Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 667

On this day 19th March, 1286, Alexander iii, King of Scotland was found dead on the sands of the north shore of The Forth, his neck broken. It was thought that he fell from his horse after being separated from his escorts while riding for Kinghorn in the teeth of a snow-laden northerly gale sometime after midnight.

Alexander's death set in motion the events that led to the Scottish wars of independence.

azzuri · 'Our Scotland' Fossil Joined: 12 Sep 2005 Posts: 3777

Wasn't he a bit of a womaniser and wouldn't settle down, hence why he had no 'legitimate' heir?
_________________
"Every single person on this planet is unique. Just like everyone else..." - Random Guy in Edinburgh Pub

Possibly the funniest site in the world, 'The Daily Mash' - http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/

Jimbo · This is Ma' Life! Joined: 18 Feb 2007 Posts: 667

Alexander was married to Margaret, daughter of England's Henry iii. She bore him two sons and a daughter. Margaret died in 1275. Alexander thought he was secure in heirs. Ten years passed and the untimely deaths of all his offspring forced Alexander to marry again to produce an heir. He married the young and beautiful Yolande of Dreux (who was a descendant of King Louis vi of France) on All Saints' Day, 1285. It was in his haste to be with the beautiful Yolande that Alexander met his fate.

Although urged by the ferry master at Dalmeny not to cross Forth and again on reaching Inverkeithing being rebuked by Alexander Le Saucier master of his Kitchen (who met him on landing and offered him lodging for the night) about his midnight travelling, Alexander brushed aside the warnings and insisted on going on to Kinghorn. Asking only for two escorts to guide him Alexander set off along the coast. No one knows what happened after that apart from that the King and the guides became separated during the storm. In the morning, Tuesday, 19th March, 1286, Alexander's body was found on the beach.

schawaldowris · On A Journey (500 Miles) Joined: 03 Oct 2007 Posts: 21

The circumstances leading to the death of Alexander III are well known. According to most historians, after being separated from his escort, his horse stumbled on a cliff top and threw him on to the beach below, thereby breaking his neck. The case was closed, the verdict accidental death. It is surprising however, that considering his status, as king of Scots, there was apparently little investigation into the manner of his death? For example, if he had been isolated from his escort, how do we know his horse stumbled on a cliff top? We are living in the realms of supposition. Was there an investigation into the manner of his death and what evidence was offered at the time? At this stage the only thing of which we can be certain, was that he died alone, about two miles east of Kinghorn on the night of March 18th 1286.

So what was the contemporary evidence? It is probable the best report we have is from “The Chronicle of Lanercost”. This book is valuable source on Scottish affairs of the late 13th century, specifically from 1272- 1346. One of its most endearing features was the chroniclers hostility of all things Scottish. It’s translator Sir Herbert Maxwell noted…. “a period of perennial interest to Scotsmen who, however, must not be offended at the bitter partisanship of a writer living just below the border.” It is however, this bias that makes the report on Alexander more revealing.

At this stage the writer has no intention of copying the complete record but offers a précis of the events. Those however, who wish to read all the evidence will find it at:- www.archive.org/details/chronicleoflaner00maxwuoft pages 40-42 or “Reportage Scotland” by Louise Yeoman; page 25-26.

Prior to the report on Alexander’s death the Chronicle provided a short insight into the monarchs’ character. “For Alexander was never to forebear on account of season, or storm, nor for perils of flood or rocky cliffs but would visit none to the credibility matrons and nuns, virgins and widows by day or by night as the fancy seized him” In other words it was the view of the monkish writer that Alexander was a mega lecher! He later describes him as a glutton and blasphemer. It will also be noted the monk slips in a reference to “rocky cliffs”. Now from where did he get that idea?

The Chronicle later relates the story that Jimbo advised us in the previous post, but does supply further details on the journey and Alexander’s escort. For example on his ride from Edinburgh Castle he was accompanied by three esquires who apparently reached Kinghorn castle safely. Who were these esquires? Were they chosen by Alexander or did they volunteer? It is more likely they were appointed by one of Alexander’s Officers of State, possibly the High Constable.

When they arrived at Inverkeithing, Alexander asked the manager of the saltpans for two guides to show them the way. He was provided by two bondmen who were on foot. The monks then advise that it was only after two miles from Inverkeithing that “one and all lost all knowledge of the way, owing to the darkness; only the horses by natural instinct picked out the hard road. While they were thus separated from one another, the esquires took the right road.” The Chronicle then proceeds to gloss over the affair, simply stating that Alexander fell from his horse. It does however, conclude with an interesting sentence: -

“Whence (comes it) that while we may see the populace bewailing his sudden death as deeply as the desolation of the realm, those who adhered to him most closely in life for his friendship and favours, wet not their cheeks with tears.”

A few years back, the writer had the opportunity of visiting the site at Pettycur near Kinghorn for research purposes. Those familiar with the topography of the area will know that after about a mile east of Burntisland, the ground on the landward side starts to climb steeply. It reaches its pinnacle at a rocky outcrop just above the memorial to Alexander, situated on the shore road, before again sloping down towards Kinghorn. On the seaward side this outcrop is a series of ledges falling down towards the beach. In fact there is no sheer cliff! So if it was at this point Alexander’s horse threw him from the saddle it must have had enormous strength to throw him down to the beach. Indeed a rough calculation would suggest that to clear the ledges, Alexander had a horizontal flight of at least 60 feet before beginning his downward plunge. Also it would not have been just a broken neck, for the force of the fall would have resulted in multiple injuries. So it is the writers considered opinion, if the king’s horse did stumble at this high point, his body would have been found on one of the ledges and certainly not on the beach. But let us go back to the circumstances of his journey along the south Fife shoreline.

The Chronicle advises there was a “mighty tempest” that night, with a north wind accompanied by rain and snow. When Alexander and his escort reached the Fife coast they picked their way eastward with high ground to the north, so it is unlikely they were troubled by the wind but rain and snow would have made for slippery conditions underfoot. Now apart from his esquires Alexander had two guides on foot. Given that the general direction of the roads have little changed in 700 years it would have meant a journey of at least 10 miles. It is unlikely that due to the weather, the guides could have managed more than 2 miles an hour. The travellers were therefore facing a 5-hour journey. There can be little doubt that Alexander would have been well aware of this fact. Also is it not likely that his guides would have been holding on to the reins of the lead horses? Yet according to the Chronicle they all lost their way after only two miles! History however assures us Alexander’s body was found on the beach only two miles west of Kinghorn. So we are led to believe the king covered at least six miles of the journey alone and in complete darkness without his guides. Surely his esquires called out for Alexander when they discovered he was missing? Is it not also strange that the only one lost was the king? Where was his escort? Where were the guides? It was obviously a long heavy slog, so the travellers could not have been that far apart.

The Chronicle then mentions the esquires “took the right road”. Now what exactly did the chronicler mean. Was it the esquires were on the right road and Alexander the wrong? Or did he mean they took road to the right and Alexander to the left. In view of the course of the journey the latter is the more likely. As previously stated, on leaving Burntisland the ground starts to climb steeply on the landward (the left) side. The coast road by definition keeps to the right, hugging the shoreline. Now if due to the darkness, Alexander did find himself away from the coast he would have realised his mistake very quickly. His horse would have started to labour on the steep incline and possibly slip on the wet surface. If he continued to pursue this path it would have added considerable time to his journey and historians relate he was anxious to reach his wife. It is therefore more likely he would have turned down towards the coast. A short time after he apparently fell from his horse breaking his neck on the beach. Or did he? For according to the monks they were all lost after only two miles but then we are advised the esquires took the right road!

There is perhaps, that intriguing last sentence in the Chronicle to consider. In a modern context it could be translated as “those who knew him best despised him most” So it would appear that although according to history the masses bewailed his passing, some in high places were less than desolate. Did Alexander simply fall from his horse or was he pushed? But what was the motive and who would most benefit from his death?

In 1272 king Henry of England died and he was succeeded by his son Edward I. At first Edward remained on friendly terms with his brother-in-law but then he betrayed a glimpse of something that was clearly on his mind. In 1278 Alexander travelled to England to pay homage for his lands in England. At first everything went well until the Bishop of Norwich (no doubt at the instigation of Edward) protested that Edward should also be given homage for Scotland as well. Alexander repeated what he had already said to Edward’s father that “he owed such homage nowhere except to God”. Edward had showed his hand but kept his tongue. He was after all considerably younger than Alexander and the heirs to the Scottish crown were his sisters’ children. Time was on his side.

Then tragedy struck Alexander three times. In 1281 his son David died. His daughter Queen of Norway died in 1283 and her younger brother Alexander, husband to Margaret of Flanders died within a year. This left the king of Scots with no heirs except a granddaughter, Margaret of Norway who was only one year old. In 1284 the Great Council of Scotland declared Margaret to be the heir presumptive. This was no doubt acceptable to Edward for as events were later to prove he had his own plans for the infant.

Alexander however, also had his own plans for he married Yoland de Dreux two years later. If Alexander produced more male heirs they would have precedence over Margaret of Norway. Furthermore they would not be blood relatives of Edward of England thus considerably reducing his influence over the Scots barons. So far as Edward was concerned it would be in his best interests if Alexander were unable to produce an heir.

It was quite possible at least one of Alexander’s esquires was bribed by Edward’s agents to cause an accidental death? In the darkness of that last journey it would not have been too difficult for an assassin to strike. A sharp blow to the head followed by a snapped neck was all that was required. There would be no forensic diagnosis in 1289. A bruise on the temple would be evidence of a fall from a horse, resulting in a broken neck. The story then concocted he had lost his way and fallen from the cliff. Is this what the Chronicle alluded too when it stated “those who adhered to him closest in life….wet not their cheeks with tears”,

With the death of Alexander, the king of England moved as fast as diplomatic relations allowed. He made it known to Erik of Norway that following the death of Alexander the kingdom of Scotland was in a state of unrest. It would therefore be inadvisable to send the infant Margaret at this time. He offered to hold a conference in England to resolve the matter and would invite Scots delegates to attend. Erik agreed and the outcome was the Treaty of Salisbury 1289. One of the provisions of the treaty was that the Scots would not marry Margaret to anyone without the ordinance of Edward and the agreement of her father king Erik. The initial steps being successful, Edward then proposed that his infant son be betrothed to the Margaret. After negotiations, the Treaty of Birgham 1290 solemnised the arrangement. Edward I was now only one step away from his ultimate goal, the overlordship of Scotland and supreme ruler of all the British Isles. Unfortunately the death of a lass dashed his political temporising but as everyone knows, not his ambition.

Of course to suggest that Alexander’s death may not have been accidental is conjecture but then again so was the initial verdict.
_________________
Promtus et Fidelis

singforsam · Finding Ma' Way Joined: 25 Jan 2008 Posts: 6

That is crazy way to spark independance.

macnumpty · Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 12:08 am Post subject:

It didn't... Scotland was already independent, but Alexander's death triggered a succession crisis, which led to unwelcome intervention from England.
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glasgow East, so he could vote for John Mason. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog.

agentmancuso · Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 8:59 pm Post subject:

macnumpty · Posted: Sat Jan 26, 2008 10:35 pm Post subject:

True, but the way things developed didn't do much for Edward's standing.
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glasgow East, so he could vote for John Mason. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog.

agentmancuso · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 9:29 am Post subject:

His standing as feudal superior was quickly established...
_________________
Liberty does not mean all good things, or the absence of all evils
Hayek

macnumpty · Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2008 10:54 am Post subject:

And ultimately rejected.
_________________
(\_/)
(О.о)
(> < )
^ ^ This is Bunny. Bunny wishes that he was on the electoral roll in Glasgow East, so he could vote for John Mason. He also reminds you to read the Our Scotland Blog.