587 Schir Archibald his sone. Skeat, in his note on this passage, is all astray. He says that Douglas was never married, that he left only a natural son William, and that this Archibald was his third or youngest brother. But Sir William Fraser is of opinion that Sir James was married, though Sir Herbert Maxwell doubts, and certainly no record of it survives; but he was succeeded in the estates by William, while his brother Archibald “Tineman” (Loser) was killed at Halidon Hill in 1333. He, however, had another son, certainly illegitimate, the Archibald referred to here, who succeeded in 1388 as third Earl of Douglas, and died, after a varied career, in 1400 (Fraser’s Douglas Book, I., 188-9; Scalacronica; Maxwell’s History of the House of Douglas, i., p. 67 and 114-124; Acts Parl., i. 193-4; Reg. Mag. Sig., i., p. 177). Archibald was known as “the Grim.” Mr. Brown cites Fraser to the effect that Archibald erected the tomb “probably about the year 1390, after his succession as third Earl of Douglas” (Douglas Book, I., p. 181); and adds the proposition that he could not have done so before his succession, because, according to the Book of Pluscarden (1462), his friends “held him in small account because he was a bastard,” and because his succession to the estates was disputed (Acts Parl. Scot., i., p. 194; The Wallace and Bruce, pp. 154-5). Mr. Brown’s contention, therefore, is that the statement in the text could not have been penned by Barbour in 1375, and that it is not due to him, but to his redactor. The reasoning is not all conclusive; against the plain statement of Barbour there is only an assumption on Fraser’s part, and inferences on the part of Mr. Brown which are not necessarily contained in his premisses. Archibald was, no doubt, only a child when his father was killed; but he became Lord of Galloway in 1369, and Earl of Wigtown in 1372. What was there to prevent his erecting a tomb for his distinguished father, except a delicacy of feeling on the side of the “legitimates,” which is rather modern than late mediæval? Archibald bought his earldom, built and endowed a hospital near Dumfries, erected Thrieve Castle, and had extensive lands in various parts of Scotland, so that he must have been a man of considerable wealth, besides being, as Warden, the most important figure on the Border. Who or what was then to prevent him honouring the congenial memory of his great father before 1375-6?
600 Melros. Cf. note on 191-2.
604 And held the pure weill to warrand. I.e., “And carefully guarded or looked after the interests of the poor.”
609 poysonyt was he. Moray died at Musselburgh, July 20, 1332. Fordun says nothing of poisoning (Gesta Annalia, cxlvi.). But there appears to have been a popular story to this effect, to which, later, was added the detail that his poisoner was an English monk (Scotichr., ii., lib. xiii., ch. xix.). Moray died of the stone from which he suffered towards the close of his life; the rest Hailes considered “a silly popular tale” (Annals, vol. iii., App. 2).
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
THE SITE OF THE BATTLE OF BANNOCKBURN
It will be noticed that the conception of this battle, alike as to position and tactics, elaborated in the notes in strict conformity with Barbour, differs entirely from that now universally accepted. The engagements of the first day (Sunday) were the outcome of attempts to clear the two paths of approach to Stirling—that through the New Park, and the other on the level below St. Ninians. Both failed, and the means by which their failure was brought about determined the operations of the following day (Monday). This main engagement, however, it has been hitherto held, took place on the banks of the Burn, below or in the neighbourhood of Brock’s Brae, with the Burn separating the forces. This is pure misconception. There can be no doubt that the battle was fought on a position roughly at right angles to this—on “the playne,” “the hard feld,” or level ground east of St. Ninians, reaching back into the angle formed by the Forth and the Bannock. The main data for such a conclusion are these: (1) The English passed the night on the Carse, having crossed the Bannock; (2) the Scots attacked early next morning, and to do this “tuk the playne,” leaving their camp-followers in the Park, so that they astonished the English by their audacity; (3) in the rout many English were drowned in the Forth and in the Bannock; (4) Edward II., unable to get away, fled to the castle; (5) so did many of his men, as the castle “wes ner.” These facts, fully substantiated from both sides, are wholly inconsistent with a site of battle south of St. Ninians, and fix its position between the Forth and the Bannock. Barbour’s “pools” are the “polles” in which, according to Hemingburgh,[57] the English baggage was bogged and captured after the battle of Stirling Bridge. The English and French (and Irish) chroniclers invariably speak of the battle as that of “Stirling,” and Trokelowe calls it the Battle of Bannockmoor. For a full discussion of the matter, see my paper on “The Real Bannockburn” in Proceedings of the Glasgow Archæological Society, 1908-1909.