We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 July 2016
The document commonly known as the ‘Remonstrance of the Irish princes’, which was sent to Pope John XXII in or about 1317, has inspired a great deal of written comment since the text first became generally available during the nineteenth century. It has been seen as an early statement and vindication of Irish national identity and political independence; it throws light on the application of the English common law in early fourteenth-century Ireland; it illustrates the relations between English and Irish monks and secular clergy within the Irish church; it demonstrates that in the early fourteenth century Pope Adrian IV’s bull Laudabiliter, in which he had urged Henry II of England to conquer Ireland, was regarded even by enemies of the English as a key element in the English monarchy’s claims to the lordship of Ireland; and its account of the English settlers in Ireland has been used to demonstrate a growing distinction between them and their cousins in England. In recent years the remonstrance has also been quarried for evidence on the application of the canon law of the just war, and for information on racial attitudes on the frontiers of medieval Europe.
This is a revised version of a paper originally delivered in the department of medieval history at U.C.D. in December 1985 as one of the series of Aubrey Gwynn Lectures. I should like to thank Professors G.W.S. Barrow and A.A.M. Duncan for their comments on an earlier draft. They are not, however, responsible for my conclusions or for any remaining errors.
2 For details of the publication history of the remonstrance see Hand, G.J., English law in Ireland, 1290–1324 (Cambridge, 1967), p. 198 Google Scholar, n. 3; and Duffy, Seán, ‘The Gaelic account of the Bruce invasion Cath Fhochairte Brighite: medieval romance or modern forgery?’ in Seanchas Ard Mhacha, xiii, no. 1 (1988), pp 98–9 and n. 186Google Scholar.
3 Strictly speaking, Laudabiliter (c. 1155) had no direct bearing on the existence of the English-ruled lordship of Ireland since Henry II’s campaign in Ireland in 1171–2 occurred under very different circumstances, while the lordship itself did not come rally into being until 1185 when Henry II bestowed it upon his youngest son John. None the less Laudabiliter and the lordship came to be regarded as part and parcel of one another. For the history of Laudabiliter in the medieval period see Watt, J.A., ’ Laudabiliter in medieval diplomacy and propaganda’ in I.E.R., 5th ser., lxxxvii (Jan.-June 1957), pp 420-32Google Scholar.
4 For these interpretations of the remonstrance see Watt, J.A., The church and the two nations in medieval Ireland (Cambridge, 1970), pp 186–7 CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and his contribution to A new history of Ireland, ii, 348–50; Hand, Eng. law in Ire., pp 189, 198–201; Curtis, , Med. Ire., 2nd ed. (London, 1938), pp 191-3Google Scholar; Lydon, J.F., ‘The middle nation’ in Lydon, J.F. (ed.), The English in medieval Ireland (Dublin, 1984), pp 1–3 Google Scholar; Lydon, , in N.H.I., ii, 242-4Google Scholar; Muldoon, James, ‘The remonstrance of the Irish princes and the canon law tradition of the just war’ in American Journal of Legal History, xxii (1978), pp 309-25CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Hoffman, R.C., ‘Outsiders by birth and blood: racist ideologies and realities around the periphery of medieval European culture’ in Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, n.s., vi (1983), pp 6–7, 28–9Google Scholar. The most recently published comments on the remonstrance are to be found in ProfessorDuncan, A.A.M.’s paper ‘The Scots’ invasion of Ireland, 1315’ in Davies, R.R. (ed.), The British Isles, 1100–1500: comparisons, contrasts and connections (Edinburgh and Atlantic Highlands, N.J., 1988), pp 104, 110–11, 114Google Scholar.
5 These quotations are all taken from the English translation published in Curtis & McDowell, Ir. hist, docs., pp 38–46.
6 Such as PRO:SCI (ancient correspondence); SC7 (papal bulls); C47 (chancery miscellanea); C49 (parliamentary and council proceedings); E30 (diplomatic documents); E163 (exchequer miscellanea); E175 (parliamentary and council proceedings). See also below, n. 62.
7 Hearne, Tho[mas] (ed.), Johannis de Fordun Scotichronicon (5 vols, Oxford, 1722), iii, 908-25Google Scholar. The manuscripts he consulted were Trinity College, Cambridge, MS 0.9.9 and B.L., Harl. MS 712.
8 Skene, W.F., Chronica gentis Scotorum (2 vols, Edinburgh, 1871)Google Scholar; the remonstrance is mentioned in i, 405, as part of an appendix of documents attached to the chronicle.
9 Goodall, Walter (ed.), Scotichronicon (2 vols, Edinburgh, 1759), ii, 259–67Google Scholar.
10 Skene, F.J.H. (ed.), Liber Pluscardensis (2 vols, Edinburgh, 1877), i, 243–50Google Scholar.
11 The extant manuscripts of the chronicles of Fordun and Bower and their publication history were studied in detail by Murray, David in The Black Book of Paisley and other manuscripts of the Scotichronicon (Paisley, 1885)Google Scholar. I should like to thank Professor A.A.M. Duncan for loaning me a copy of this very rare book. See also Drexler, Marjorie, ‘The extant abridgements of Walter Bower’s Scotichronicon ‘ in Scot.Hist.Rev., lxi (1982), pp 62-7Google Scholar. The editorial project is discussed in Watt, D.E.R., ‘Editing Walter Bower’s Scotichronicon ’ in Proceedings of the third international conference on Scottish language and literature (medieval and renaissance), ed. Lyall, R.J. and Riddy, Felicity (Stirling and Glasgow, 1981), pp 161-76Google Scholar. Again I should like to thank Professor Duncan for this reference. On the sources for medieval Scottish history in general see Webster, Bruce, Scotland from the eleventh century to 1603 (London, 1975)Google Scholar.
12 So far two volumes of this new edition have been published, under the general editorship of ProfessorWatt, D.E.R.: volume II, containing books ш and iv (from the time of Fergus the son of Ere to the reign of Malcolm Canmore), ed. McQueen, John and McQueen, Winifred (Aberdeen, 1989)Google Scholar; and volume III, ed. D.E.R. Watt (Aberdeen, 1987), containing books xv and xvi (1390-1424).
13 B.L., Cott. MS Vitellius E.XI; B.L., Royal MS 13. E.X., ff 202r-207r; B.L., Harl. MS 712, ff 208r-213r.
14 Bodl., Fairfax MS 8, ff 151r-154r.
15 T.C.D., MS 498, pp 384–96; T.C.D., MS 580, ff 57v-61v.
16 In the fifteenth century it was thought that Fordun might have visited Ireland in order to collect material for his chronicle; if so, he could possibly have found the remonstrance there: see Watt, D.E.R., ‘Editing Walter Bower’s Scotichronicon ’, p. 163 Google Scholar. For a discussion of possible Irish sources and for Irish scholars whom Fordun may have consulted see Scotichronicon, ii (1989), pp xv, xvii. However, there are reasons for thinking that the remonstrance could just as easily have been preserved in Scotland: see note 56 below. Much also depends on whether or not the Scots were in some way involved in the production of the remonstrance. Professor Duncan in his recent important paper ‘The Scots’ invasion of Ireland, 1315’ (above, n. 4), pp 110–11, is strongly of the opinion that the remonstrance was solely an Irish production and that the references in it to Edward Bruce were added as a postscript. See however n. 57 below.
17 While little is known of the chancery practices of Irish rulers at this period, there is good reason to believe that Ó Néill could have sent a properly composed and dated letter if it had suited his purpose: see, for example, the Latin charter of 20 Nov. 1315 or 1316 in which Ó Néill and his wife and son granted privileges to the church of Armagh (T.C.D., MS 557/2, pp 220–21 (Reeves transcripts of the register of Archbishop Fleming of Armagh)).
18 This was in French. See the text in Prestwich, Michael (ed.), Documents illustrating the crisis of 1297–98 in England, Camden 4th. ser., xxiv (1980), pp 115-16Google Scholar. Like the Irish remonstrance, this document is undated.
19 T.C.D., MS 498, p. 384; MS 580, f.29v.
20 Hearne, Scotichronicon, p. 924; Curtis & McDowell, Ir. hist, docs., p. 46.
21 See Stones, E.L.G. and Simpson, G.G. (ed.), Edward I and the throne of Scotland, 1290–1296 (2 vols, Oxford, 1978), especially i, 25 (n.5), 181Google Scholar; ii, 192, 375; and also the review article on these volumes by Phillips, J.R.S. in Ir. Jurist, xvi (1981), pp 373–7 Google Scholar. The processes of Montreuil and of Périgueux, which had been held to try to resolve Anglo-French differences, were also recent events.
22 See J.A. Watt, ’Laudabiliter’, pp 427–8; Curtis & McDowell, Ir. hist, docs., p. 44. The text of Laudabiliter which is now in the Public Record Office, London (ancient petitions, SC 8/177/8818), is not connected with the remonstrance but accompanied a petition to the English crown from ‘the middling people of Ireland’ (PRO: SC 8/177/8820 printed in Sayles, Affairs of Ire., pp 99–101, where it is dated 1317–19). I owe this reference to Laudabiliter to Dr Philomena Connolly of the P.R.O.I.
23 It has not yet been possible to check this manuscript directly but there is a detailed description of it in James, M.R. (ed.), The western manuscripts in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge (4 vols, Cambridge, 1900-04), iii, 447-8Google Scholar.
24 Murchada, Diarmuid Ó, ‘Is the O’Neill-MacCarthy letter of 1317 a forgery?’ in I.H.S., xxiii, no. 89 (May 1982), pp 61-7Google Scholar. These conclusions have been accepted by Professor A.A.M. Duncan in his paper, ‘The Scots’ invasion of Ireland, 1315’, pp 111–12, and by Sean Duffy in his paper cited below (pp 62–4). The text of the letter is in B.L., Add. MS 34727, ff 268–9. The first editor of the letter also had doubts as to its authenticity but was reassured by information from Edmund Curtis: see Herbert Wood, ‘A letter from Domnal O’Neill to Fineen MacCarthy, 1317’ in R.I.A. Proc, xxxvii (1924-7), sect. C, pp 141–8, especially pp 147–8. Duffy’s, Sean very important paper, ‘The Gaelic account of the Bruce invasion Cath Fhochairte Brighite: medieval romance or modern forgery?’ in Seanchas Ard Mhacha, xiii, no. 1 (1988), pp 59-121Google Scholar, has demonstrated with near certainty the circumstances of the work’s creation: see especially pp 111–21.
25 Macalister, R.A. Stewart (ed.), Lebor Gabala Érenn (The book of the taking of Ireland) (Ir. Texts Soc, 4 vols, Dublin, 1938-41)Google Scholar.
26 The status of the Gaelic Irish in relation to the English common law is clearly stated in Hand, Eng. law in Ire., pp 187–210.
27 The tensions that existed within the Irish church are fully treated in Watt, Ch. & two nations.
28 Curtis ‘ McDowell, Ir. hist, docs, pp 42–3; Frame, R.F., ‘The justiciar and the murder of the MacMurroughs in 1282’ in I.H.S., xviii, no. 70 (Sept. 1972), pp 223–30 Google Scholar.
29 See Phillips, J.R.S., ‘The mission of John de Hothum to Ireland, 1315–1316’ in Lydon, J.F. (ed.), England and Ireland in the later middle ages (Dublin, 1981), pp 62–85 Google Scholar. The spelling ‘Hotham’ in the present article is in accordance with the practice of A new history of Ireland.
30 Cal. papal letters, 1305–42, p. 440; Theiner, Vetera mon., p. 201.
31 Watt, J.A., ‘Negotiations between Edward II and John XXII concerning Ireland’ in I.H.S., x, no. 37 (Mar. 1956), pp 1–20 Google Scholar, citing material from Vatican Library, Barberini Latini MSS no. 2126, f. 125r.
32 Cambridge Univ. Library MS Ii.IV.5, ff 76–7; Trinity College, Cambridge, MS B.15.11, f.55r.
33 The range of dates is that suggested by Ullman, Walter in part III of his paper, ‘On the influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth in English history’ in Ullmann, Walter, The church and the law in the earlier middle ages (London, 1977)Google Scholar. A passing reference to the document is given in Watt, Ch. & two nations, p. 35, n. 1. Both the dating and the significance of the Declaratie require further attention.
34 T.C.D., MS 498, pp 384–96.
35 Ullmann, ‘On the influence of Geoffrey of Monmouth’.
36 The Welsh assize roll, 1277–84, ed. Davies, J.C. (Cardiff, 1940), p. 266 Google Scholar, cited in Smith, L.B., ‘The statute of Wales, 1284’ in Welsh Hist. Rev., ix (1980-81), p. 138 Google Scholar.
37 Curtis & McDowell, Ir. hist, docs., p. 44.
38 Douie, D.L., Archbishop Pecham (Oxford, 1952), pp 238–40 Google Scholar; Martin, C.T. (ed.), Reg. epistolarum Fratris Johannis Peckham archiepiscopi Cantuariensis (Rolls Series; 3 vols, London, 1882-5), ii, 435-40Google Scholar.
39 Reg. Peckham, ii, 469–70; Smith, L.B., ‘Llywelyn ap Gruffudd and the Welsh historical consciousness’ in Welsh Hist. Rev., xii (1984-5), pp 9–10 Google Scholar.
40 Stones & Simpson, Edward I and the throne of Scotland, pp 137–54; Phillips, review article in Ir. Jurist, xvi (1981), pp 373–7.
41 Stones, E.L.G. (ed.), Anglo-Scottish relations, 1174–1328 (Oxford, 1970), no. 28, pp 162-75Google Scholar.
42 Delivery of the bull was apparently delayed by the pope. It was finally brought to Edward I by the archbishop of Canterbury at Sweetheart abbey in Galloway, just after the end of the siege of Caerlaverock ( Nicholson, R.G., Scotland: the later middle ages (Edinburgh, 1974), p. 66 Google Scholar).
43 Stones, Anglo-Scottish relations, no. 29 (citing PRO: C47/31/15 and 16, which are probably copies made early in the reign of Edward III). The memoranda of the mid-1330s are preserved in C47/28/5, no. 34 (where the fear is expressed of the universalis exheredado et destructie nationis Anglicani, as had been threatened in the time of Edward I) and in C47/30/4, nos. 20, 22, 9, 10, 11, 13.
44 Rymer, Foedera, I, ii, 926–7. An earlier baronial protest made in 1290, on that occasion against papal provisions, is noted in Stones, & Simpson, , Edward I and the throne of Scotland, i, 155, n. 6Google Scholar (citing Foedera, I, ii, 740). The habit of the English king and barons, from the reign of John onwards, of sending joint letters of protest to the pope is discussed by Simpson, G.G. in ‘The declaration of Arbroath revitalised’ in Scot. Hist. Rev., lvi (1977), p. 22 Google Scholar.
45 Stones & Simpson, op. cit., i, 155–6. The text of Edward I’s reply, in which he explained that he wrote only in order to give the pope information and not as part of any legal process, is in Stones, Anglo-Scottish relations, no. 30, pp 193–219. The first kings to make use of the Trojan legend for dynastic propaganda were the Merovingian rulers of Gaul: see Baldwin, J.W., administration of Philip Augustus: foundations of French royal power in the middle ages (Berkeley and London, 1986), pp 371-4Google Scholar. On the general theme of historical mythology see MacDougall, H.A., Racial myth in English history: Trojans, Teutons and Anglo-Saxons (Hanover and London, 1982), ch. IGoogle Scholar; Mason, R.A., ‘“Scotching the Brut”: the early history of Britain’ in History Today, xxxv [no. 1] (Jan. 1985), pp 26–31 Google Scholar; Wagner, A.R., ‘Bridges to antiquity’ in Wagner, , Pedigree and progress (London and Chichester, 1975), pp 50–77 Google Scholar.
46 Stones, & Simpson, , Edward I and the throne of Scotland, i, 156–7 Google Scholar.
47 Loomis, R.S., ‘Edward I, Arthurian enthusiast’ in Speculum, xxviii (1953), pp 114–27 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; but see also the remarks in Prestwich, Michael, Edward I (London, 1988), pp 120–22 Google Scholar, where a more sceptical opinion is expressed.
48 Phillips, J.R.S., ‘Edward II and the prophets’ in Ormrod, W.M. (ed.), England in the fourteenth century (Woodbridge, 1986), pp 189–201 Google Scholar; Prestwich, Edward I, p. 120.
49 A summary of the Scottish arguments was sent to Edward I by an English agent at the curia: Stones, , Anglo-Scottish relations, no. 31, pp 221-35Google Scholar; the full Scottish argument is in Goodall, (ed.), Scotichronicon,> ii, 192–210 +ii,+192–210>Google Scholar. On the development of this Scottish mythology, which closely resembles the mythical Irish history contained in the remonstrance, see Matthews, William, ‘The Egyptians in Scotland: the political history of a myth’ in Viator, i (1970), pp 289–306 Google Scholar; Barrow, G.W.S., ‘Wales and Scotland in the middle ages’ in Welsh Hist. Rev., x (1980-81), p. 306 Google Scholar. There was a famous episode at the inauguration of Alexander III as king of Scots in 1249 when a shennachie recited the king’s genealogy from its mythical beginnings ( Barrow, G.W.S., Robert Bruce (London, 1965), p. 8 Google Scholar).
50 See text in Duncan, A.A.M., The nation of Scots and the declaration of Arbroath (1320) (Historical Association pamphlet, London, 1970)Google Scholar.
51 In 1321 the Scots produced a simplified version, placing more emphasis on the real history of their relations with England, for their truce negotiations with England in that year. For the text of this see Linehan, P.A., ‘A fourteenth-century history of Anglo-Scottish relations’ in I.H.R. Bull., xlviii (1975), pp 106–22 Google Scholar.
52 It has long been realised that there was some kind of relationship between the remonstrance and the declaration: see Nicholson, R.G., ‘Magna Carta and the declaration of Arbroath’ in Edinburgh University Journal, xxii (1965), p. 143 Google Scholar; Simpson, G.G., ‘The declaration of Arbroath revitalised’ in Scot. Hist. Rev., lvi (1977), pp 23–4 Google Scholar. On the use of ‘protest documents’ in England, Ireland, and Scotland see Simpson, ibid., pp 22–5. The general relationship between all these documents is clearly brought out in G.G. Simpson’s very important article.
53 Phillips, ‘The mission of John de Hothum to Ireland’, passim.
54 Phillips, J.R.S., Aymer de Valence, earl of Pembroke, 1307–1324: baronial politics in the reign of Edward II (Oxford, 1972), pp 107–11 Google Scholar, 120. It is likely that the reference in the remonstrance to John de Hotham, ‘now, as we have understood, bishop of Ely’ (Curtis & McDowell, Ir. hist, docs, p. 44) was derived from information about the English embassy and its members sent back to Scotland or to Ireland by observers at the curia. Although Hotham had been consecrated as bishop in Oct. 1316, this fact need not therefore be inconsistent with a dating of the remonstrance as suggested in this paper.
55 Finke, Heinrich (ed.), Acta Aragonensia, iii (Berlin, 1922; reprint, Aalen, 1966), no. 152, pp 319-23Google Scholar.
56 Duncan, The nation of Scots, pp 24, 26.
57 This is not the place for a detailed discussion of Professor Duncan’s recent important paper, ‘The Scots’ invasion of Ireland, 1315’, in which he argues against the traditional view that Edward Brace’s invasion of Ireland arose in part at least from an invitation by one of the native Irish rulers, probably Domnall Ó Néill of Tyrone, and that the Scots had nothing to do with the composition of the remonstrance (pp 108–11). However, a few points may be made. One of a very general kind is that there was a precedent for the invitation of an outsider to assume rule over Ireland in the brief attempt in 1263 to confer the high-kingship upon King Haakon of Norway. A second, more specific, point is that there exists a Latin charter of Domnall Ó Néill, his wife and son, granting privileges to the church of Armagh (T.C.D., MS 557/2, pp 220–21 (Reeves transcripts of the register of Archbishop Fleming of Armagh)), which is dated at Armagh on 20 November anno regni regis Edwardi primo, and in which Dominum Edwardum Dei gratia regem Hiberniae is named as the guarantor of Domnall Ó Néil’s undertakings. In the calendar of Archbishop Fleming’s register by Lawlor, H.J. in R.I.A. Proc., xxx (1912-13), sect. C, pp 142-3Google Scholar, King Edward is identified as Edward II of England and this charter is accordingly assigned to November 1307. However, no medieval English king was ever styled as ‘king of Ireland’ and this is clearly a mistake for Edward Bruce, king of Ireland. The date of the charter must therefore be 20 Nov. 1316, if the traditional dating of Edward Brace’s inauguration as king is followed, or more probably 20 Nov. 1315, if Professor Duncan’s argument that Brace was inaugurated in 1315 is accepted (’The Scots’ invasion of Ireland, 1315’, pp 109–10; Professor Duncan’s redating of the Brace’s inauguration is accepted in Duffy, ‘The Gaelic account of the Bruce invasion’, pp 84–6). The charter indicates that Domnall Ó Néill recognised the authority of Edward Brace as king, whatever his own role in bringing about that authority may have been, and makes it more plausible that he would have invoked the name of Edward Brace in his presentation of the remonstrance to the pope in 1317–18. The use of the present tense in the remonstrance for the statement ‘we are calling Edward Bruce to help us’ could be explained, as Professor Duncan argues (’The Scots’ invasion of Ireland, 1315’, p. 104), on the assumption that Bruce’s role was an afterthought on the part of O Néill. On the other hand it would be less than tactful in a document which was to be sent to the pope to present the pope with too obvious a fait accompli in respect of Bruce’s title of king of Ireland.
58 R.G. Nicholson, ‘Magna Carta and the declaration of Arbroath’, p. 143; G.G. Simpson, ‘The declaration of Arbroath revitalised’, pp 24–6; Barrow, G.W.S., ‘The idea of freedom in medieval Scotland’ in Innes Review, xxx (1979), pp 26–30 Google Scholar; Philip, J.R., ‘Sallust and the declaration of Arbroath’ in Scot. Hist. Rev., xxvi (1947), pp 75–8 Google Scholar. Professor Duncan has recently shown that the chancellor of Scotland in 1320 was not Bernard of Linton but Bernard, the former abbot of Kilwinning (Regesta regum Scottorum (8 vols, Edinburgh, 1960- ), v, Roben I, 1306–1329 (1988), pp 198–203). I should like to thank Professor Barrow for pointing out this reference to me.
59 See, for example, Muldoon, James, The expansion of Europe (Philadelphia, 1977), pp 203–5 Google Scholar; Muldoon, , Popes, lawyers, and infidels (Liverpool, 1979), pp 86–8 Google Scholar; Christiansen, Eric, The northern crusade (London, 1980), p. 147 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Richter, Michael, ‘Die inselkeltischen Völker im europäischen Rahmen des Mittelalters’ in Saeculum, xxxiii (1981), p. 282 Google Scholar.
60 The absence of any ritual for anointing a king of Scots until Pope John XXII granted the privilege in 1329 was a serious political weakness in Scottish relations with England ( Barrow, G.W.S., ‘Das mittelalterliche englische und schottische Königtum’ in Historisches Jahrbuch, cii (1981), pp 376–7)Google Scholar.
61 See Phillips, Aymer de Valence, pp 107–11.
62 Cal. papal letters, 1305–42, p. 440; Theiner, Vetera mon., pp 201–2.
63 For the political situation in England at this time see Phillips, Aymer de Valence, pp 151–77.
64 Cal. pat. rolls, 1317–21, p. 198. This business could have been concerned with the remonstrance but it is also likely to have been the collection of money from the Irish clergy to meet the expenses of the cardinals’ stay in England.
65 Rymer, Foedera, II, i, 372.
66 PRO: C81/106/4844.
67 On 24 Aug. 1318, shortly before the cardinals’ return to the papal curia, Edward II gave each of them £1,000 and granted Cardinal Gaucelin an annual pension of fifty marks in recognition of his past and future services at the curia (PRO: C61/32, m. 6). The cardinals left London for the curia on 11 Sept. ( Chronicles of the reigns of Edward I and Edward II, ed. Stubbs, William (Rolls Series; 2 vols, London, 1882-3), i, 283)Google Scholar.
68 See, for example, the transcripts of papal bulls issued in 1317 and 1318 on such matters as the excommunication of Robert Bruce and the failure of Bruce to treat with the cardinals. These were all carefully copied for use by Edward II’s government: PRO: C47/32/1 (this contains four bulls); ibid., SC7/56/1 (this also contains four bulls).
69 Smith, L.B., ‘The gravamina of the community of Gwynedd against Llywelyn ap Gruffudd’ in Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, xxxi (1984), pp 158–76 Google Scholar.
70 Simpson, ‘The declaration of Arbroath revitalised’, p. 29.
71 Attempts were made by Edward Bruce at about the same time to form an alliance between himself and the Welsh: Smith, J.B., ‘Gruffydd Llwyd and the Celtic alliance, 1315–18’ in Bulletin of the Board of Celtic Studies, xxvi (1974-6), pp 468–78 Google Scholar; Smith, J.B., ‘Edward II and the allegiance of Wales’ in Welsh Hist. Rev., viii (1976-7), pp 147–53 Google Scholar.
72 Note, for instance, the sharply contrasting views of the declaration of Arbroath as a statement of national identity which are expressed by Simpson, ‘The declaration of Arbroath revitalised’, pp 27–33; and by Barrow, G.W.S., ‘The idea of freedom in late medieval Scotland’ in Innes Review, xxx (1979), pp 26–32 Google Scholar, and Robert Bruce (London, 1965), p. 430. For a recent discussion of the Irish remonstrance, in which this document is considered as a definite statement of national identity, see Watt’s, J.A. chapter, ‘Gaelic polity and cultural identity’ in N.H.I., ii, especially pp 348-50Google Scholar. A good example of a ‘private and unguarded’ statement of national identity is the reference in the 1330s to the ‘English nation’ cited in note 43 above.
