Books: John Donald

The Balliol Dynasty 1210–1364

By Amanda Beam

Introduction

The Political Ambitions and Influences of the Balliol Dynasty

The Balliol dynasty and its ambitions in the three realms of England, Scotland and France have been neglected in the last seven centuries. King John Balliol (d. 1314) has only recently been given his first plaque in the kingdom he ruled for three-and-a-half tumultuous years, at Stracathro, close to where he surrendered to Edward I of England at Brechin in July 1296 and ‘left the way open for the hero king Robert the Bruce to claim the throne in 1306’. This plaque, and indeed the inscription, should not be too surprising since the Balliols had largely been degraded and demonised in chronicles and histories by the late fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries to be replaced by the great Scottish heroes William Wallace and Robert Bruce. For the most part, the Balliols appear briefly in the shadows of the Bruce dynasty and the equally powerful Comyn family, who politically dominated Scotland’s government in the last half of the thirteenth century.

After King John’s surrender, chroniclers were quick to produce the simplistic image that the Balliols were mere puppets – a Scottish dynasty loyal to the English which had no real importance in the fight for independence in the years after Alexander III’s death in 1286. This view belies the complexities of the family, their loyalties and connections to the English royal family, in addition to the tangled web of Anglo-Franco-Scottish diplomatic relations and certainly the factional Scottish nobility. John’s English nature and his service under Edward I would not make him one of the great Scottish kings, but there is evidence that he did attempt to stress royal authority upon his accession only to have his efforts thwarted by the exceptional circumstances of his rule.

Chroniclers pushed forward the puppet image quickly after 1306 to gloss over Robert Bruce’s usurpation of the throne that year. To justify his seizure of the Scottish throne to both his fellow countrymen and his diplomatic partners, Bruce himself used much propagandist legislation throughout his reign (1306-29). In later years, after the failure of the Balliol line in 1364, Scottish chroniclers began to promote the Bruce cause more heavily. Writers such as John of Fordun (c. 1380) and his continuator Walter Bower (1440s) have substantial amounts of Bruce propaganda inserted into their stories, as well as several attempts to gloss over the English connections of Robert Bruce and the Comyn family. Indeed, Bower’s claim that Edward Balliol had no right to the Scottish throne because of his grandmother’s [Dervorguilla] illegitimacy sparked arguments by later writers that the Balliol dynasty never had a legitimate claim in 1292.

The borrowing of sources such as Gesta Annalia II, the St Andrews chronicle, Liber Extravagans and the Anonymous Chronicle by later writers like Fordun, Bower and Wyntoun means that Scottish history, from 1285 especially, is a mixture of factual events embellished with a particular writer’s own interpretation (or imagination). King John’s reputation in late medieval English and Scottish chronicles, such as Flores Historiarum, Pierre de Langtoft, the annals of William Rishanger and John Barbour’s The Bruce (c. 1371-76), and in later antiquarians, such as Sir Walter Scott and John Hill Burton, has been recently investigated by one historian, whose examination centres primarily on the claims that John was removed from office in 1295 for his ineffectiveness. But their portrayals of King John, while sometimes more favourable in English eyes, still reflect a powerless king. By the late fourteenth century, when Barbour and the chroniclers were writing their histories, the Balliols had died out and could be perceived however the author wished.

The status of the family to contemporaries, though, surmounted their later reputation. During the eleventh and twelfth centuries, the Balliols had slowly increased their power and influence in English politics, acquiring a significant landed wealth, which, by the early thirteenth century, propelled the family into a class of leading nobles. The Balliol patriarch of the thirteenth century, John (I) (c. 1210–68), with whom this study begins, had been a respected nobleman of Henry III’s court – albeit one who had his share of clashes with royal and ecclesiastical authority.

Most striking is the neglect by historians of the importance of Balliol’s roles in the government, including his involvement in Anglo-Scottish and French affairs in 1237, 1244 and especially 1251–55, his position as sheriff of Cumberland (1248–55), his loyalty to Henry III during the turbulent years of 1258–65 and his participation in the Barons’ War with other Anglo-Scottish nobles. It was this faithfulness to the English crown, begun by his ancestors, which gave John a substantial ranking among his contemporaries and brought him respect from both sides. While Balliol held influential roles and a career as a knight, sheriff and guardian, he is most remembered as the founder (or co-founder) of Balliol College, Oxford (c. 1263). Further investigation into his political position, especially his close relationship with Henry III, however, has brought a new perspective to the behaviour of his successors, John (II) and Edward Balliol, which many historians have overlooked. John (I)’s career in English service provided the firm foundation to which his sons and grandson would succeed, which can be seen in many aspects of John (II)’s and Edward’s subsequent actions.

John (I)’s influence in the three realms and his relationships with kings Alexander II and Alexander III of Scotland and Henry III of England have been examined in this study and have uncovered his power and ambition as an independent lord, whose identity remained wholly English. In reassessing John (I), the Balliols are revealed as committed English lords and loyal servants of the kings of England. This shines a brighter light on the political roles of John (II) and Edward Balliol and underlines how the family has been unfairly judged through centuries by both chroniclers and historians who have assessedthem as Scottish kings rather than as English lords.

Their political commitment to the English monarchs has its origins in the late eleventh century when Guy de Balliol was given lands in northern England in return for his services to the English king, William Rufus. As Anglo-Norman lords, the Balliols quickly augmented their land holdings through their loyalty to England, while retaining their French connections and holdings until the fourteenth century. Under John (I), lord of Bywell and Barnard Castle, the family’s status in northern England especially was elevated through long-term royal service. Evidence has revealed the significance of John’s status under King Henry III and the power which the Balliol family held for several centuries before their decline and eventual demise in 1364. His importance in medieval English politics is evident from his appointments on various committees throughout the baronial conflict, including his role as mediator between disaffected nobles and King Henry.

It should be remembered, also, that Dervorguilla de Balliol did much to enhance the later legacy of the family. She ‘spendit hir tresour dewotly’ by founding several religious houses, of which Sweetheart Abbey (1273) remains the greatest. She was also heavily occupied with her English estates from about 1237 until the 1250s and in her widowhood, she completed the foundation begun by her husband of Balliol College gaining respect from the English king, Edward I (1272-1307), for her many contributions. As a result of her marriage to John in 1233, the family acquired even more wealth, recognition and influence. It was this marriage which has been portrayed as a catalyst to Balliol’s status among the upper rank of Scottish nobles. Yet, the claim that John was ‘socially the inferior of his wife’s brothers-in-law [Roger de Quincy, who would inherit the earldom of Winchester, and William de Forz, the future earl of Albemarle]’ is true only from a Scottish perspective. From an English, and certainly an Anglo-Scottish standpoint, the match was equally beneficial to Dervorguilla, whose new husband had recently inherited large estates in England and France.

It was not until John (II) Balliol became head of the family and, then, king of Scotland that the family’s English loyalties were perceived as absolute subservience. Although John was not the best of Scotland’s kings, he deserves ‘looking at with fresh eyes’, a statement which is quite true considering that contemporary writers, because of their exalted views of Robert Bruce, have covered up the majority of Balliol’s reign, while later researchers, in turn, have based their writings on these. This creates a regenerated view of Balliol – one that has been passed down rather than revised. But by avoiding this modus operandi, we find that Balliol’s kingship, and certainly the entire dynasty, has been repeatedly misinterpreted and as more light is being shed on the role that King John played in Scottish politics and on the continent, we see a much more complex view of him and his reign.

Twentieth century historians, especially the most recent, offer the first challenges to the puppet image and are slightly more sympathetic than their eighteenth and nineteenth century contemporaries. Most antiquarian works on Scottish history support the general consensus of the chroniclers that King John was a vassal, a puppet king. One in particular, sufficiently entitled A Dissertation concerning the Competition for the Crown of Scotland betwixt Lord Robert Bruce and Lord John Baliol . . . wherein is proven . . . the Right of Robert Bruce was preferable to that of John Baliol, repeatedly claims that while Balliol had ‘once a right to the succession as nearest heir’ he had ‘not only abdicated the government but resigned and given up all title and right he had to it. Robert I therefore could do him no injury in taking up that which he had laid down’. Although the Scottish author of this piece, publisher Thomas Ruddiman (1674–1757), had some argument in favour of Bruce, his main argument ultimately rested on his assertions of hereditary principles, which he believed Bruce possessed over Balliol. Taken in context, though, his views were a direct rebuttal of those by Rev. George Logan, who believed in the people’s right to choose their own kings and who argued that the Scottish succession was frequently elective. Ruddiman based the majority of his claims on the fact that both John and Edward Balliol had abdicated their thrones: ‘This being the case, it is plain, that whatever right either of the Baliols might otherwise pretend to the Scottish Crown, it was now as effectually extinguished, asif they never had existed.’

Such a strongly worded statement emphasises how centuries of propaganda have negated the political impact of the Balliol dynasty, while at the same time it offers an ostensibly concrete reason why an investigation into their influences would be unwarranted. Had they not ‘extinguished’ themselves into extinction, the glorification of King Robert Bruce’s own image would not have been realised because it was the escalation of John’s puppet-king image which encouraged both his own demonisation by later chroniclers as well as Bruce’s heroism. Yet, because of the important role the Balliol dynasty played in Anglo-Franco-Scottish relations, whether that is positive or negative, one cannot overlook their political careers. The 1295 Franco-Scottish alliance and Edward Balliol’s alliance with Edward III of England, which complicated Anglo-French relations at the beginning of the Hundred Years War, are a testament of this importance.

Not all of the earlier works conform to this pro-Bruce view, including Lord Hailes’s study, William Tennant’s 1825 play and a source from 1914, which claims that ‘no Balliol ever seems to have been a coward’. Most of these have some sympathies for King John’s position under the ruthless Edward I but they remain quick to judge him for his failures. However in France, where the Balliols held extensive lands in Picardy, there was a renewed interest in the family in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. One historian claims that King John’s release back to Picardy in 1301, and not to Scotland, caused ‘much regret to the Scottish lords’ and while chroniclers made only modest references to the Balliol dynasty in passing, usually limited to Edward Balliol and his invasion of Scotland in 1332, French antiquarians were keen to explore this under-researched family.

In the last fifty years, though, historians have begun to challenge the Balliols’ reputation and studies have attempted to assess the family as nobles within a British context. Many recent surveys begin to give the benefit of the doubt and speak quite fairly of John, identifying him as the rightful heir to the Scottish throne in 1290, though most historians have not asserted that the family was one of loyal English lords, whose behaviour followed patterns of baronial – not royal – motivation, and they have failed to examine the family from a British perspective. An exception is the study of Earl David of Huntingdon (d. 1219), brother of King William I of Scotland, which does provide a British approach when investigating the Balliols, the Hastings and the Bruces by using a more cross-border examination. The Balliol family, who held their superior claim to the Scottish throne through David’s eldest daughter Margaret, mother of Dervorguilla, was ‘already familiar in Anglo-Scottish landholding circles as a result of well-judged marriage pacts’. Many scholars have briefly underlined the relationship between King Edward and John (II) Balliol and have mentioned that Balliol’s connections remained chiefly with England. Again, though, John is represented largely as a king in a Scottish context and as related to the English issue of overlordship; the intimate relationship between the two families is, for the most part, overlooked.

It has also been confirmed that the Balliol family was among the top-ranking English nobility and appeared in royal circles quite frequently, unlike the Bruce family, who did not make such an impact until the 1270s. But, the Bruce family had been active in Scottish politics since about 1124 while both families had served the English crown in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. The Bruces’ position in Scotland was superior to the Balliols, but in England, the Balliols had certainly been the more powerful family from the late eleventh century.

While modern historians have offered some challenges to previous historiography, they are careful when approaching the misunderstood King John. He was not a worthy subject ‘for the simple reason that…he was useless’ but nonetheless, we cannot avoid him nor treat his kingship as an ‘interruption to the main story’. Much of the misconception over King John’s historiography arises because of the anomalies which plagued Balliol’s rule. Many historians would probably agree that he appears to have both a reluctance to join in the crisis of 1286-90 and an underlying agenda to put forth his claims through the influential Comyn party. Indeed, he may have had slight royal pretensions leading up to his enthronement in 1292, but, for the most part, he remained indifferent to the situation until 1290, probably because of its problematic nature. When he did become king, however, he ultimately took on a more independent approach despite the resistance of the Comyn party to relinquish their control. It is true that there was advancement in certain areas during John’s kingship, such as a general return to stability, parliamentary development and the formation of the alliance with France in 1295. Yet, too many times his authority as king was undermined by political opposition, such as initial issues of homage, the Whithorn election of 1294 and the debated removal of King John from power in 1295, and by Edward I’s increasing demands. Unquestionably, Balliol’s situation was unique and in some ways, it could not have been avoided. His importance between 1296 and 1302, though, remained significant to the Scottish Wars of Independence simply because of the ideology of medieval kingship.

The Balliols were very ambitious and influential, yet that influence was somewhat diminished following the abdication of King John in 1296, after which John (II) retained his title of king of Scotland (until his death) and his pretensions to regain the Scottish throne (at least until 1302). Similarly, by the 1340s, it was apparent that Edward Balliol could no longer maintain his royal authority and power, although he managed to remain titular king of Scotland until 1356. It is true that John (II) and Edward have been judged according to their doomed Scottish kingships; many researchers have failed to examine, in depth, the circumstances surrounding those reigns. These circumstances appear to have been affected by the ties between the Balliols and the English royal family which saw the successive Balliol lords acting within the horizons of the family’s past patterns of behaviour. Admittedly, both King John and King Edward lacked the power which John (I) possessed in his lifetime under Henry III, and although John (I) had laid the foundations for a great baronial dynasty, the deaths of Hugh Balliol (d. 1271) and Alexander Balliol (d. 1278) limited the territorial base John (II) would inherit. Similarly, King John’s deposition in 1296 would alter any strong landed and political following to which Edward Balliol might have hoped to succeed.

Despite the loss of wealth in the 1270s and the forfeiture of the Balliol estates in England and Scotland in 1296, John (II) and Edward still retained close relationships with the successive English kings and used these connections to fuel their political ambitions. Their kingships illustrate their desires to recover some influence in English politics which the family had enjoyed in the mid-thirteenth century. However, the decrease in landed wealth resulted in a less significant baronial identity within the Scottish and English political communities and affected their roles as Scottish kings. The reassessment of the Balliols as Anglo-Scottish lords has underlined their relationship with the English crown and the political nature of the family.