Thomas Broune is a Reformer and childhood friend of the young queen, Mary Stuart. When Mary embarks on a new life in her estranged homeland of Scotland, Thomas is there to greet her and offer his renewed friendship. But the long-time friends grow closer, and Thomas realizes his innocent friendship has grown into something more. Yet he is a man of the cloth. Mary is the queen of the Scots. Both of them have obligations of an overwhelming magnitude: he to his conscience and she to her throne.
When he must choose between loyalty to his queen or his quiet life away from her court, he finds that the choice comes at a high price. Driven by a sense of obligation to protect those he loves, and crippled by his inability to do so, Thomas must come to terms with the choices he has made and find a peace that will finally lay his failures to rest.
Be the First to Read The Queen’s Almoner!
Request a FREE digital copy of The Queen’s Almoner in exchange for an honest review on Amazon, Goodreads, Barnes & Nobel, among others. Go to www.TonyaUBrown.com to sign up.
Greyfriars Kirkyard was founded in Edinburgh, a year after Mary Queen of Scots returned to Scotland. Opening in 1562, it was to replace the overcrowded graveyard of St Giles. The location for Greyfriars was chosen because it was not right in the center of town, eliminating concerns of smell in the warmer months.
The Kirkyard was used as a prison for Covenanters in the 1600s, and was a part of their history from the very start, as Greyfriars Kirk was the place where they first signed the National Covenant in 1638.
The Kirkyard was also the sight of many body snatchings during the 18th & 19th centuries, when there was a need for corpses for important medical research and instruction.
There are many notable statesmen, doctors, poets, and theologians buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard, but the two I found of most interest have been buried there since the 16th century. Historian and reformer, George Buchanan is buried in Greyfriars. I found this interesting because I can trace my ancestry to some Buchanans from Stirlingshire, and have often wondered if I am related to the historian. James Douglas, the 4th Earl of Morton, who makes an appearance in my book, The Queen’s Almoner, is also buried there.
Another interesting burial is that of Greyfriars Bobby. Local legend says that Bobby was a Skye Terrier who guarded the grave of his master, John Gray, after the night watchman died in the mid-1800’s. The dog never left his master’s grave until he himself died 14 years later, exemplifying the ultimate act of loyalty.
Other local legends include the haunting of Greyfriars Kirkyard, and you can even take a guided ghost walk there when you visit Edinburgh. Sorry, I don’t have any pictures of Greyfriars Kirkyard ghosts to share.
*Please note: this post is part of a series. To read the parent post clickhere*
A Rough Start
James V of Scotland was just a toddler when his father, James IV died during the Battle of Flodden Field, making him the next King James of Scotland. He was the fourth child and only surviving legitimate son of James and his wife Margaret Tudor (sister of Henry VIII).
Born in April 1512, he was crowned in September of the following year, becoming the seventh monarch of the Stuart Dynasty. Too young to rule, his mother ruled as regent for a spell. When she married Archibald Douglas, 6th Earl of Angus the following year, she unknowingly forfeited her rights to rule as James’ regent. In her place, the king’s uncle, John Stewart, 2nd Duke of Albany became regent.
Albany was pro-French, renewing the Auld Alliance that would promise James a royal French bride. With French sentiments in Scotland strengthened, the king’s mother fled to England and stayed there for some time. When Albany left Scotland on business, Margaret returned to Scotland and worked to eventually declare James free to rule without a regent. This agreement was made with the understanding that James would govern under the supervision of several Scottish lords, each taking a turn in overseeing the king’s power.
When it came time for James’ step-father, the Earl of Angus to take his turn, he took James prisoner and ruled in his place. Several attempts were made to free the young king and he finally escaped to resume his power when he was 15 years old. One of his first acts as king was to exile the Douglas family. He even went so far as killing Angus’ sister, Janet Douglas, Lady Glamis, by burning her at the stake for witchcraft.
Due to the Auld Alliance, James procured the hand of Madeleine of Valois, the daughter of French King Francis I. She was frail and sickly from the time she was a child and her father refused at first to allow James to marry her. Finally convincing Francis to allow the marriage, they married in January 1537. However, Madeleine died of consumption seven months later without giving James an heir.
Less than a year later, James married the 21 year old widow, Mary of Guise.
A Wanted Woman
Mary of Guise was born in Lorraine, France in 1515. She was the eldest of twelve children born to Claude of Lorraine, Duke of Guise and Antoinette of Bourbon. When she was 18, a marriage was arranged for her to Louis II d’Orléans, Duke of Longueville. She bore Louis a son, whom they named François, and was pregnant with their second child when her husband died of what is believed to be smallpox. Her second son was named after his father, but only lived a few months after his birth.
Mary was young, attractive, intelligent, and valuable to the French court. Soon the king of France was looking to put her many assets to good use. It didn’t take long for her to be courted by two kings: James V, the king of Scotland, and Henry VIII, the king of England.
Mary and James had met the previous year when he came to France to meet Madeleine. He thought her attractive and now turned his attentions toward her in an effort to maintain French-Scottish relations. Henry VIII had lost his third wife, Jane Seymour the year before as well. When he got wind of James’ intentions, he too sought to obtain Mary’s hand in marriage to prevent the union. It is said that Mary was concerned for her safety at the hands of the English king, making a comment on her small neck as an excuse not to marry the man, a reference to his beheaded queen, Anne Boleyn.
Eventually, Francis I of France decided that James would be the better match. They were married by proxy in France in May 1538. Due to the death of her first husband, the Duke of Longueville, Mary’s young son would have to be left behind in France as he was now the new Duke of Longueville. She arrived in Scotland a month later and was married to James in St Andrews Cathedral.
The Good Wife
It didn’t take long for Mary to give James a desired heir. Their first son, James, was born in May 1540 and a second, Robert, joined in April 1541. However, both boys died just days after Robert was baptized. Unfortunately, as with any good queen, the show must go on, and less than a year later Mary was pregnant again.
The Beginning of the End
With the death of James’ mother and the bonds of relationship between nephew and uncle being strained over the burgeoning Protestant reformation, James soon found himself at war with his uncle Henry. Having ignored his uncle’s urging to break away from the Catholic church, he added insult to injury when he refused to meet with Henry. The English king, being the tyrant that he was initiated an attack on Scotland.
Scottish forces suffered a great loss at the Battle of Solway Moss. The king, who did not fight in the battle because he was sick with a fever, sunk further into despair. When the news reached the king that his wife had given birth to a daughter on 8 December, and not the desperately hoped for son, the king is believed to have made the prophetic, yet disheartening statement, “It began with a lass and it shall end with a lass”, making a reference to the beginning and ending of the House of Stuart.
James died six days later, with only one legitimate child left alive to take the throne: Mary.
The Show Still Must Go On
After James’ death, Mary of Guise continued to carry the Catholic torch in Scotland. She spent quite a bit of her time battling the Scottish lords for the regency and trying to avoid Henry’s matrimonial advances toward herself and her young daughter. By this time Henry had worked his way through two more wives and was still interested in adding Mary of Guise to that list. If that didn’t work, he wanted the young queen for his heir, Edward. When it became apparent that he would get neither, he initiated a war with Scotland known as the Rough Wooing. Determined to protect her daughter from an English marriage, she snuck the child away to France when Mary was five years old. Arrangements were made for her to be brought up in the courts of the French king, and eventually marry his son, the Dauphin, Francis.
In 1550, Mary of Guise returned to France and reunited with her only daughter whom she hadn’t seen in two years. She travelled extensively throughout France but eventually made her way back to Scotland where she eventually took over regency in 1554. She worked closely with her brothers, the Cardinal of Lorraine and the Duke of Guise and these dealings kept Scotland and France in close diplomatic relationship for as long as she held the regency.
As Protestantism grew in Scotland, Mary’s influence declined. However, she managed to maintain control of the regency until her death due to dropsy in 1560. Her body was eventually snuck to France, and Queen Mary was able to attend her mother’s funeral.
Below are pictures from my time spent at Stirling Castle, one of the principal places of residence for King James V and Mary of Guise. It is located in Stirling, Scotland. These pictures were taken in June 2017.
*Please note: this post is part of a series. To read the parent post click here*
I heard the name Mary Queen of Scots for the first time when I was about 13 years old. She was the subject of a play being performed by the fictitious Kingsport Ladies College in the movie Anne of Avonlea. I listened as a young girl named Emmaline described the traumatic death of the queen, swooning as she imagined playing the tragic character on the school’s stage.
It wasn’t until many years later, as an adult, that I actually learned who this queen was and why her story was so tragic. I cannot pinpoint for you the moment I first fell in love with her. But I can tell you that once I read her story I was fascinated and since then I have read scores of material about her life, forming my own opinions about her guilt or innocence and speculating on why she made the choices she made.
So, why is this woman so important? She didn’t leave behind the glorious legacy that her cousin Elizabeth I did; strengthening her kingdom or further advancing political, economic or literary benefits. She didn’t write books or share knowledge that furthered her cause or benefitted the church of Europe that was in the massive throes of upheaval in some way. However, as with any life, there were ramifications from her choices. The decisions she made, whether bad or good, set up the opportunity for other events to happen, positioning other players in place and enabling them to bring about changes to their world and giving us the results we have today. I think primarily of her son, James VI & I who was responsible for one English translation of the Bible used for hundreds of years in many Protestant churches and is still used, to some extent, today (King James Version Bible/KJV).
For many Scots in the 16th century, her birth was a disappointment and her death a satisfaction. From her first breath to her last she was scrutinized, reproached, ridiculed and condemned. So why, after almost 433 years since her death, is she fondly remembered, romanticized, loved?
There is so much that can be said about this woman and the things that happened to her before her life was cut short (she was 44 when she was executed). The purpose here is not to cover every plot or conspiracy theory that pertains to Mary Stuart. It’s just a simple overview of her life. Is it biased? Probably. Do I hope you fall in love with her as much as I have? Most definitely!
‘it cam’ wi’ a lass, and it’ll gang wi’ a lass’
Mary was only six days old when her father, King James V died, making her queen of Scotland. Although there are debates as to whether James actually said these words, legend purports that, upon learning of the birth of his daughter (and knowing already that he was dying) he said, “it cam’ wi’ a lass, and it’ll gang wi’ a lass” (it came with a girl and it will end with a girl). The House of Stewart (Scottish spelling) began when a Stewart married Marjorie, the daughter of Robert the Bruce. James meant that their line began with a marriage to the daughter of a king and it would die with the daughter of a king. In some respects, he was correct; the House of Stewart did indeed end with a lass, but it wasn’t Mary. Instead, it wouldn’t be until almost 200 years later when Mary’s great, great grand-daughter, Queen Anne died childless, thus ending the reign of the Stewart line.
New Beginnings in France
When Mary was five years old her mother, Mary of Guise, sent her to France in order to escape the reach of Henry VIII. The English king had been trying to obtain the little queen as a wife for his son, Edward (VI), resulting in a war between England and Scotland called The Rough Wooing. Mary of Guise, acting as regent for her young daughter, was a Catholic and sought a union between Catholic France and Scotland, which was already in turmoil over the Scottish reformation.
Mary was eventually betrothed to the young Dauphin, Francis, who was a year younger than her. They grew up together as the best of friends and were married in April of 1558. The ceremony took place in the Cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris. John Guy described the beautiful young bride in his book Queen of Scots, The True Life of Mary Stuart.
“The crowd only had eyes for Mary. They virtually ignored Francis, whose short, weedy build must have presented a strange contrast to her height and womanly beauty. They craned their necks to catch sight of her, cheering and waving their hats in the air. She looked radiant in her shimmering white dress, itself a daring and unconventional choice because white was the traditional color of mourning for royalty in France.”
When Francis’ father, King Henry II died from a jousting accident a year later, Francis ascended the throne, making Mary a queen for the second time. She was 16 years old.
Returning to Scotland
Tragically, Francis died one month shy of his 17th birthday from complications of an ear infection. With Francis’ younger brother, Charles IX taking the throne, there was no longer a need for Mary to stay in France. Her mother, who had been ruling in her stead, had died six months before her husband. It was time for her to return to her homeland, which she had not seen since she was five years old.
Mary stepped into a boiling pot of parritch so to speak when she reached Scotland. The country was in the middle of a Protestant reformation, making it difficult for the young Catholic queen to come back peaceably. However, although her Catholic supporters hoped that her return would be just the card they needed to win the game, Mary had no intentions of creating a blood bath as her cousin, Mary Tudor, had done in England. Mary Stuart proved to be a tolerant sovereign, allowing her subjects to worship as their consciences saw fit.
Time to Find a Husband
In the first couple of years after her return to Scotland, Mary wrote faithfully to her cousin, Queen Elizabeth. She endeavored to keep up a good relationship with the English queen who was her elder by 9 years. She sought to please Elizabeth in all matters in hopes that Elizabeth would eventually name her as her successor, should the queen decide not to marry and therefore produce no heir.
Mary had a legitimate claim to the English throne. She was the granddaughter of Margaret Tudor, Henry VIII’s eldest sister. Since Elizabeth was the child of Henry’s second wife, whom he married after divorcing his first, Catholic subjects did not view her as a legitimate child, let alone heir to the throne. In their eyes, Catherine of Aragon, Henry’s first wife was his one and only true wife. When Henry’s only son, Edward VI died, and then his daughter by Catherine, Mary Tudor died, that left England looking for a rightful heir. As granddaughter of the next of kin to Henry, Mary was a logical choice. However, Henry had tried to exclude Scotland from any succession with the Third Act of Succession in 1544, which would have technically excluded Mary Stuart as well.
Although it was rumored that Elizabeth preferred Mary over any of her other possible choices, she was hesitant to make it official. Mary’s Catholic views probably paid a large roll in Elizabeth’s hesitancy.
For several years Elizabeth played a game of Simon Says with Mary. She persuaded her to think that, if she were to choose a husband to her liking, Elizabeth may be inclined to name Mary as her successor. Mary was not to entertain ideas of marriage to any man that Elizabeth did not first approve of. She even went so far as to offer her own beloved Robert Dudley, who was rumored to be Elizabeth’s lover, as a suitor for Mary. Mary bulked at this suggestion at first, but when she finally agreed to meet him, Elizabeth had second thoughts and eventually withdrew her support of her own suggestion!
Fed up and ready to marry, Mary decided to take matters into her own hands.
Mary was courted by many kings and noblemen. However, Henry Stewart, more famously known as Lord Darnley, was her final choice. He was Mary’s first cousin, having shared a grandmother in Margaret Tudor.
Elizabeth was not happy about Mary’s choice, for Henry was too close in the English line of succession for her comfort. But she unwittingly set them up for courtship, not realizing it until it was too late. Henry was an English subject, so when Elizabeth had made the mistake of allowing him to go to Scotland (more on that in a later post) there was no turning back.
It was a whirlwind romance, so to speak. He came to Edinburgh in February of 1565. By April there was a flourishing romance blooming and by July they were wed.
Henry was the perfect gentleman when he first came to Scotland and did a grand job of making allies and endearing himself to the Scottish court. He was reported as being very handsome and full of charm. But just as quickly as their courtship transpired, so did the unraveling of the Scottish lords’ good opinion of him. He soon proved himself to be as spoiled as a petulant child. He was boorish and rude and pestered Mary about making him her king consort, which she eventually did. However, what he really wanted was the crown matrimonial. This would give him precedence over Mary and insure that he gained the crown (before any children) should something happen to Mary. Mary refused to give him the upper hand and it didn’t take long for the marriage to turn sour.
Within a year, he had made so many enemies that many were plotting how to get rid of him. By this time Mary had borne Darnley a son (to later become James VI & I). Their marriage was a tumultuous one in which Mary had been attempting a reconciliation. But in the early morning hours of February 10, 1567 the house where Darnley had been residing, Kirk o’ Field, was blown up. His body was later found half-clothed in the garden and there were signs that he had been strangled. There were many who had reason to want him dead, and many who had an opportunity to make it happen. Even Mary was accused at one point of being a part of the plot. No one wanted to believe that the lovely queen could be a part of such a horrific act, but her subsequent actions, so soon after the death of her husband, have left historians scratching their heads for centuries since.
The Last Straw
Several people were implicated in the murder of Darnley, but records later show that there was one particular man that had his hand in the carrying out of the act. James Hepburn, the Earl of Bothwell, was the Captain of the Queen’s Guard. Not long after the explosion he was arrested for part and plot in the king’s murder, but Mary soon acquitted him. This was perhaps another wrong step in what seems to be many in the days and months leading up to the loss of her kingdom.
There seems to be more than a loyalty to country that drove Bothwell to rid Scotland of such a cankerous sore as Darnley. Bothwell had intensions toward Mary and soon began to put plans in place to make her his wife.
Bothwell had drawn up an agreement, in which he had a host of the leading nobles and bishops of Scotland sign. The document, now known as the Ainsley Tavern Bond, indicated that these Scottish lords recognized Bothwell’s innocence in the murder of the king and supported his intentions to marry the queen. Furthermore, it pledged their support in seeing such a plan come to fruition, seeing he was a Scottish born suitor.
A week later, while on her way back from visiting her son who was hidden away at Stirling Castle, Mary was abducted by Bothwell, who had convinced her that danger awaited her in Edinburgh. He whisked her away to his castle at Dunbar where he proceeded to convince her that it was the Scottish nobles’ wish for them to be married.
There were several roadblocks to this scheme. For one, Bothwell was still married; his wife having already been offered a divorce. Another problem for Mary was that this was the man that many still believed to be responsible for her second husband’s murder, a husband who had only been dead for two months. Mary refused his offers at first but found herself inclined to finally accept with the help of Bothwell’s rough persuasions. It has been said that the earl forced himself on Mary and she eventually felt she had no other choice
The Downfall of a Queen
After Mary acquiesced to Bothwell’s scheme, they were married within a month. But it wasn’t long before those who opposed Bothwell as her husband rose up against them. They were out for blood and wanted the man responsible for the king’s murder dead. Mary and Bothwell were confronted on Carberry Hill where a day’s worth of negotiations played out under the hot June sun. The Scottish lords gave Mary two choices to avoid a battle; either she release herself from Bothwell forever, or Bothwell should come and fight one on one in hand to hand combat.
Mary was angry and shocked. According to John Guy her answer to the lords was thus:
“It looks very ill of them, to go against their own signed bond, after they themselves married me to him, having already acquitted him of the deed which they would now accuse him.”
Much deliberation commenced with Bothwell gladly taking on the challenge. Yet Mary wanted the lords to see their folly and surrender to her with a promise of pardon. It was finally decided that Bothwell would fight in single combat; but when a worthy opponent had finally been accepted, Mary put a stop to it. She knew that either way the fight ended she would not come out ahead. John Guy further explains:
“If Bothwell lost, she would be the lords’ prisoner and would have lost her protector. If he won, she would still lose, because she had come to know Morton (Bothwell’s partner in the murder of Darnley) for what he really was. He would never accept the result. Either the rebel lords would order their forces to charge or else they would send other champions to repeat the challenge until Bothwell collapsed from exhaustion or died of his wounds.”
Eventually, Mary negotiated for the lords to allow Bothwell a release and she would go with them peaceably. Bothwell eventually escaped to Norway, where he was imprisoned and eventually died. Mary was put under arrest and forced to abdicate her throne to her 10 month old son, James. It may have been the stress of all of these things coming against her that caused her to miscarry a set of twins during this time as well.
The Beginning of the End
Mary eventually escaped her Scottish captors and fled to England for protection. Although Elizabeth had at first been sympathetic to Mary’s plight (she was appalled that the Scottish lords had imprisoned their own anointed queen), she was apprehensive as well. There was too much scandal surrounding Mary.
Mary was put under house arrest upon entering England and remained there for the next 19 years. Although she lived in relative comfort for the most part, she was still not a free woman. Her health eventually began to decline and she even indicated that she had no wish to take upon herself once more the responsibilities of the throne. However, she had many supporters in Scotland and England, and never stopped seeking an escape. It was no secret that Mary wished to be free from her imprisonment. There were several plots hatched to procure her escape, and some included plans to take the throne of England in the process. Many historians believe these were schemes developed by outside forces and Mary had no true intentions of overthrowing Elizabeth’s throne.
However, in August of 1586 another plot was discovered that would eventually bring about Mary’s demise. (You can read about the Babington Plot and Mary’s arrest in England here) Mary was tried and convicted of treason even though she was not an English subject and by law could not be tried for treason of an English sovereign. She was sentenced to death in October, but Elizabeth did not sign the death warrant until February of the following year.
The warrant, having been signed on the first of February, was carried out on February 8, without Elizabeth’s knowledge. When she discovered her Privy Council had acted without her authority Elizabeth was angry and imprisoned one of her councilors as punishment. This was a good excuse to expunge any guilt on the English queen’s part in the murder of another sovereign.
Mary was led to the execution block in the early morning hours. Under her outer garments she wore a crimson petticoat, indicating her belief that she was being executed as a martyr. When she finally laid her head upon the block, it took the executioner three tries before completely severing her head.
Her wish had been to be buried in France, but Elizabeth denied that request. Instead, her remains were initially buried at Peterborough Cathedral. She was eventually moved to Westminster Abbey at the command of her son, James VI & I, who succeeded Elizabeth to the English throne in 1603.
There is no doubt that Mary Stuart, the Queen of Scotland who was executed by decree of Queen Elizabeth I has become one of the most loved, or at least one of the most talked about monarchs of all time.
There has been much study on Mary and depending on what side of the historical fence you may sit, you will either think she was a treasonous, power-hungry floozy or an innocent victim of other power-hungry men who used her. Countless books, movies, plays and even television shows have been written about her life. Much of it romanticized, her life has given those of us who love the 16th century and the Tudor era much to debate and dream about.
In the coming year I will be posting a series of blogs that examine some of the people who either had an influence or detriment on Mary’s life in some way. Though she only lived 44 years, she touched and was touched by countless lives that also had an impact on her.
If you are like me, I read a story, see a name, want to learn more about that person and read everything I can get my hands on about them until my thirst is quenched. That is what drew me in to the story and life of Mary, Queen of Scots in the first place. These posts are not meant to be an exhaustive coverage of everyone that Mary Stuart came in contact with. I have chosen just a few of the many people who lived during that time and had some kind of interaction with the enigmatic queen. My hope is that these posts will spark an interest and drive you to want to learn more about the woman, her life and times and the people who we can say make or break Mary, the Queen of the Scots.
Here is the schedule for the upcoming blog posts in the Principal Players Series:
I love adding animals to my stories. They make the characters seem more real, or maybe more relatable, and add a certain dimension to the world that I am creating on paper. In The Queen’s Almoner, Thomas has a favorite horse, Achaius, that makes several appearances, and Mary is given a white Clydesdale horse that becomes endeared to her (Clydesdales were a fairly new breed in the latter half of the sixteenth century, but they did exist). She names him Pureté. The queen is also given a small pup and names him TomTom (after the main character, of course!) TomTom only appears in two scenes, but I wanted to add a dog to the menagerie of animals in the book because the Queen of Scots was known to own a pup or two in her lifetime (a woman after my own heart, after all!) and legend has it that there was one hidden under her skirts when she was executed.
My next book goes a little further back in history to the medieval times of Henry II and Eleanor of Aquitaine (12th century). I wanted to add a small lap dog to my story, as a pet for Henry’s mistress, Rosamund. If you know anything about Henry II and Rosamund, you might know that hers is a not-so-happy ending. Therefore, I wanted her to have a small comfort in life in the form of a lovable pup. This made me wonder—did medieval people keep pets like we do now, and if so, what kind of pets did they keep?
The Purpose of a Pet
Animals have always played an important part in the lives of humans. The most obvious, and most common use has been as an important food source for ancient peoples who not only ate the meat, but used the skins, bones and even fat for everyday uses. However, a dead animal is not the only useful animal. Humans have used animals for hauling and heavy lifting, herding other animals, a means of transportation, hunting and providing protection.
According to Medieval Pets, by Kathleen Walker-Meikle the term “pet” is a relatively new word, not coming into popular use until the sixteenth century. The word, as we now use it refers to an animal that is kept for companionship or amusement. This type of animal is usually allowed access to parts of the home that other animals would not be allowed. In medieval times, such animals were not called pets. However, we do have evidence of animals living in close approximation with humans and being used for hunting, protection, and companionship, just as they are today.
Pets in Society
In medieval times, the type of pet you owned sometimes depended on whether you were a man or woman. Your vocation or social standing also dictated whether it was acceptable for you to own a certain type of pet. Depending on who you were might also determine your purpose for owning an animal and what you used it for.
Some of the most popular animals for men in the middle ages were, as you can image, the animals that would be useful in hunting, fighting and all the other manly things that men did in medieval times. Since women’s roles were vastly different from men’s in the middle ages, their choice of pet was usually for completely different reasons.
Types of Pets
Although not always thought of as pets, horses were very important to the medieval man. He relied heavily upon a good horse to quickly get him where he needed to go, and for assisting him in the hunt. Horses were also used for warfare. A good warhorse could stand as tall as 4-5 feet and must be strong enough to not only carry the man in armor and his weaponry, but they also needed to be able to bear the weight of their own protective gear. They were very expensive and were usually only owned by nobility or knights who could afford them.
Dogs were another popular animal among men. Most dogs kept by men in medieval times were used for hunting. Large breed dogs, such as the wolfhound were popular, but they were not the only type of dog used in hunting. Mid-size and smaller breeds were useful in hunting as well. Just don’t expect to see them lying in their master’s lap later in the evening.
Women and clerics were also known to keep dogs. Small lap dogs were used more for companionship and loyalty and were popular with those that did not spend a lot of time outdoors (i.e. employees of the church and females). Opponents of pets felt that the practice of keeping dogs was a waste of time when women could have been doing something more beneficial with their time. However, ancient texts, manuscripts and art all indicate that dogs were a very popular pet to keep.
Cats are another animal that served more than one purpose. Medieval records indicate that cats were employed in many cathedrals for the purpose of keeping the churches clear of mice. And they truly were employees, in the sense that they were listed on the payroll and money was set aside in the budge to supplement their feeding if they didn’t catch enough mice.
Cats were companions as well, although at times, just as with dogs, it was considered frivolous to keep a cat as a pet. According to Dr. Mark Whelan, Lecturer in Medieval History at the University of Manchester, a cat was the one animal allowed to accompany the anchorites into their cellular seclusion. Anchorites were men and women who pledged to forsake all worldly possessions and commit to a life of solitude for the sake of religious service by being shut away in seclusion. Although pets were frowned upon in this way of life, one cat was permitted, should the anchorite find that seclusion was too hard to bear.
There is conflicting information about cats as pets in the Middle Ages, especially when it comes to religious leaders. Medievalist, Dr. Irina Metzler presents another side of cat ownership in medieval Europe. According to Dr. Metzler, many religious authorities viewed cats as tools of the devil. Their stealth and cunningness in mouse-catching was admired but are not qualities that are considered when choosing a good companion. Medieval people believed that animals were simply created by God to serve humans. The cat is not a creature that can be easily trained and shows no tendency toward loyalty. This lack of obedience caused the cat to become more associated with the devil. People became suspicious of cats and accused them of evil intent. Yet, many people preferred cats as pets and they still pop up in medieval literature and artwork like the stubborn little creatures that they are. Even modern cat owners will admit to you that their cat has them well trained and not the other way around.
One final thought about cats…
If you can’t tell, I am very amused at the thought that a lot of medieval people thought cats were the spawn of Satan. I like cats, I really do, but I do think they have a mind of their own and really are up to no good a lot of times. When I think of naughty cats, this video comes to mind…enjoy!
Birds are one of the most versatile animals kept in medieval times. They have served many purposes, some of which predate the Middle Ages by hundreds of years.
In the truest sense of the word “pet”, birds were kept for pleasure and for elaborate display. Songbirds such as those from the Canary Islands and parrots like those found in the New World were favorites among kings and queens and other people of wealth.
Yet birds have served in other capacities and have been more than just a pretty face or a lovely song. Birds like falcons and hawks were used in medieval times for hunting larger game such as ducks and herons. Pigeons (also known as doves in some texts), have a long-standing history of carrying messages, and the folks in the Middle Ages put them to good use for that very purpose as well.
To Each His Own
Badgers, weasels, ferrets, squirrels and even monkeys made for popular pets in the Middle Ages as well. As with most pets during the medieval time period, most of these animals would have been kept by royalty or those of wealth who had money to spare for feeding such exotic creatures.
In ancient manuscripts, animals are known to have held a symbolic meaning but many of the animals we see in these medieval texts were kept as pets. And if we didn’t already know that the medieval manuscript artists had a sense of humor, one would think that ferociously fighting bunnies were a popular pet as well. 😊
For further reading on this topic, I highly recommend Medieval Pets by Kathleen Walker-Meikle. Not only does she address the history of pets in the Middle Ages, but medieval pet care, acquisition, problems and much more.
In the heart of Midlothian, Scotland, on a hill overlooking what is claimed to be one of the largest remaining areas of ancient woodland known as Roslin Glen, is a lovely little collegiate church referred to as Rosslyn Chapel. The chapel has suffered the effects of the Reformation and been the inspiration of many writers and painters. It played a prominent part in the best-selling book by Dan Brown, The DaVinci Code and went on to be featured in the movie inspired by said book. Filled with a delicious assortment of mysterious stonework and surrounded by a plethora of (sometimes inaccurate) history, the chapel houses over 500 years of inspiration and enlightenment.
A Worthy Endeavor
Construction on Rosslyn began in 1446. It was commissioned by William St. Clair, Earl of Orkney and Caithness, with the intentions that it would be used to offer prayers for his ancestors and descendants and provide a place of worship for generations to come. It was also to aid in the spread of intellectual and spiritual knowledge. Referring to Sir William’s idea for Rosslyn, Father Richard Hay, author of A Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn said, “It came into his mind to build a house for God’s service, of most curious work, the which that it might be done with greater glory and splendor…”
When St. Clair died in 1484 construction on the chapel was halted. Sir William was buried under the unfinished choir section and the chapel was left as it was. Sir William’s son, Oliver, either didn’t want to spend the money, or lost interest in the chapel construction, for he simply put a roof over the choir section and that became what we now know as Rosslyn Chapel. The larger portion of the building that was planned was never finished.
A hundred years later the winds of Reformation would blow through Scotland wreaking havoc on Catholic chapels such as Rosslyn. Another Oliver St. Clair would be commanded to tear down the altars within the chapel as it was reputed as a “house and monument of idolatry.” After the altars were destroyed the chapel was left to ruin.
The Mystery and Symbolism of the Stonework
According to Father Hay, when Sir William St. Clair began the building of the Rosslyn, “he caused artificers to be brought from other regions and foreign kingdoms and caused daily to be abundance of all kinds of workmen present as masons, carpenters, smiths, barrowmen and quarriers…”
Rosslyn is filled with symbols cut into the stonework of the interior. The result of many artisans, most are of a Biblical nature (it is a church after all). However, not all the Biblical carvings are saintly, as there are several symbols of the devil, fallen angels, sin and death. There are other symbols that have no apparent Biblical reference, and some appear to refer to objects that were not even known to Scotland at the time of the construction. Some stonework and etchings refer to the St. Clair family, and others appear to be practically pagan in nature.
The Knights Templar Connection
Although Rosslyn Chapel plays a role in Dan Brown’s book The DaVinci Code, some historians claim that there really are no connections with the Knights Templar to Rosslyn Chapel. The chapel was not built by the Knights Templar and although many of the men in the St. Clair family were known to be knights, they were not Templar Knights. According to Rosslyn historian, Michael Turnbull, Templar Knights took a vow of poverty, chastity, and loyalty to their order. The St. Clair family knights were men of wealth, married and had children and were loyal to their king.
The St. Clair family had roots that grew deep in religious and royal loyalty. Several of Sir William’s ancestors were friends of Robert the Bruce. Two of his ancestors, brothers by the names of William and John were chosen to accompany Sir Robert Douglas to carry the heart of Bruce to Jerusalem. All three of these men were killed in one final service to their dead king. (You can read more about that story here.) Robert the Bruce was said to have been aided by the Knights Templar during the Battle of Bannockburn. Since the St. Clair family were closely associated with Bruce, some historians believe there has been some confusion pertaining to the St. Clair family and the Knights Templar.
Although the Knights Templar were disbanded over 100 years earlier, other researchers tend to believe that the four altars on the east wall of the Lady Chapel are a symbolic reference to the four final Templars who had been tried after the dissolution of the Knights Templar. They would be Jacques de Molay (Grand Master of the Order), Geoffrey de Charney (Grand Commander of Normandy), Geoffrey of Goneville (Grand Commander of Aquitaine, & Poitou), and Hugh Peraud (Grand Commander of the Isle de France). Just as one of the altars is elevated higher than the other three, could these altars represent the four Tempars, one (the Grand Master) ranked higher than the other three (Grand Commanders)? The details behind this connection are too in depth to go into here, therefore I will leave that to the reader to take on further research on the subject. (http://www.masonicsourcebook.com/rosslyn_chapel_freemasonry.htm)
The Freemason Connection
It is a common belief that with the abolishment of the Knights Templar came the birth of the Freemasons. In keeping with the Templar/Freemason connection there is one very intriguing story about the Rosslyn stonework which pertains to two intricately carved columns within the chapel. These are known as the Mason’s Pillar and the Apprentice Pillar. Legend says that while the master mason was away researching the design that had been requested for the pillar, his apprentice had a dream in which it was revealed to him what the design of the pillar should be. Upon the master’s return, he found that his apprentice had finished the beautiful carving of the pillar. In a fit of jealousy, the master flew into a rage and struck the apprentice over the head with a hammer, killing him.
Both men are forever commemorated within the walls of the chapel. One head carved into the stone with a gash on its forehead, looking across the way at another, the head of his master and killer.
This story closely resembles the murder of Hiram Abif, the master mason involved in the building of Solomon’s Temple. The Freemasons, who have ties with these ancient stonemasons view this event as symbolic and tie them to the construction of Rosslyn Chapel.
According to Freemason historian and scholar, Dr. Albert Mackie, Sir William St. Clair, the Earl of Orkney and Caithness was appointed the title of Patron and Protector of the Freemasons of Scotland in 1441 by King James II. This became a hereditary title that would be passed down through the St. Clair generations. However, when King James VI failed to exercise his prerogative of nominating office-bearers, the Freemasons found themselves without a Protector. Therefore, the Freemasons themselves appointed William St. Clair of Roslin (too many Williamses! Lol) as their Protector around 1600. Then, in 1630, a second charter was granted, giving William’s son, Sir William St. Clair the same power his father had been given. He was given the title the first Grand Master of the Grand Lodge of Scotland. St. Clair assumed the administrative role and the office continued to be passed down for more than 100 years, until the final Saint Clair, recognizing he would have no heir, offered to let the office be appointed by election. (http://www.masonicdictionary.com/sinclair.html)
Some of the imagery carved into Rosslyn is said to
have hints of Masonic rites. However, in spite of the Freemasons’ claims on the
founder of Rosslyn Chapel, the New World Encyclopedia claims that the earliest records of Freemasonic lodges date back
only to the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries. (https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Rosslyn_Chapel).
Thus, we are left to wonder if the images we see carved in stone were pieces to
a Masonic puzzle, or are people only seeing what they want to see?
The Heart of Inspiration
The setting of Rosslyn Chapel next to Roslin Glen, and the mere beauty of the intricate stonework, both inside and out, have cast Rosslyn Chapel into a rather romantic light. Its loveliness has been praised by author and painter alike, and many have found inspiration in its splendor.
Sir Walter Scott not only wrote a poem of Rosslyn called The
Lay of the Last Minstrel, but he also drew inspiration for his Chapel of
the Hermit Engaddi in The Talisman, from the beautiful stonework of
Robert Burns, inspired by the reddish hues of the glowing sunrise hitting Rosslyn Chapel is said to have scratched the following poem, Epigram at Roslin Inn, onto a pewter plate at Roslin Inn afterward:
My blessings on ye, honest wife! I ne’er was here before; Ye’ve wealth o’ gear for spoon and knife- Heart could not wish for more. Heav’n keep you clear o’ sturt and strife, Till far ayont fourscore, And while I toddle on thro’ life, I’ll ne’er gae by your door!
Painter David Roberts sketched and painted several works pertaining to Rosslyn Chapel. His artistry capures the intricacies of the carved stonework that make Rosslyn so special. Below are two of his three oil paintings honoring the Chapel.
Queen Victoria visited Rosslyn Chapel in 1842. When she saw the unkept condition and overgrown state of the chapel she expressed a desire to have the chapel reinstated to its former glory that it might be “preserved for the country.” Within 20 years the chapel had been restored and opened for worshipers, this time as an Episcopalian house of worship.
On the northern banks of Loch Crinan, in the western part of Scotland stands a picturesque little
castle named Duntrune. Built in the 12th century, it has withstood
the tumultuous history of Scotland to remain one of the best and longest
preserved castles that is still occupied in all of Scotland today.
Though Duntrune is a lovely
castle in a beautiful setting, it was an event that took place there in the mid
1600’s that first drew my attention to it.
A Nasty Civil War
The backdrop of our little ghost story
is the English civil war that took place between King Charles I and his
disagreeing Parliament. Charles eventually dissolved Parliament and decided to
rule without them. This threw the country into a civil war that wasn’t
satisfied until Charles was dethroned and beheaded in 1649.
This is a very simplistic explanation
of events, for there were underlying causes that put the two ruling forces at
odds with each other. One of those causes was deeply rooted in religious disagreements.
At first, Scotland made an attempt to steer clear of the problems in England,
but it soon became apparent that they would eventually be dragged into the
Two Sides of the
The English Civil
War was one component of a bigger war known as the Wars of the Three Kingdoms.
This not only involved the people of England, but Scotland and Ireland were
also thrust into the disputes between Charles and his Parliament.
At the heart of
the Scottish involvement in this war were the Covenanters and the Royalists.
The Covenanters had their roots in Presbyterianism, a movement that had shaken
Scotland over a hundred years earlier and had caused dissent between the
Catholic Scots and those who fought for reformation. The Covenanters were also known
as Parliamentarians, due to their support of Parliament over King Charles. The
other faction was the Royalists. They were also known as the King’s Scottish
army. They were loyal to the king and supported King Charles’ policies of
governance in England.
clans of the Highlands were of differing opinions on Charles and his policies. This was due in part to the
many cultural and religious beliefs held by the disparate clans. When it came
time to choose sides, some clans followed King Charles (the Royalists), and
others joined the Covenanters who sided with Parliament.
Amongst these divided Highlanders were two clans that knew hundreds of years of quarreling. These were the infamous Campbells and the MacDonalds. The bad feelings between these two clans make the American Hatfield’s and McCoy’s feud look like a playground scuffle. Even to this day, you can still find places in Scotland that refuse to serve patrons who are in possession of a certain clan name of Campbell.
seem to think that a lot of the riff between the two clans has been blown out
of proportion. However, the fact still remains that in the mid-17th
century, when there were sides to be chosen, the Campbells and the MacDonalds
happened to find themselves on opposing sides of King Charles’ war. And this
was the heart of the problem concerning Duntrune Castle.
The Stuff of
versions this tale can be found. Here I will give the account that I first
heard. Readers may wish to do further reading and research and come across
another tale that you find more believable or fascinating.
MacDonald clan was led by a hulk of a man that came to be known by the name
Colkitto. He was a master at warfare and not only fought for his own clan but
was also known to have assisted Clan MacIntyre of Glen Coe. In thanks for his
assistance, the MacIntyre chief gave Colkitto his favorite piper. He was to
accompany Colkitto and the MacDonald warriors on their campaign.
And so it
was that when the MacDonald clan came upon Duntrune Castle in the middle of the
night, the MacIntyre piper was also there to take part in the action. The
control of the castle was wrestled from the Campbells and left in the capable
hands of a few of Colkitto’s men along with his prized piper. Colkitto himself boarded
a boat and set sail across the Sound of Jura to continue on his campaign,
leaving his men to hold down the fort until his return.
Campbells launched a counter-attack to regain control of Duntrune, all of the warriors
of the MacDonald clan were killed, except for the piper. He alone was left,
with the intent that he would play his pipes and entertain the Campbell clan.
And that he
did, until one day Colkitto’s boat was spotted on the Sound. With permission, the
MacIntyre piper played a song that he had prepared in honor of his leader’s
return, “Piobaireachd-dhum- Naomhaid” or in English, “The Piper’s Warning
to His Master”. Soon the haunting notes drifted out across the water, reaching
Colkitto’s ears. But it didn’t take long for the great chieftain to notice
something odd about the melody. The piper had intentionally misplayed some of
the notes in an effort to send a warning message to Colkitto.
understanding the piper’s intent, turned his boat around and never completed
his destination to Duntrune. When the Campbell clan realized what the piper had
done, they called for the piper’s punishment.
And what greater
punishment could there be, than to disable the man, preventing him from ever
being able to play the pipes again? The MacIntyre piper’s hands were cut off,
and he eventually bled to death from his injuries.
The “Ghost” Part
of This Little Story
so ghostly about this sad story? For hundreds of years there have been stories
of banging noises and flying objects heard and sighted at Duntrune Castle.
There have even been reports of a mysterious sound of bagpipes playing on
occasion. For many years people actually thought the story of the mutilated
piper was just that—a story. But while a renovation project was underway at
Duntrune in the late 1800’s, an Episcopalian bishop reported that workers found
the skeletal remains of a man. They unearthed the bones: skull, arms, legs, torso—everything
was there—except for his hands. The remains were reburied outside of the castle
walls in an unmarked grave. Later, another excavation uncovered the bones of
two hands, without a body to go with it, buried under one of the rooms of the
If you are ever
in Argyll, perhaps you can venture to see Duntrune Castle. See if you can spot
a lonely specter dutifully piping out his warning across the salty waters of Loch
Crinan. Oh, and let
me know how he does it without his hands.
The celebrated poet, T.S. Eliot may have penned these famous words in his poem, “East Coker”, however, he was not the first person to use them. Mary, Queen of Scots took this phrase as a motto sometime during her long captivity in England. Embroidering the words on her canopy of state, they served as a sort of prophetic epitaph of her life, that ended so tragically at the hands of the Queen of England, Elizabeth I.
Some scholars speculate that she
may have been referring to her late grandfather-in-law, Francis I’s symbol of
the salamander with these words. In medieval times the salamander had an
allegorical element that symbolized a righteous person’s ability to withstand
fire, just as the three Hebrew children in the Biblical story, emerged unharmed
from the fiery furnace.
Mary was an unrepentant Catholic.
She never swayed from her religious beliefs, even though it caused heartache
for her for most of her life. It is no secret that she considered herself a
martyr for her Catholic faith (even going so far as to wearing a red petticoat,
the martyr’s color, at her execution). She is known to have told her
cousin, the Duke of Guise:
“For myself, I am resolute to die for my religion. . . With God’s
help, I shall die in the Catholic faith and to maintain it
constantly. . .without doing dishonor to the race of
Lorraine, who are accustomed to die the sustenance of the faith.”
In her Essay on Adversity, written in 1580, Mary wrote of the
lives of rulers:
“Tribulation has been to them as a furnace to fine gold—a means
of proving their virtue, of opening their so-long blinded eyes, and
of teaching them to know themselves and their own failings.”
Perhaps Mary saw herself emerging victorious on the other side of this mortal life with that everlasting life promised to believers that can only come after death.
words can also be a bit predictive. They are a sort of foretelling of the
immortal, romanticized life that she has taken on since her death. She is,
beyond a doubt, one of the most controversial figures in Scottish history.
Whether you believe she was complicit in her second husband’s death, and guilty
of plotting a treasonous over-taking of the English throne, one cannot deny
that she has had more than her fair share of 15 minutes of fame, and she
remains one of those characters in history that we non-participants either love
to love, or love to hate.
A little back history
After her disastrous second
marriage to Lord Henry Darnley ended in his death by strangulation, Mary was
kidnapped, raped and accepted a marriage proposal by another man accused in the
death of her husband (we’ll save that story for another day.) When Mary followed through with the marriage barely
two months after Darnley’s death, suspicions were heightened concerning Mary’s
involvement with Darnley’s murder.
Soon Scottish lords were seeking
to implicate Mary in Darnley’s murder as well, and she was forced to abdicate
her throne to her one-year old son, James. When attempts to raise an army to
take back her throne failed, she ended up imprisoned at Loch Leven Castle where
she eventually miscarried Bothwell’s twins. She finally escaped ten months
later with the help of one of her sympathizes.
Mary attempted a second time
to raise an army, trying in vain to defeat her leading opponent, her half-brother
James Stewart, Earl of Moray. When she was not successful, she fled to England,
hoping to obtain help from her cousin, Queen Elizabeth.
Any indications of sympathy
that Mary may have received from Elizabeth were short lived. She was quickly
taken into custody and remained so, moving from residence to residence under
house arrest for the next 19 years. Although records indicate that she led a
somewhat pampered life while in England (after all—she was a queen), the fact
remained that Mary was still a captive of Elizabeth’s. With her health
declining, she made it no secret that she would use any means necessary to
escape her situation. This was not a confession to treason, but merely an
admission that she had tried on more than one occasion to escape.
A victim of one scheming nobleman after
another, she continued to be a political pawn, having no control of her own
life. When her private letters were produced for Elizabeth to read, the
contents were condemning. Through plots originating at the hands of her
supporters in an attempt to rescue her, and plots formed at the hands of her
enemies in an effort to entrap her, Mary endured some of the most farcical
examples of court intrigue that have ever existed and rivals anything even
Hollywood could come up with.
The day finally came
On August 11, 1586, Mary was arrested for her part in another
murder plot to kill Elizabeth that would eventually come to be called the
Babington Plot. Mary’s long-time English
foe, Elizabeth’s Secretary of State, William Cecil, and another of Elizabeth’s
secretaries, Sir Francis Walsingham, had finally succeeded in scrounging up
something to pin on the Scottish queen.
By this time, Mary was suffering from arthritis, making
movement in her arms and legs very painful. She could not walk without
assistance and was confined to a bed most of the time. She testified in court
that due to her illness, she had no desire to take the reins of government again.
She also complained that her letters and papers had all been taken from her,
and that she had not been given any counsel as to how to proceed in her trial. The
most adamant of her complaints, however, was the fact that since she was not an English subject, they had no
right whatsoever, to try her under English law.
Her pleas and complaints went unheard, and after Elizabeth’s attempts to end her Scottish problem with other means had failed, she finally signed the death warrant to execute Mary on February 1 the following year. She was executed seven days later. Mary was 44 years of age when she laid down her life in typical martyr fashion, her red petticoat announcing to the world the glorious death to which she had been called.
The following pictures were taken at the Mary Queen of Scots House in Jedburgh, Scotland when I was there in 2017. They depict examples of the high demand for relics pertaining to Mary and her fascinating story. There are many more relics at Jedburgh, but here I have posted only the ones that pertain to this post.
One final note of interest…
If you are interested in seeing some of the places that Mary stayed after her initial arrest in Scotland in 1567, or if you want to start at the beginning of her life in 1542, this is an excellent book. The author is Andrew Burnet.
Robert the Bruce (also known as Robert I) is one of the most celebrated and respected kings of Scottish history. Even to this day, 700 years later, monuments and statues are still being erected in his honor, books are still written about him, and movies are still being made.
A Little Back History
In the late thirteenth century, Scotland was plunged into a period of political turmoil. The seven-year-old heir to the Scottish throne, Margaret, the Maid of Norway, had died before her coronation, leaving the throne empty and thirteen men vying for the position.
King of England, Edward I had other plans. He exerted a feudal superiority, treating
Scotland like a vassal of England. Edward appointed John de Balliol to take the
Scottish throne. John was heavily influenced by Edward, putting him out of
favor with the Scottish nobility.
The nobles deposed John and set up a council to rule instead. This, of course, angered Edward and goaded him to invade Scotland, starting the Wars for Scottish Independence. When Scotland was defeated in 1296, John abdicated, leaving Scotland without a king once more.
Enter Robert the Bruce
Robert was one of the many men who claimed a right to the Scottish throne. He was known to have led supporters of the rebel, William Wallace (of Braveheart fame) during the Wars for Scottish Independence. However, he was also known to be in good graces with the English king from time to time as well. But any goodwill that might have been shown to him by Edward came to an end in 1306, when Robert killed the cousin of the appointed Scottish king, John.
When Robert’s loyalty to Edward was called into question, he went right to the traitorous source: the cousin of John de Balliol, John (“The Red”) Comyn. Adamant opposer to English Rule, and another rightful heir to the Scottish throne, Comyn may have tired of Robert’s vacillations between English rule and Scottish rights. He met with Robert at a church at Dumfries on February 10, 1306. An argument broke out when Robert confronted Comyn on his reports to King Edward about Robert’s possible betrayal.
where history gets a little cloudy. Some say Robert met John Comyn with all
intentions of killing him. Other historians think that an argument broke out,
and in a fit of passion Bruce struck Comyn, taking him down. When he asked after
Comyn’s wellbeing afterward, one of Bruce’s supporters decided to take it upon
himself to make sure the job was done.
The difference in that time period is comparable to our current U.S. laws differentiating between murder and manslaughter. Was it cold-blooded premeditated murder, or a hot-blooded lashing out that resulted in someone’s death? Opinions vary and depending on which way you look at it could determine Robert’s popularity among the people, or lack thereof.
one thing remained: he had taken someone’s life within the walls of a holy sanctuary.
This caused him to be excommunicated from the church and may have tormented
Robert for the rest of his life.
Death of a
Many years later, the man who is most famous for breaking the English hold over Scotland at the Battle of Bannockburn, died at the Manor of Cardross, near Dumbarton. His body was buried in the Dumfermline Abbey, but his sternum was cut open and his heart removed so that it might be buried elsewhere. Some historians say that it was Robert’s one unfulfilled wish to go on a crusade. For this reason, his heart was put into a metal casket and borne about the neck of his close friend, Sir James Douglas as he set off for a crusade to Jerusalem. However, the crusade never came to fruition and instead Bruce’s men were sidetracked to Spain where Alfonso XI of Castile was instigating a campaign against the Moors of Granada. There, Douglas was killed, and Sir William Keith brought Robert’s heart back to Scotland. It was buried at Melrose Abbey, (a place repaired several times throughout Robert’s reign and with his funding), according to his wishes.
tradition holds that Bruce wanted his heart to be buried at Jerusalem. The reason
for this wish could lead back to his excommunication from the church. Local
tradition believes that Robert the Bruce wanted his heart buried in Jerusalem
to atone for the sin of his murder of John Comyn at the Franciscan church 23
Whatever the reason, we know that his heart unfortunately did not make it to Jerusalem (unless you believe some conspiracy theories that hold that it was actually smuggled into Jerusalem hundreds of years later). However, what we do not know for sure is whether the small casket unearthed at Melrose Abbey in 1920, reburied, then unearthed again in 1996 are the actual remains of Robert the Bruce.
The heart was reburied again in 1998 and a marker has been set at the new burial place. For the most part people accept that it truly is Robert’s heart. Although it may have been Bruce’s wish to have his heart buried at Jerusalem, no one can deny that the rightful place for the heart of this beloved Scottish hero belongs in the soil of his hard-won land.
The above inscription on the stone comes from a long, narrative poem by John Barbour called The Brus. It is a historic account of Robert the Bruce’s heroic deeds during the Scottish Wars for Independence. In Early Scots it reads: “A noble hart may have no ease, gif freedom failye” In English it is translated as: “A noble heart cannot be at peace if freedom is lacking”. Notice how the heart is entwined with the Saltire, the symbol used on the Scottish flag.
Here are a few more pictures I took at Melrose Abbey. You can click on the picture to open and expand for a bigger, better view. I hope you enjoy!
I allow the use of my images in this way: Creative Commons License With Creative Commons you are free: To Share: Copy, Distribute, and Transmit the image Under these conditions: Attribution: Attribution to TonyaUBrown and theroseandthethistle.com must be made along with the image.