstaendnis im englischsprachigen Raum".

Highlander

What does wikipedia have to do with anything? I haven't got any of my information from there regarding your lack of ability to use the correct terms for countries/states/nations/kingdoms and the people inhabiting them. And I find it quite funny that you laugh at the idea that someone can get information from there and believe it to be true and then go and use it to back up your arguement!!! Laughing

RFM

Well Sir, you copied the term "urban myth" directly from Wikapedia without understanding what it was about. If you were able to read basic German, the German language website for Wikapedia would have told you so. I had hoped you would not disappoint me, but unfortunately you have managed to do that.

The article's title is "Misunderstanding in the English language section" and it goes on to explain some basics. First, the definite article is never used in German before profession or nationality. You might ask your so-called German friends about that, since you obviously do not know. Secondly the article goes on to explain why the English version, your "urban myth" is mistaken. It even provides a recording of the Kennedy speech and the simultaneous translation which was given with the speech so you could compare it yourself; that is if you did happen to have studied a little German.

Study consists in something more than bluff and bulls**t, which seems to be the only thing at which you excel. But I have observed in my lifetime that people who run about calling themselves "British" usually are not capable of much more.

IF Convenor

Pip

RFM

Actually assassination or regicide is the only alternative once your system of government is based on divine right.
Consider the problem of James II, who was so deceitful and stubborn about his royal priviledges; long after it was clear he would have to go the Parlament dithered about deposing a monarch who was anointed by God. If it had been a matter of a referendum England would have been spared a lot of trouble.
Blackleaf raises the interesting point that the Declaration of Arbroath was actually signed by a number of Norman nobility and the indigeonous Scots nobility. The Normans were all in favor of devine right, the Scots to the extent they would have known about kingship by election, but they would also have known kingship by election does nothing for your children. Devine right on the other hand secures the position as long as you have male heirs. The best explanation for the document seems to be that De Brys, or Bruce, was trying to explain to Pope John XXII that he had no choice but to oppose Edward, God's anointed, because Scotland still elected its kings and if he opposed the popular wishes of the people he might find himself elected out. In other words he too was very much on the side of the Pope and the devine right of kings, but at that time he was in a position that was very much temporary.
As history turned out, once Bruce was ordained, the system of election of kings in Scotland disappeared for ever.

IF Convenor

It was long gone in Bruce's time too. Bruce claimed the throne by hereditary right and he secured his position by right of conquest, which was a recognised legitimate method of gaining territory at the time. People believed that God decided the outcome of battles and wars so if God had granted victory it was self-evident that God wanted the victor to have whatever he gained by warfare.

No-one ever elected Bruce.

RFM

If I am not mistaken Bruce claimed his right to the throne of Scotland through his father, the Lord of Annandale, but his rival John Comyn was preferred by King Edward. Bruce assassinated Comyn in a church, which removed the rival, but created problems with King Edward and the Pope. Bruce also had the strange habit of pledging loyalty to Edward and then siding with the Scots against him; which was probably not too strange when one realizes Bruce held large estates in both England and Scotland.

Bruce does seal up his right to kingship at Bannockburn, where he achieves some prominence as a warrior, but what is very clear is that Bruce was also trying very hard to retain King Edward's favor and thereby concede Edward's right to nominate the King of Scotland. Wallace, you may recall would have none of that. Wallace was also Guardian of Scotland for a period of time, which effectively made him chief executive of Scotland, a spledid position for election to kingship.

Viewed against that background the Declaration of Arbroath is a puzzling document, particularly since it was addressed to the Pope. Unless it was intended as an apology for waging war against Edward and killing off rivals in churches.

azzuri

Almost correct RFM.

Bruce stabbed John Comyn in a church, and got the Black Douglas to finish him off.

Bruce didn't want it to get back to the pope that he'd killed a man in a church, so his best pal Douglas finished him off to save him the hassle...

IF Convenor

The Declaration of Arbroath makes perfect sense in its own context. It was written some 23 years after the start of the Wars of Independence, 6 years after the victory at Bannockburn. Scotland was free and unassailable and yet the English still persisted in acting as if Scotland was theirs to rule, and the Pope was still siding with England.

Read the Declaration: it is addressed to the Pope, the most powerful man on the planet at the time and it's telling him to stop backing the unjust claims of the English and to do the right thing. It even, in an almost inconceivably brazen way, tells him that if he doesn't do the right thing all blood spilled in future conflict with England will be on his hands and he'd have to answer to God for it. Can you imagine the Scots actually sending that to the Pope? This is a people wearied but hardened by a generation of warfare, a united people which had endured so much and, by their own hands, secured their own future. They weren't about to take any crap off anybody and they were saying so.

They were also saying that they had won the right to determine their own destiny, and that included the right to turn out their own King if he turned against them. This letter may have been written by Bruce's clerk, but the content is not his alone; it is clear that the signatories had a major say in what went into that document. There's no way a King would include that stuff about driving out the King if he betrayed the cause unless it was as a means of persuading any doubters among his own nobles that he was a true King and they could trust him to finish the job.

It has f*** all to do with apologising for waging a war which was not of their choosing. As I said before, people believed that God decided the outcome of warfare so they're hardly likely to apologise to the Pope for being on the winning side, God's side in their view.

RFM

That is pretty well written IF;
However, not to be nitpicking, Pope John XXII was at Avignon, under the thumb of King Phillip of France, who once referred to John as, "Your venerable stupidness". Any communication to John XXII would almost certainly have been seen by King Phillip first.

And King Edward did have a legitimate claim of sorts. Remember that it was the request of the Scots nobility that Edward arbitrate the next king of Scotland after the death of Margret, Maid of Norway. Edward supposedly demanded as a condition for his services (intervention?) that he be named feudal overlord of Scotland.

In the light of these facts and the ever shifting loyalty of Bruce, I suggest to you that it would be doubtful Bruce would commit or even acknowledge a system of choosing kings that might well exclude him or his children. And if Bruce was commited to devine right and God's selection why should he risk killing Edward's nominee and doing it in a church? Certainly some fences would have had to be mended.

To Azzuri;
Much obliged for the details, but by all accounts it seems to have been an impulsive act rather than a premeditated killing. Or maybe it was a planned killing and Douglas was standing by to take the blame? WHat do you think?

IF Convenor

I think you're a bit confused about your kings.

Edward I of England chose John Balliol to be King John of Scots.

Robert I killed John Comyn.

Edward II was King of England by the time of Bannockburn, let alone the Declaration of Arbroath.

azzuri

As far as I know it was certainly impulsive rather than premeditated,

....maybe the Black Douglas just took the blame rather than actually finish John Comyn off?

One thing I am pretty sure of though is that the Black Douglas either actually finished him off or just took the blame for the killing to help Robert the Bruce out. I doubt the pope would have been best pleased to find out Robert killed someone in a church.

Babygael

Wot ever! These giants of Alba ie Lord James Douglas the good, stood and died for Freedom aka Independence.

Ermhighlander, dinnae confuse yer englantshire masters wae Gaelic Higlanders!! OK???

WE ARE NOT ENGLISH!!

RFM

Any confusion probably arises from imprecise writing on my part.
To review the time line, 1292 Edward I is invited to arbitrate the kingship of Scotland. He does so choosing Balliol, who becomes King John who ends up a captive guest of Edward's at Westminister. Edward rightfully claims overlordship of Scotland through the arbitration agreement.
Scotland has successive Guardians,or regents, because John is unable to govern from Westminister. William Wallace, not of the Norman nobility, then Bruce and Comyn, then Lamberton, De Umfraville and finally Comyn again. Edward I invades Scotland again in 1303, and all Scottish nobles
pledge loyalty except Wallace. That costs him his life. Many nobles still support John Balliol. Comyn is still Guardian of Scotland.
Bruce hits on the idea of assassinating Comyn in 1306 removing his main competitor. Bruce then makes claim to the throne of Scotland that same year. Edward I dies in 1307.
His son Edward II comes north to Scotland in 1314 and loses at Bannockburn. The son has his own problems at home, notably his sexual preferences which flout the religious ordinances.
By 1320, Edward II is under the thumb of the Despensers, unable to govern, the kingdom is unstable. This year the Declaration of Arbroath is written and sent to John XXII.

Freedom was not at all what Bruce had in mind, he was thinking about feudalism which assigned every man under the king his place in life and his obligations, which were basically to support the king. He was also worried about a number of Scots nobles who did not trust him and with good reason. He needed to consolidate his hold on Scotland and one of the ways to do it was to let the King of France know he was repentant. Hence Arbroath.

mairead

Blackleaf
Was Edward 2nd of England not also done in, and in a very violent and horrific manner.

Corby Boy

mairead - Up the jacksy with a red hot poker. Ouch..

IF Convenor

I'm sorry, I don't read any repentance in the Declaration of Arbroath. It shouts defiance from start to finish.

RFM

It is certainly true that most readers fasten on the one paragraph talking about freedom as long as one hundred of us are alive, but it also gives Bruce a ringing endorsement:
"But from these countless evils we have been set free, by the help of Him Who though He afflicts yet heals and restores, by our most tireless Prince, King and Lord, the Lord Robert. He, that his people and his heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, ", then goes on:

"Yet if he should give up what he has begun, and agree to make us or our kingdom subject to the King of England or the English, we should exert ourselves at once to drive him out as our enemy and a subverter of his own rights and ours, and make some other man who was well able to defend us our King;".
May it please you to admonish and exhort the King of the English, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to him since England used once to be enough for seven kings or more, to leave us Scots in peace, who live in this poor little Scotland, beyond which there is no dwelling-place at all, and covet nothing but our own. "

"Then rouse the Christian princes who for false reasons pretend that they cannot go to help of the Holy Land because of wars they have on hand with their neighbours. The real reason that prevents them is that in making war on their smaller neighbours they find quicker profit and weaker resistance. But how cheerfully our Lord the King and we too would go there if the King of the English would leave us in peace,"

As far as defiance, that would be hard to reconcile with these words:
" and Alexander Straiton, and the other barons and freeholders and the whole community of the realm of Scotland send all manner of filial reverence, with devout kisses of his blessed feet." (In the preamble address to the Pope)
and "To conclude, we are and shall ever be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things, as obedient sons to you as His Vicar; and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the maintenance of our cause, casting our cares upon Him and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to nought."

I have taken the translated text as is published on Wikapedia, English version at the University of Edinburgh.

IF Convenor

It was a diplomatic letter written in diplomatic language. Forget all the filial greetings, etc. as those are just the way these things were written. It's a bit like someone writing "your servant" or even "yours" before signing, it's just a convention.

Take a look at the words " But if your Holiness puts too much faith in the tales the English tell and will not give sincere belief to all this, nor refrain from favouring them to our prejudice, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, be surely laid by the Most High to your charge."

This is unbelievably forthright and defiant. The Scots are telling the Pope that if he doesn't stop siding with the English any future blood spilled will be on his hands and he will have to answer to God for it. No repentance there.

Jimbo

azzuri

RFM

There is no question that it was a diplomatic document, but that was my original point. What did it ask of the Pope? As the document puts it, that he should not listen to everything the English tell him, that they have good cause on their side and King Robert after all has to continue the leadership or they will find a replacement. That certainly suggests that whoever ultimately emerged as King of Scotland, the Papal blessing of the coronation, which was the necessary prerequisite to devine right, would be needed. They certainly did not need his permission to launch the wars of independence and it was unlikely that he could do anything to stop them; but he could withhold the imprimatur. It also sends an indirect message to King Phillip of France that they could make common cause.

Blackleaf

IF Convenor

Robert Bruce was excommunicated and only the Pope could reverse that. Furthermore, England had been thoroughly beaten in 1314 and Scots armies pillaged the north of England at will, but the English refused to accept defeat, largely because of the continued backing of the Pope in their war against the excommunicated Bruce. The Scots were sick of it and wanted their King and their victory recognised.

Scotland and France were in formal alliance (The Auld Alliance) anyway and there was no need to drop hints about making common cause with the French.

RFM

That may well be all true, but John XXII was not a man that one approached with proclaimations of the right to freedom and the right to choose your leaders. I speak specifically of his support for the Bull Unam Sanctum and his opinions supporting the suppression of the Templars.

My observation about the message to King Phillip was that it was intended as support for a secular view concerning John XXII not against Edward, as it was well known that Phillip did not intend to take directions from Pope John regardless of Unam Sanctum. In that sense the declaration of human freedom and choosing one's leaders would certainly make sense and pose a subtle warning to Pope John that if he did not forgive and take the Scots back into the fold they might consider other options..

Divine Right of Kings

I apologise

Re: I apologise