Robert the Bruce and Macbeth are probably THE two most famous Scottish kings.
They were two very different Scottish kings, but both their reigns were turning points
in Scottish history. So when the stage plays and Hollywood films
are put aside, how do they compere? I think you might be surprised
If you re interested in the people, places and events in Scottish history then click
the subscribe button at the bottom right of the screen.
In the meantime, let me tell you two stories The mound behind me is Moot Hill, the hill
of parliament. It s where Medieval Scottish kings were inaugurated.
They say that the reason the hill exists is that the moramers of Scotland
had to swear an oath to the king on their own land,
so they would bring some of their land here to Scone and place it on
what over time would become the Hill of parliaments,
where Scottish kings would be seated on the Stone of Destiny.
This is a replica. The real stone s on display in Edinburgh Castle
or is it? That s a question for another day,
but the two most famous men to have sat here were, of course
Macbeth and Robert the Bruce.
One eulogised in a book by John Barbour, the other demonised in a play by William Shakespeare,
so what s the truth behind their title to the throne, their popularity at the time,
their piety, the peace and security of the kingdom,
their route to the throne and has there been a murder?
In order to find out . we re going to have to navigate a maze of
propaganda Let s start with their claim to the throne.
Shakespeare famously tells us that Macbeth is a usurper,
but the truth is more complicated. You see, in Macbeth s day the king of Scots
wasn t necessarily the eldest son of the previous king.
The new king was chosen by a process called Tannistry,
which effectively meant that an electoral college of important people chose the best
candidate from the wider royal family. Macbeth s dad, Findlay,
had married a woman firmly connected to the king of Scots at the time.
There s even a suggestion that Doda, Macbeth s mother, was the daughter of Malcom II,
but certainly when the time was right, and he grew to maturity
it wouldn t have been unreasonable for Macbeth to expect to be king himself.
When Macbeth got married, the hardnosed schemer so many know as Lady Macbeth
was actually called Gruoch. She was the granddaughter of the previous
king and the man Malcolm II had killed to gain
the throne himself. That made Macbeth s claim even stronger.
What about Robert the Bruce? By his time Tannistry had been replaced by
primogeniture, so the eldest son became king but Alexander III had died without surviving
issue. The Bruce Family,
supremely ambitious Normans, whose power base had been the north of England were desperate
to put their man on the Scottish throne. In fact
Bruce s grandad nearly started a civil war to gain the crown.
That s why the Guardians of Scotland turned to Edward Longhsanks .
That s the one to adjudicate who should be king:
grandad Robert Bruce, or John Balliol.
Now for all Edwards evil deeds there s no reason to believe that his decision
to choose John Baliol was anything other than following the accepted legal system at the
time, meaning that the Bruce Family weren t the
rightful kings. Was that 1-0 Macbeth?
Maybe with Robert the Bruce missing a penalty So how did Robert the Bruce come to be king?
I was discussing this recently with Dr Fiona Watson in Braco coffee shop.
She is the distinguished academic and delightful raconteur that I met with for one of my monthly
conversations with experts. I ve covered both Macbeth and Robert the Bruce
in previous videos. More importantly Fiona has written books about
both. If you want to see the hour and a half long
conversation with Fiona in full then you can join up as a Patreon member by
clicking the white tab. She was absolutely brilliant
but here s just a snippet of one of the things we discussed.
Edward I of England was growing old and near to death.
When he died there would be a realignment of the political
tables of these islands, so Robert the Bruce arranged a meeting in
Dumfries Abbey with John Comyn, the man who was most likely to gain the Scottish
throne , and he murdered him.
Is this a dagger I see before me? Yes Robert it bloody well is!
You just stabbed your main rival with it on holy ground when you d lured him under the
pretext of a meeting to smooth the waters. Then you headed here to Scone to have yourself
crowned king. If William Shakespeare ever finds out about
this, it ll be all over the papers. You ll be left without a name.
Fortunately, Bruce had the much more friendly biographer
of John Barber. Well actually almost 300 years before
Duncan II of Scotland, after a couple of previous defeats in battle
in Northumbria against the English then in the north against an Orkney Yarl
takes his army to invade Moray, who s mormaer or sub king is a guy called
Macbeth. Macbeth kills Duncan in battle, or
as you might say in court in self-defence.
But whilst his troops prevailed in battle, he had the worst PR team in history.
What happened to Macbeth today? Oh he was invaded by Duncan,
but good news is he defeated and killed Duncan and was selected under the rules of Tannistry
to be the next king of Scots. Ah right, so, at the instigation of dark occult
forces and inspired by witchcraft he offered hospitality to Duncan and murdered him in
his bed, thus usurping the throne,
got it. No, sorry mate, your not listening.
Duncan attacked the English and lost, then attacked Thorfinn, spelled Thorfinn the
Mighty and lost,
then attacked Macbeth and got killed, and frankly people were delighted to appoint
Macbeth as king, just for a bit of respite. Ah, sorry I misheard,
so Macbeth also ordered the murder of his best friend Banquo and his little boy.
No! Banquo s not real! But he did have McDuff s family murdered,
right? Now, we re going to talk about the differences
in their reigns, but first let me point out a similarity
Where Bruce and Macbeth were similar was that both of them were exiled and probably escaped
to Ireland, but for two very different reasons.
When Macbeth was a boy his two uncles murdered his dad and took control
of Moray Macbeth had to flee for safety ,
but several years later, when he d grown to maturity
he returned, at just about the same time his murdering
uncle was burned to death in a house with his entourage,
and Macbeth was reinstated in his family line as king of Moray
How convenient Robert the Bruce also had a period in exile
across the seas to the west. When he declared himself king,
there were a lot of folk who weren t keen on the idea,
and after losing three successive battles he fled across the sea before he come back
and gradually took control of the kingdom. So how long do you think Macbeth reigned as
King of Scots? How long?
Whatever you have in your head right now tell me in the comments section.
Robert the Bruce reigned for 22 years. Macbeth for
17. I bet when you read Shakespeare at school
you thought it was about six months. No,
17 years of relative peace, prosperity and plenty,
whereas Robert the Bruce well initially he had to fight off those loyal
to Edward I. In the process Edward had one of the Bruce
brothers hung drawn and quartered, and the women close to him hung in cages.
On his first failed attempt at return from exile and reinvasion of the mainland
he lost another two brothers. When he eventually did regain a foothold in
his southwestern hinterland he then proceeded to parts of the Highlands
and Moray to lay waste to the area because of their support for the Comyns
remember the Gradually by this herschip he subdued the
nation to his will before winning a stunning victory at Bannockburn...
a battle prompted by his ultimatum that those with lands in England had to submit
to him. He never ever resolved that problem,
which is what started the second war of independence shortly after his death.
I ve got videos on that. Whilst Robert the Bruce had loads of conflict
internally and externally Macbeth s reign was relatively uneventful.
Now five years into his reign, previous king Duncan s dad did try to lead a force against
him, but apart from that
But Macbeth s not out of the Birnam woods yet.
All I m saying is internal conflict seems to have been minimal during his reign.
So much so that Macbeth you know the murdering occult dealing usurper
well his kingdom was so tranquil and stable that he was able to leave the country for
months and go off on pilgrimage to see the Pope in Rome.
The only Scottish monarch to do that. This is not the picture that s normally painted.
Now I m not suggesting for a minute that Macbeth didn t carry other men s blood his hands,
I m just saying Robert the Bruce had to carry that blood in a bucket.
Now to be fair to Bruce later kings than Macbeth had an alternative to pilgrimage.
They could go on crusade and Bruce wanted to do that,
but he was just always fighting external or internal battles
oh and he was excommunicated, so the nearest he actually got to crusade was
when he was dead and they took his heart and throw it at some
Moslems On Bruce s positive tally
he died in his bed. Whereas Macbeth, having lost a battle here
at Dunsinnane Hilllfort in 1054, may have managed to hold on for another three years
That s right he wasn t killed either here, or by MacDuff ,
but eventually, when Duncan s son invaded with an English Army,
he was killed 70 miles north of here at Lumphannan Look they were both medieval kings,
but the times they lived in were different. Scotland was different,
England was different the rules of succession they played by were
different but when you look at the two of them
if anyone deserves the title of overambitious murdering usurper
I tell you what, why don t you decide.
If you want to understand how things changed between the time of Macbeth and Bruce,
then I ve got a really popular video called The Forgotten Kings of Scotland.
It ll be coming up on screen now In the meantime