Edward I loses his 'throne' after Scots outcry

Published on 20/04/2004 01:00

BUCKINGHAM Palace has backed down over a claim that Edward I - known as "the Hammer of the Scots" - was king of Scotland.

The Palace’s website listed the Scottish crown as among his titles in a section entitled "Monarch of the Month", but Royal staff have changed the entry after historians expressed outrage.

The section now says that the arch-enemy of William Wallace "regarded himself as sovereign lord of the kings of Scotland" and no longer includes king of Scotland among his list of titles, which include king of England, Wales and the Isle of Man. However, Professor Ted Cowan, a leading Scottish historian who last week criticised the "Anglo- centric" description of Edward, described the change to the website as "feeble".

A spokeswoman for the Palace said: "We decided to put that he regarded himself as sovereign lord, which is open to dispute but probably more accurately reflects the position.

"I think the rest of it is a matter for interpretation. History is always a matter of interpretation."

But Prof Cowan, of Glasgow University, was unimpressed. "I think it’s feeble but it’s quite good to know the Palace can admit there was an error and that it has done something to remedy the situation," he said. "To say Edward regarded himself as sovereign lord, it implies a sense of legitimacy: if a king believes something, it’s more valid than what a ‘rebel’ like Wallace believes.

"The only word I can say to describe it is ‘spin’. And anyone writing about history has to remember history has a relevance to the present."

Prof Cowan, who says that if Edward did conquer Scotland it was only for about six months, suggested changing the website’s claim that one of Edward’s main successes was the "imposition of English rule on Scotland" to one showing how his attempt to do this was thwarted. "There’s no question about it, he was one of the most mighty English kings. But what he would regard as a rag-tag bunch in the north managed to resist his ambitions."

But he added: "There are historians, including some Scots, who genuinely believe it would have been healthier in the long term had Edward been successful and had a union of Scotland and England come about at that time because Britain would have been stronger economically."

Prof Cowan’s position that Edward was never king of Scotland was backed by one of the leading experts on Edward I, Michael Prestwich, a historian at Durham University.

He told The Scotsman last week that even Edward himself had never actually claimed the Scottish crown.